KOLKATA: "People's movements against capitalism". That's how actress Shabana Azmi sees the anti-land acquisition movements in Singur and Nandigram.
She was in town to release the English version of Kaifi Aur Main a biographical account of her father, Kaifi Azmi, by her mother, Shaukat Kaifi at the book fair on Thursday.
"It's time we celebrated the way peasants are resisting land acquisition by corporate giants, because this shows that the less privileged have geared up for a movement to protect their rights," she said.
Shabana's parents were an integral part of the communist movement in India before Independence and remained devoted communists until the end, despite extreme hardships, she said. When asked if India was ready for "revolution" that would usher in equality in the real sense of the term, she said, "One should take a cue from the peasants' united protests against land grab by corporate houses. I laud it as a movement."
Source: Times of India
Thursday, January 28, 2010
No Recovery for Workers' Wages
San José, CA - On Friday, Jan. 15, the Department of Labor released reports on inflation and real earnings (wages adjusted for inflation) for 2009. The rate of increases in prices for workers who live in cities was moderate, at 3.4%. This figure was higher than the official inflation rate of 2.7%. However wages failed to keep up with the rise in prices, so weekly real earnings, or the purchasing power of workers' weekly wages, fell by 1.6% in 2009. This fall in wages was mainly because the average increase in hourly wages was less than the rise in prices. This reflected the lack of raises and spreading wage cuts last year. Cuts in workers' hours, which also reduced weekly pay, also played a role.
This fall in workers' real earnings was the largest on records dating back to 1990 and shows the impact of the economic crisis on working families. Workers' standard of living took a triple whammy with the recession in 2009. The first hit was from less purchasing power. Then there were rising numbers of foreclosures that put many working families, both home-buyers as well as renters, out of their homes. Finally, there were cuts in school programs and government services that help low-income and working families due to local and state budget crises.
But this decline in workers' standard of living did not just appear with the recession that began in 2007. Another measure of standard of living, the median or typical household income, was lower in 2008 than in 2000, right before the last recession in 2001. This means that for the first time since the 1930s, average incomes failed to grow with the economy, as all the economic gains went to those with higher incomes. A separate report on private sector workers (excluding government workers), shows weekly wages in 2009 the lowest since 1980.
The value of what U.S. workers produced each hour was 85% greater in 2009 than in 1980. But wages have been stagnant, so the gains in productivity have gone to businesses in the form of higher profits. Under capitalism businesses are driven to cut wages and hours, while raising prices, in a race for ever greater profits. At the same time these profits are reinvested to increase output and productivity even more. This leads to crises of overproduction or recessions, when the limited purchasing power of workers collides with the increased ability of businesses to produce.
But why have recessions been less common and milder during the 30 thirty years? For one, a part of the growing profits were made into loans to finance the sale of the homes, cars and other goods and services that working people could not really afford with their pay. This increase in credit gave a boost to the economy as the construction of homes and shopping centers produced more construction and retail jobs. But at the same time workers went deeper and deeper into debt, as seen in the rising rates of bankruptcies. Another part of these profits went into finance and real estate, supporting an army of mortgage brokers and real estate agents. At the same time these profits were lifeblood of a frenzy of speculation in financial products cooked up by Wall Street. But this build up of household debt and financial speculation finally collapsed into a financial crisis in 2008.
At this time working people need to organize to fight for our jobs, our homes and the public schools and government programs that we need to survive. But ultimately we need to fight to replace capitalism with an economic system that puts peoples needs, not profits first - socialism.
Taken from Fight Back News.
Homeland Security Harasses Haiti Activists
The U.S. government is stepping up its surveillance and harassment of U.S. activists in an attempt to intimidate them and dampen their spirits for the change we believe in. International solidarity activist James Jordan was returning from a two week trip to Haiti, on Jan. 7, five days prior to the terrible earthquake disaster. When his flight touched down in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, flight attendants called out for “James Patrick Jordan” and asked him to come to the front of the airplane. Homeland Security came on board the airplane to escort him off.
Jordan said, “The agents put me up against a wall, kicked my legs apart and frisked me. They took me to a detention area, then a back room where two agents began going through all my papers, my cell phone and camera, all my bags, looking for Lord knows what?” Homeland Security was most interested in his notebooks concerning Haiti and Colombia.
The Haitian groups James met with organize against the grinding poverty, support workers’ rights and work to improve health care for the masses. Now hundreds of thousands of Haitians are dead in the earthquake and more will die due to poverty and lack of doctors and medicines. The U.S. government is responsible for the dire conditions in Haiti, holding the people down and suppressing any progressive change. In 2004, the U.S. military kidnapped President Aristide and overthrew his government. Aristide had disbanded the Haitian army a few years earlier to prevent a U.S.-backed military coup. President Aristide, a former Catholic priest, was making mild reforms to help the people of Haiti, but U.S. companies wanted privatization of the electric system and other services.
The Latin American Solidarity Coalition (LASC) in the U.S. sponsored Jordan’s delegation, and his Colombia work was the focus of the interrogation. Jordan said, “I told them that two of us were in Haiti representing the Alliance for Global Justice [AFGJ] and that, specifically, I worked with the Campaign for Labor Rights, a part of AFGJ. And I explained that AFGJ was part of LASC. They asked about Chuck Kaufman and what kind of work he did. They wanted to know his flight information and I told them I didn’t know what it was. They asked me about the other delegates and I told them that I didn’t know their flight information and that I didn’t feel comfortable giving them names and other information about those delegates and they ceased questioning about them.”
Chuck Kaufman, also on his way home from Haiti, was detained and questioned in New York City. Chuck said, “I told them I was in Haiti. They asked what other countries I've visited and what I did there. I described a trip to Hiroshima, Japan and swimming with nurse sharks in Belize. They dropped the subject.” Chuck was held for a couple of hours and missed his connecting flight, forcing him to spend the night in New York.
James Jordan continues, “They were very interested in the folder I had about the terrible situation with the Colombian prisons, political prisoners and human rights violations. I am working on a project to advocate for better conditions at La Tramacua prison in Valledupar, Colombia - a prison that is very overcrowded, rife with violence and intimidation aimed at the political prisoners and imprisoned guerrillas, where inmates do not have access to sanitary toilet facilities and have access to drinkable water only ten minutes a day. There was also information about the relationship of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons in funding, advising and restructuring this and other maximum-security prisons in Colombia. We are calling for an investigation of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons’ relationship with these prisons and what responsibility it bears for the conditions that exist there. Everyone hears about the White House closing Guantanamo, but the U.S. government is overseeing terrible things in Colombian prisons.”
Jordan emphasized, “There was a flier for my speaking at the School of the Americas protest this [past] year that featured a picture of Lily Obando. Lily Obando is a political prisoner we support and campaign for. The agents asked about Lily Obando, if she was part of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [FARC] or accused of being part of the FARC. I told them Lily is so accused, but the evidence against her is not credible. They seemed especially interested in notes I had taken from a Counter Punch article concerning the Valledupar prison in Colombia and the targeting of FARC members held as prisoners of war. I tell you the U.S. government is up to no good there.”
Lily Obando is internationally known for her recent report exposing the death squad murders of 1500 farm organizers and union members with FENSUAGRO. Obando is one of 7000 political prisoners and prisoners of war. Many are trade unionists, peasant organizers and community leaders; some are FARC and ELN guerrilla fighters, held by the Colombian government, many without trial.
There is a massive movement against the wealthy elite, including narco-traffickers, that rule Colombia. The U.S. government funds the notoriously corrupt Colombian military, giving it nearly $7 billion in the last ten years. The White House announced it is occupying seven military bases inside Colombia. This will expand the U.S. war in Colombia and threaten neighboring countries like Venezuela and Ecuador. Pentagon generals and the U.S. Southern Command direct the war that brings poverty, misery and death squads to the lives of Colombian peasants and workers. The U.S. Congress funds and covers for the most reactionary, corrupt and unsavory elements of the Colombian elite.
James Jordan, though a seasoned activist, said, “Certainly the process was intrusive, uncalled for and intimidating. I was unsure of what my rights were when they took me off the plane. I did not know if I should answer their questions or ask for a lawyer?”
Bruce Nestor, of Minneapolis, Minnesota and past President of the National Lawyers Guild, advises, “Homeland Security asserts an unprecedented right to search people’s papers and even the entire contents of their computers, when they cross the border back into the United States. In addition to treading upon constitutional rights to privacy and against unreasonable searches, much of this activity appears to be intelligence gathering directed at political activists traveling to countries which are actively challenging United States foreign policy. People need to know and assert their rights, to refuse to answer unwarranted questions and refuse consent to search of personal papers and electronics.”
We have heard from a number of activists and their families that they have been detained when returning from holiday trips abroad. The line of questioning is similar to the case of James Jordon where they are asked of political history regardless of the purpose of the trips the activists were taking. U.S. agents made insinuations and demanded answers that had nothing to do with the trips that these people were taking. It is clear the U.S. government is stepping up its harassment and repression of people organizing for fundamental social change.
Taken from Fight Back News.
New Labour and Inequality
Gordon Brown is 'sobered' by a new report showing the growth of inequality in the UK. He has to be because, while New Labour formally disavowed the politics of redistribution, insisting on poverty and exclusion, it was a tacit goal of the government to reduce inequality. Numerous changes in taxes and benefits were designed to shift a small amount of wealth from the rich to the poor. Moreover, this was supposed to be an important part of achieving greater 'equality of opportunity'. Opportunity, as any fool knows, comes with wealth and income. Everything from access to education, healthcare, and jobs, is structured by inequality, hence the importance of ameliorating its effects. Today's results show, however, that the richest ten percent are 100 times richer than the poorest ten percent. If anything, in detecting a marginal narrowing of earnings-inequality over the last decade, this study is slightly more friendly to Labour than previous efforts have been. According to another report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies, inequality in 2007/8, as measured by the Gini coefficient, was higher than at any point since records began in 1961. The very modest dip in the early part of the decade, moreover, matched a similar dip in the mid-1990s under the Major administration.
There is another finding in the report that ought to 'sober' New Labour. When John Denham claims that Labour has substantially reversed racism, that you're not necessarily discriminated against any more if you're from an ethnic minority - a shocking claim in itself, given the trends of the last decade - he should be pointed toward this study. It shows, for example, that Muslims and black African Christians receive 13-21% less income for the same job with the same qualifications than their white counterparts. White families earn, on average, twice the income of ethnic minorities. This is the least that could be said about Denham's ridiculous boasting.
New Labour has run, in many ways, the most right-wing administration since the Second World War. This is true in terms of its privatisation of housing and public services, in terms of its tax cuts for the rich and services to the City, in terms of its warmongering, and on any number of other axes that you could name. It has adopted neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and the New Right's agenda on race relations. Yet, the party still depended on the backing of the trade union labor aristocracy, and still had to deliver something in the way of improving the situation of at least some workers. Hence the minimum wage, some welcome reforms of trade union laws, higher public spending, and new tax credits for the poor. Modest reductions in child and pensioner poverty resulted, though these started to reverse after 2004/5. Even so, the massive inequality unleashed by Thatcherism has barely been touched and, according to some studies, has now reached record levels.
The government's response to this is necessarily two-fold. The first retort is to say that there isn't a viable electoral coalition in more radical egalitarian politics. Here, a bit of psychological quackery is deferentially invoked, as if no one had ever thought of fighting for public opinion, and winning the argument for change. I would be more impressed by this if New Labour's electoral coalition wasn't actually rather flimsy - only a well-founded hatred for the Tories has ensured three terms for Labour, on depressed turnouts, the last one with a puny plurality. It would also be more convincing if New Labour pursued only such policies as were approved of by the British public. In truth, core New Labour ideas and policies are extremely unpopular. Moreover, for New Labour to protest that there isn't an electoral coalition in egalitarian politics is uncharacteristically modest - it has been instrumental in undermining support for redistributive politics. The public consensus explicitly favouring redistribution in the early 1990s was squandered by New Labour's explicit abdication of such politics. The government's high-profile targeting of welfare recipients - the word 'bogus' or 'fraud' comes up a lot - has fed a perception among some in the public that the general function of the welfare state is to channel money to layabouts and criminals. Even so, polls tend to show that people would favour higher taxes on the rich to fund public services. Gordon Brown is a beneficiary of this, and his recent 'class war' attacks on the Tory front bench suggests that he is aware of the public contempt for millionaires.
The second retort is to point out that the existing dynamics in the global economy (one doesn't say 'capitalism') tend toward greater and greater inequality. To slow, or marginally reverse, this trend is an achievement of social democracy. This is true, and we are entitled to consider what the state of affairs would be had the Tories still been in office. Worse, I'm sure, though I can't say by how much. However, it is a feeble answer when the government has always known that capitalism, under normal circumstances, generates inequality. Whatever New Labour ministers say in public, they know perfectly well that capitalism is an exploitative process, in which profits are accumulated by the rich through the labour of the majority. The appropriate response would be to move swiftly to bolster the bargaining power of labour in this transaction. This government, its few meliorist measures to one side, has largely gone out of its way to bolster the position of capital, maintain flexible labour markets, keep wages low, and cut corporation taxes. This isn't because such a policy mix is actually popular. It is because New Labour is committed to the efficient administration of capitalism. Only on the basis of capitalist growth, therefore, can it accumulate the tax base to deliver its meager reforms. But since capitalist growth is precisely what generates more inequality, this leaves social democracy complicit in a process that it can do nothing other than slightly humanise. Worse, when it comes to a crisis involving the deepest economic contraction since 1921, the government finds itself in the position of redistributing public wealth to the richest in the form of massive bank bail-outs - which we will have to pay for through deflationary spending cuts that will create higher unemployment, reduced wages, and increased poverty.
Taken from: Leninology.blogspot.com (Lenin's Tomb)
There is another finding in the report that ought to 'sober' New Labour. When John Denham claims that Labour has substantially reversed racism, that you're not necessarily discriminated against any more if you're from an ethnic minority - a shocking claim in itself, given the trends of the last decade - he should be pointed toward this study. It shows, for example, that Muslims and black African Christians receive 13-21% less income for the same job with the same qualifications than their white counterparts. White families earn, on average, twice the income of ethnic minorities. This is the least that could be said about Denham's ridiculous boasting.
New Labour has run, in many ways, the most right-wing administration since the Second World War. This is true in terms of its privatisation of housing and public services, in terms of its tax cuts for the rich and services to the City, in terms of its warmongering, and on any number of other axes that you could name. It has adopted neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and the New Right's agenda on race relations. Yet, the party still depended on the backing of the trade union labor aristocracy, and still had to deliver something in the way of improving the situation of at least some workers. Hence the minimum wage, some welcome reforms of trade union laws, higher public spending, and new tax credits for the poor. Modest reductions in child and pensioner poverty resulted, though these started to reverse after 2004/5. Even so, the massive inequality unleashed by Thatcherism has barely been touched and, according to some studies, has now reached record levels.
The government's response to this is necessarily two-fold. The first retort is to say that there isn't a viable electoral coalition in more radical egalitarian politics. Here, a bit of psychological quackery is deferentially invoked, as if no one had ever thought of fighting for public opinion, and winning the argument for change. I would be more impressed by this if New Labour's electoral coalition wasn't actually rather flimsy - only a well-founded hatred for the Tories has ensured three terms for Labour, on depressed turnouts, the last one with a puny plurality. It would also be more convincing if New Labour pursued only such policies as were approved of by the British public. In truth, core New Labour ideas and policies are extremely unpopular. Moreover, for New Labour to protest that there isn't an electoral coalition in egalitarian politics is uncharacteristically modest - it has been instrumental in undermining support for redistributive politics. The public consensus explicitly favouring redistribution in the early 1990s was squandered by New Labour's explicit abdication of such politics. The government's high-profile targeting of welfare recipients - the word 'bogus' or 'fraud' comes up a lot - has fed a perception among some in the public that the general function of the welfare state is to channel money to layabouts and criminals. Even so, polls tend to show that people would favour higher taxes on the rich to fund public services. Gordon Brown is a beneficiary of this, and his recent 'class war' attacks on the Tory front bench suggests that he is aware of the public contempt for millionaires.
The second retort is to point out that the existing dynamics in the global economy (one doesn't say 'capitalism') tend toward greater and greater inequality. To slow, or marginally reverse, this trend is an achievement of social democracy. This is true, and we are entitled to consider what the state of affairs would be had the Tories still been in office. Worse, I'm sure, though I can't say by how much. However, it is a feeble answer when the government has always known that capitalism, under normal circumstances, generates inequality. Whatever New Labour ministers say in public, they know perfectly well that capitalism is an exploitative process, in which profits are accumulated by the rich through the labour of the majority. The appropriate response would be to move swiftly to bolster the bargaining power of labour in this transaction. This government, its few meliorist measures to one side, has largely gone out of its way to bolster the position of capital, maintain flexible labour markets, keep wages low, and cut corporation taxes. This isn't because such a policy mix is actually popular. It is because New Labour is committed to the efficient administration of capitalism. Only on the basis of capitalist growth, therefore, can it accumulate the tax base to deliver its meager reforms. But since capitalist growth is precisely what generates more inequality, this leaves social democracy complicit in a process that it can do nothing other than slightly humanise. Worse, when it comes to a crisis involving the deepest economic contraction since 1921, the government finds itself in the position of redistributing public wealth to the richest in the form of massive bank bail-outs - which we will have to pay for through deflationary spending cuts that will create higher unemployment, reduced wages, and increased poverty.
Taken from: Leninology.blogspot.com (Lenin's Tomb)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
74 Members of Human Rights Organizations Arrested on Way to Lalgarh
MIDNAPORE: About 74 members of seven Kolkata-based human rights organisations were arrested at Kharagpur railway station this morning. Members of Association for Democratic Rights (APDR), Suraksha Samiti, West Bengal Bandi Mukti Manch, Lalgarh Manch, and Legal Service Centre, were on their way to Lalgarh when they were arrested. About 15 students of Presidency College were also in the visiting team.
Soon after they boarded the train at Kharagpur, they were called out and taken to the police station on the plea that prohibitory orders are in force in Lalgarh. The members of the human rights organisations have been booked under Section 143, 186, 188 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. They will move court protesting against the dubious role of the police, the APDR leader told reporters.
Renowned social activist Ms Medha Patkar and several other members of the cultural world from Mumbai proceeding to Lalgarh had to face a similar ordeal last year. The APDR state secretary, Mr Debiprasad Roy Chowdhury, who was among the arrested, expressed surprise over the incident particularly when Section 144 of the CrPC was not in force in Kharagpur station.
“The railway minister and Trinamul chief Miss Mamata Banerjee was allowed to hold her rally at Jhargram town recently by slackening prohibitory orders. Then why such double standard on the part of police,” he asked. The West Midnapore SP, Mr Manoj Verma, however, was not available for comment.
Meanwhile, the Bhursa village in Salboni wore a deserted look today as most of the inhabitants fled their homes in the aftermath of a long gunbattle between the suspected Maoist cadres and the CPI-M gunmen yesterday in which three Maoist cadres were killed.
It is now obvious that the Indian government doesn't want the world to see the oppression they are using and the havoc they are wreaking in Lalgarh. They also don't want the world to know of all the good things the poor people have to say about the Maoist rebels.
Click here for the source of this article.
Soon after they boarded the train at Kharagpur, they were called out and taken to the police station on the plea that prohibitory orders are in force in Lalgarh. The members of the human rights organisations have been booked under Section 143, 186, 188 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. They will move court protesting against the dubious role of the police, the APDR leader told reporters.
Renowned social activist Ms Medha Patkar and several other members of the cultural world from Mumbai proceeding to Lalgarh had to face a similar ordeal last year. The APDR state secretary, Mr Debiprasad Roy Chowdhury, who was among the arrested, expressed surprise over the incident particularly when Section 144 of the CrPC was not in force in Kharagpur station.
“The railway minister and Trinamul chief Miss Mamata Banerjee was allowed to hold her rally at Jhargram town recently by slackening prohibitory orders. Then why such double standard on the part of police,” he asked. The West Midnapore SP, Mr Manoj Verma, however, was not available for comment.
Meanwhile, the Bhursa village in Salboni wore a deserted look today as most of the inhabitants fled their homes in the aftermath of a long gunbattle between the suspected Maoist cadres and the CPI-M gunmen yesterday in which three Maoist cadres were killed.
It is now obvious that the Indian government doesn't want the world to see the oppression they are using and the havoc they are wreaking in Lalgarh. They also don't want the world to know of all the good things the poor people have to say about the Maoist rebels.
Click here for the source of this article.
Cuban Protest Video
Here is a video of street demonstrations in Havana, Cuba. The people are protesting against terrorism and imperialist mercenaries. This really says something about the real Cuba and the real Castro. Just look at all the people in the protest. It has English subtitles, which can be turned on by clicking the arrow (triangle) button on the video player, then clicking the option that says "CC".
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Ukraine Makes Criminal a National Hero
Outgoing Ukrainian President Yushchenko signed a controversial decree recently, sparking outrage from Jews in Russia and Ukraine. The decree made Stepan Bandera, leader of the WWII-era Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, a “Hero of Ukraine.”
Supporters of the decree, who are mainly in western Ukraine, say Bandera fought for Ukrainian independence from both Soviet and Nazi forces. Sadly, that is far from the truth as many people in Russia and Ukraine believe Bandera was a war criminal and Nazi-collaborator.
The Federation of Russia’s Jewish Communities, or FEOR, in a statement issued Monday, said Yushchenko’s move “insults the memory of the victims” of Nazi crimes.
“The decree says Bandera was awarded ‘for his spiritual invincibility, fight for national ideology, heroism and self-sacrifice in a struggle for the independence of Ukrainian state’,” the document published on the organization’s website (www.feor.ru) reads. “Apparently, this way Yushchenko equates heroism and self-sacrifice to the mass murdering of the Jews and Poles that Bandera and his associates were widely practicing.”
The FEOR continued by saying that, “such a political gesture is a challenge to the civilized world, to everyone who fought against Nazism.”
Konstantin Zarudnev, a member of the Leninsky District Council and an activist from the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine burned his passport in protest against naming Bandera a hero.
He said Yushchenko’s decree “legalizes state terrorism and murder” because Stepan Bandera led “the killings of school directors, teachers, and law enforcement officials.”
Anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi/fascist actions have become common practice for the Ukrainian government in recent years, and this proves it.
Ukrainians like to constantly remind the world of the imaginary “crimes” committed against them by Stalin, but now they are making a real criminal their national hero. This is hypocrisy on the highest level. It just goes to show how Ukraine is filled with pro-Western and pro-fascist propaganda. The glorification of Bandera has taught us a lesson, which is don’t trust anything the Ukrainian government and media say.
Supporters of the decree, who are mainly in western Ukraine, say Bandera fought for Ukrainian independence from both Soviet and Nazi forces. Sadly, that is far from the truth as many people in Russia and Ukraine believe Bandera was a war criminal and Nazi-collaborator.
The Federation of Russia’s Jewish Communities, or FEOR, in a statement issued Monday, said Yushchenko’s move “insults the memory of the victims” of Nazi crimes.
“The decree says Bandera was awarded ‘for his spiritual invincibility, fight for national ideology, heroism and self-sacrifice in a struggle for the independence of Ukrainian state’,” the document published on the organization’s website (www.feor.ru) reads. “Apparently, this way Yushchenko equates heroism and self-sacrifice to the mass murdering of the Jews and Poles that Bandera and his associates were widely practicing.”
The FEOR continued by saying that, “such a political gesture is a challenge to the civilized world, to everyone who fought against Nazism.”
Konstantin Zarudnev, a member of the Leninsky District Council and an activist from the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine burned his passport in protest against naming Bandera a hero.
He said Yushchenko’s decree “legalizes state terrorism and murder” because Stepan Bandera led “the killings of school directors, teachers, and law enforcement officials.”
Anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi/fascist actions have become common practice for the Ukrainian government in recent years, and this proves it.
Ukrainians like to constantly remind the world of the imaginary “crimes” committed against them by Stalin, but now they are making a real criminal their national hero. This is hypocrisy on the highest level. It just goes to show how Ukraine is filled with pro-Western and pro-fascist propaganda. The glorification of Bandera has taught us a lesson, which is don’t trust anything the Ukrainian government and media say.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Nepal: Ring The Bell Now!
This was first published by Kasama (click here).
By Mike Ely
To put this as bluntly as I can:
The Nepali Maoists are preparing right now (I mean over the next few weeks) for what-may-be a decisive military/political confrontation with the reactionary government and army.
The insurrection they have been preparing so carefully and so long may take place over the next two months.
The Maoists are seeking to mobilize the people (based on the understanding that their enemies will be wanting to act closely with Indian intrigues, and can be isolated by exposing those intrigues.) Their Indian, Nepali and American enemies understand this. Their revolutionary core base knows this. And we need to know it.
I will be ringing this bell loudly, and more loudly… and I want you to join me in ringing this bell.
Everyone we know and meet should start to consider how they can discuss and explain this important revolution in (what may be) its most bold and desperate hour.
The endgame is now taking shape in Nepal, perhaps in the next month or two, as the Maoists sum up their repeated “dress rehearsals” in Kathmandu and evaluate when (exactly) to go for a seizure of power.
It is (of course) possible that, when they do their summations and evaluations of forces, they will decide not to go for the final revolution this spring.
But more likely (at this point) is that, through tremendous efforts and unexpected events, they will now rise in a test of strength — and fight for a peoples democratic Nepal — the birth of a Nepal on the socialist road. It may be the first serious (and potentially successful) attempt at communist revolution in decades.
With the utmost respect, I would like to disagree with the following claim:
“With the spearhead directed against India, the PLA [Maoist Peoples Liberation Army] is looking to the south, rather than being readied to do battle with the Nepal Army and the other repressive forces of the state.”
This misreads the situation. The reactionary/monarchist Nepali Army’s limited-but-real popular prestige in Nepal has been precisely based on their history of (supposedly) upholding Nepali independence against India.
In their moves to isolate and then defeat that National Army, the Maoists (and their Peoples Liberation Army) are politically claiming that national banner (AWAY from the monarchists’ army) in order to expose, divide and defeat that National army as Indian puppets and collaborators (which they are).
The Maoist discussion of Nepali national indpendence is is not some diversion from the preparations for power — It is one important way the Nepali Maoists are dividing their enemies and winning over intermediate forces (including in and around that Army itself), precisely as the Maoists work to sum up a series of dress rehearsals for power.
We need to be preparing ourselves (here in the U.S.) for a political offensive of popularization and exposure — with teach-ins, outreach, and the active organization of all who can be won to such an effort. And for us to play our role, we need to clearly understand that we may (from now to spring) be facing the key time for “speaking on another plane” and to much wider audiences (as the Maoists own actions push them into the headlines).
For more information on the situation in Nepal, please read the following articles:
Stand With Nepal
FIRE Interview About Nepal and India (video)
Signs of Indian Invasion of Nepal
War Criminal Leads Nepal Army
Did the Maoists Ban Strikes?
Also visit these websites:
Democracy and Class Struggle
South Asia Revolution Project
Kasama
FIRE
Nepal News
By Mike Ely
To put this as bluntly as I can:
The Nepali Maoists are preparing right now (I mean over the next few weeks) for what-may-be a decisive military/political confrontation with the reactionary government and army.
The insurrection they have been preparing so carefully and so long may take place over the next two months.
The Maoists are seeking to mobilize the people (based on the understanding that their enemies will be wanting to act closely with Indian intrigues, and can be isolated by exposing those intrigues.) Their Indian, Nepali and American enemies understand this. Their revolutionary core base knows this. And we need to know it.
I will be ringing this bell loudly, and more loudly… and I want you to join me in ringing this bell.
Everyone we know and meet should start to consider how they can discuss and explain this important revolution in (what may be) its most bold and desperate hour.
The endgame is now taking shape in Nepal, perhaps in the next month or two, as the Maoists sum up their repeated “dress rehearsals” in Kathmandu and evaluate when (exactly) to go for a seizure of power.
It is (of course) possible that, when they do their summations and evaluations of forces, they will decide not to go for the final revolution this spring.
But more likely (at this point) is that, through tremendous efforts and unexpected events, they will now rise in a test of strength — and fight for a peoples democratic Nepal — the birth of a Nepal on the socialist road. It may be the first serious (and potentially successful) attempt at communist revolution in decades.
With the utmost respect, I would like to disagree with the following claim:
“With the spearhead directed against India, the PLA [Maoist Peoples Liberation Army] is looking to the south, rather than being readied to do battle with the Nepal Army and the other repressive forces of the state.”
This misreads the situation. The reactionary/monarchist Nepali Army’s limited-but-real popular prestige in Nepal has been precisely based on their history of (supposedly) upholding Nepali independence against India.
In their moves to isolate and then defeat that National Army, the Maoists (and their Peoples Liberation Army) are politically claiming that national banner (AWAY from the monarchists’ army) in order to expose, divide and defeat that National army as Indian puppets and collaborators (which they are).
The Maoist discussion of Nepali national indpendence is is not some diversion from the preparations for power — It is one important way the Nepali Maoists are dividing their enemies and winning over intermediate forces (including in and around that Army itself), precisely as the Maoists work to sum up a series of dress rehearsals for power.
We need to be preparing ourselves (here in the U.S.) for a political offensive of popularization and exposure — with teach-ins, outreach, and the active organization of all who can be won to such an effort. And for us to play our role, we need to clearly understand that we may (from now to spring) be facing the key time for “speaking on another plane” and to much wider audiences (as the Maoists own actions push them into the headlines).
For more information on the situation in Nepal, please read the following articles:
Stand With Nepal
FIRE Interview About Nepal and India (video)
Signs of Indian Invasion of Nepal
War Criminal Leads Nepal Army
Did the Maoists Ban Strikes?
Also visit these websites:
Democracy and Class Struggle
South Asia Revolution Project
Kasama
FIRE
Nepal News
Friday, January 22, 2010
Doctors Denounce US Steps in Haiti
Madrid, Jan 21 (Prensa Latina) Non government organization Doctors Without Borders, founded in France in 1971, accused the US Army of stopping and creating difficulties for landing planes with aid for the people of Haiti after the quake swept the Caribbean country over a week ago.
DWB announced that the US troops in Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti, are detouring all the planes with supplies to the Dominican Republic.
Patients who were rescued from among the rubble and now need urgent surgery or dialysis treatment are dying because of the delays in the arrival of provisions and equipments.
Jaume Codina, Director of Communication of DWB, regarded the Americans' steps in the airport as a crime, since the humanitarian help arrived to the center of the catastrophe up to 24 hours after the quake.
Codina told Spanish news agency EFE the DWB doctors are working in 10 operating rooms (OR), one of them in a container.
"There is no fluidity, and we want to know which priorities were given to the US troops to control it," he stated.
He said that one of the planes was bringing material to take care of many people who had been crushed.
According to the organization, many patients rescued are in great risk of dying from blood poisoning and the effects of having been crushed, and could die from kidney insufficiency.
DWB announced that the US troops in Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti, are detouring all the planes with supplies to the Dominican Republic.
Patients who were rescued from among the rubble and now need urgent surgery or dialysis treatment are dying because of the delays in the arrival of provisions and equipments.
Jaume Codina, Director of Communication of DWB, regarded the Americans' steps in the airport as a crime, since the humanitarian help arrived to the center of the catastrophe up to 24 hours after the quake.
Codina told Spanish news agency EFE the DWB doctors are working in 10 operating rooms (OR), one of them in a container.
"There is no fluidity, and we want to know which priorities were given to the US troops to control it," he stated.
He said that one of the planes was bringing material to take care of many people who had been crushed.
According to the organization, many patients rescued are in great risk of dying from blood poisoning and the effects of having been crushed, and could die from kidney insufficiency.
New Zealand Stresses Cuban Aid to Haiti
Wellington, Jan 22 (Prensa Latina) New Zealand's media highlighted on Friday the Cuban aid to Haiti, after recalling that the solidarity of the Cuban people and government with the Caribbean nation dates a long way back.
When the quake shook the country, 400 Cuban health workers were in Haiti, providing free health care to one of the world's poorest populations, according to Scoop online.
Another 69 Cuban specialists joined them the day after the quake, it stressed.
Until January 20, the Cuban medical brigade had provided assistance to 14,551 patients and practiced 1,252 surgeries in 21 health centers, fitted out in Port au Prince and other areas, said Scoop, reproducing a note by the Cuban embassy in Wellington.
In addition, 400 Haitians studying medicine in Cuba have joined the contingent to help their countrymen.
Cuba currently has 40,000 doctors, nurses, and health technicians in nearly 70 countries, including Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu.
Editorial: All of the information above is true, and you can look it up. If socialist Cuban medical care is so bad, as right-wingers like to say, then how do you explain all of the above? The answer is simple. Conservatives are liars, and socialized medicine really is a good thing.
When the quake shook the country, 400 Cuban health workers were in Haiti, providing free health care to one of the world's poorest populations, according to Scoop online.
Another 69 Cuban specialists joined them the day after the quake, it stressed.
Until January 20, the Cuban medical brigade had provided assistance to 14,551 patients and practiced 1,252 surgeries in 21 health centers, fitted out in Port au Prince and other areas, said Scoop, reproducing a note by the Cuban embassy in Wellington.
In addition, 400 Haitians studying medicine in Cuba have joined the contingent to help their countrymen.
Cuba currently has 40,000 doctors, nurses, and health technicians in nearly 70 countries, including Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu.
Editorial: All of the information above is true, and you can look it up. If socialist Cuban medical care is so bad, as right-wingers like to say, then how do you explain all of the above? The answer is simple. Conservatives are liars, and socialized medicine really is a good thing.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
UN Reports on Afghanistan Corruption
A new UN survery has shown that corruption is widespread in Afghanistan. Afghans cannot even receive a service from government officials without paying for it.
Pensioners must wait for weeks in order to get the money they are owed. A lot of them must pay bribes in order to get their money.
Afghans have paid out 2 and a half billion dollars in bribes last year, the same amount that is generated by the country's opium trade. Half of Afghans had to bribe an official at least once. Government corruption has forced Afghans to pay at least a third of their income in bribes each year.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that 3/4 of all the corruption cases being investigated involved at least one Westerner.
"This problem of corruption exists in every government department and every industry," said Saed Ajmal, an anti-corruption official.
Because of all this, the majority of Afghans are very poor. Some of them must go as far as selling one of their kids in order to have money for the rest of the children.
Pensioners must wait for weeks in order to get the money they are owed. A lot of them must pay bribes in order to get their money.
Afghans have paid out 2 and a half billion dollars in bribes last year, the same amount that is generated by the country's opium trade. Half of Afghans had to bribe an official at least once. Government corruption has forced Afghans to pay at least a third of their income in bribes each year.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that 3/4 of all the corruption cases being investigated involved at least one Westerner.
"This problem of corruption exists in every government department and every industry," said Saed Ajmal, an anti-corruption official.
Because of all this, the majority of Afghans are very poor. Some of them must go as far as selling one of their kids in order to have money for the rest of the children.
The NPA and the Drug Trade
Are the Philippine Maoist rebels, the NPA, involved in the illegal drug trade? Does the New People's Army encourage peasants to grow marijuana? Find out by watching this video.
Racist Meeting in VA
The following was sent to me via email.
The white supremacist newsletter American Renaissance (AmRen) is holding their 9th annual conference at the Dulles Airport Westin in Herndon, VA on Feb 19-21. The conference is thinly disguised under the name of the New Century Foundation, AmRen's sister organization. In response, we are asking for everyone to call the hotel and demand they cancel the conference.
What is AmRen and what do they believe?
AmRen, published by white supremacist Jared Taylor, is a newsletter that promotes pseudoscientific research which argues that non-whites are genetically and morally inferior. The AmRen conference is a melting pot of radical right-wing racist people and ideas. Previous attendees include Ku Klux Klan members (including former leader David Duke), neo-Nazis (such as Don Black), holocaust deniers, anti-immigration activists, and other ideologues promoting racial hatred. The Anti-Defamation League writes that AmRen,"promotes their views by attacking racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, which they call 'one of the most divisive forces on the planet' and therefore 'dangerous'" and that, "many of North America’s leading intellectual racists have written for American Renaissance or have addressed the biennial American Renaissance conferences."
Who is supposed to be at the conference this year?
The keynote speaker of the conference this year is Nick Griffin, head of the British National Party (BNP) and member of the European Parliament. His attendance at the conference is troubling, as he is expected to be placed in jail soon for violating a court order in the UK to open the membership of his political party to non-whites by January, 28th. Griffin isn't a stranger to jail though; in 1996 he served a 9-month sentence after being found guilty of 'publishing material likely to incite racial hatred'. Griffin's speaking date in DC is even more disturbing because James Von Brunn, the neo-Nazi terrorist who shot and killed a security guard at the DC Holocaust Museum in June of 2009, was a member of the American Friends of the British National Party, and had been at events where Griffin Spoke. As well as being a racist, Griffin is notable for his antisemitism, and has referred to the Holocaust as the 'Holohoax'.
Other speakers include:
Dan Roodt, who argues that blacks are genetically programmed to commit violent crime, and wrote in an article on January 13th, 2010 that, "In South Africa, the white IQ is somewhere around 100 whereas the average black IQ is about 70....Blacks generally prefer parties and festivals because a lot of them lack the mental ability to excel at such demanding subjects as mathematics and natural science which require logical reasoning and cognitive ability." Roodt is the head of Pro-Afrikaans Action Group, a South African white supremacist organization.
Craig Bodeker, who said in an interview that, "The false concept of 'racism' has done more harm than just force decent white people into NOT looking-out for their own ethnic interests, while other groups are encouraged to look out for theirs. In fact, I’ll argue that it has BANKRUPTED AMERICA!"
Jared Taylor, who argues that blacks are "more psychopathic than whites", and in an article about Hurricane Katrina wrote that, "when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight."
Sam G. Dickson, who advocates white nationalism and fights against non-white immigration, affirmative action, interracial marriage, homosexuality, and school integration.
Raymond Wolter, who argues against school racial desegregation, and believes that blacks have more natural IQ limitations than whites.
Wayne Lutton, who is the director of a group which publishes the racist Occidental Quarterly journal, and the antisemitic Occidental Observer magazine.
What you can do?
The Westin Washington Dulles Hotel has not made a decision yet on whether or not they are going to allow the conference to continue. Please contact Westin Washington Dulles Hotel and let them know how you feel. The phone number is 703-793-3366. Here is an example of what you could say:
"Hello, my name is _____. I am concerned about the New Century Foundation conference which your hotel is planning to host on February 19th through 21st. I would hope that you will choose to uphold your company's commitment to diversity and to ensuring the safety of your customers by choosing to cancel the conference. I understand that several of the conference speakers have gone to prison for inciting racial violence, and in the interest of the safety of the DC community, and of all people worldwide, I ask that you do not endorse these views. I see the decision to host this conference at your hotel as an irresponsible promotion of racist ideology, and if you choose not to cancel the conference, I will no longer be giving any of my business to the Westin, and will be advising all of my family and friends to do the same. Thanks for your time."
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY. TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS, RELATIVES AND AQUAINTANCES! SHUT DOWN THE RACISTS!
Afterword:
But what about free speech?
From the ARA FAQ: "Free speech shouldn't endanger people's lives. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because people will probably get hurt trying to get out. We think that hate speech acts in the same way - by trying to make certain kinds of people seem less than human and by glorifying violent acts against them - it's just a matter of time before a follower or supporter of a hate group puts words into action We think that hate speech, turning people into scapegoats and targets for hateful action, is an abuse of free speech and that people's lives are more important than the right of someone to publicly encourage others to target certain groups for a campaign of murder, rape, assault, genocide, ethnic cleansing and terror. If you actively go out of your way to tell people that 90% of the world's population should be enslaved or that the best thing they can do is kill someone because of their skin color, religion, ethnic background, immigration status, sexual orientation, disability, etc., we think you've forfeited your right to free speech.
and
Isn't it better to just ignore racists?
"Ignoring a problem never makes it go away. If hate groups encounter no opposition to their activities in a community, they'll take that to mean that they have no opposition there willing to stand up to them and they will act accordingly. This makes it more likely that hate group activity will increase and they will start hurting people. This also isolates the people they target - people of color, immigrants, religious or ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, the disabled, women, etc. - making them feel vulnerable and afraid because it seems like no one has their back."
Call to cancel the Nazi event at: 703-793-3366
The white supremacist newsletter American Renaissance (AmRen) is holding their 9th annual conference at the Dulles Airport Westin in Herndon, VA on Feb 19-21. The conference is thinly disguised under the name of the New Century Foundation, AmRen's sister organization. In response, we are asking for everyone to call the hotel and demand they cancel the conference.
What is AmRen and what do they believe?
AmRen, published by white supremacist Jared Taylor, is a newsletter that promotes pseudoscientific research which argues that non-whites are genetically and morally inferior. The AmRen conference is a melting pot of radical right-wing racist people and ideas. Previous attendees include Ku Klux Klan members (including former leader David Duke), neo-Nazis (such as Don Black), holocaust deniers, anti-immigration activists, and other ideologues promoting racial hatred. The Anti-Defamation League writes that AmRen,"promotes their views by attacking racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, which they call 'one of the most divisive forces on the planet' and therefore 'dangerous'" and that, "many of North America’s leading intellectual racists have written for American Renaissance or have addressed the biennial American Renaissance conferences."
Who is supposed to be at the conference this year?
The keynote speaker of the conference this year is Nick Griffin, head of the British National Party (BNP) and member of the European Parliament. His attendance at the conference is troubling, as he is expected to be placed in jail soon for violating a court order in the UK to open the membership of his political party to non-whites by January, 28th. Griffin isn't a stranger to jail though; in 1996 he served a 9-month sentence after being found guilty of 'publishing material likely to incite racial hatred'. Griffin's speaking date in DC is even more disturbing because James Von Brunn, the neo-Nazi terrorist who shot and killed a security guard at the DC Holocaust Museum in June of 2009, was a member of the American Friends of the British National Party, and had been at events where Griffin Spoke. As well as being a racist, Griffin is notable for his antisemitism, and has referred to the Holocaust as the 'Holohoax'.
Other speakers include:
Dan Roodt, who argues that blacks are genetically programmed to commit violent crime, and wrote in an article on January 13th, 2010 that, "In South Africa, the white IQ is somewhere around 100 whereas the average black IQ is about 70....Blacks generally prefer parties and festivals because a lot of them lack the mental ability to excel at such demanding subjects as mathematics and natural science which require logical reasoning and cognitive ability." Roodt is the head of Pro-Afrikaans Action Group, a South African white supremacist organization.
Craig Bodeker, who said in an interview that, "The false concept of 'racism' has done more harm than just force decent white people into NOT looking-out for their own ethnic interests, while other groups are encouraged to look out for theirs. In fact, I’ll argue that it has BANKRUPTED AMERICA!"
Jared Taylor, who argues that blacks are "more psychopathic than whites", and in an article about Hurricane Katrina wrote that, "when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears. And in a crisis, civilization disappears overnight."
Sam G. Dickson, who advocates white nationalism and fights against non-white immigration, affirmative action, interracial marriage, homosexuality, and school integration.
Raymond Wolter, who argues against school racial desegregation, and believes that blacks have more natural IQ limitations than whites.
Wayne Lutton, who is the director of a group which publishes the racist Occidental Quarterly journal, and the antisemitic Occidental Observer magazine.
What you can do?
The Westin Washington Dulles Hotel has not made a decision yet on whether or not they are going to allow the conference to continue. Please contact Westin Washington Dulles Hotel and let them know how you feel. The phone number is 703-793-3366. Here is an example of what you could say:
"Hello, my name is _____. I am concerned about the New Century Foundation conference which your hotel is planning to host on February 19th through 21st. I would hope that you will choose to uphold your company's commitment to diversity and to ensuring the safety of your customers by choosing to cancel the conference. I understand that several of the conference speakers have gone to prison for inciting racial violence, and in the interest of the safety of the DC community, and of all people worldwide, I ask that you do not endorse these views. I see the decision to host this conference at your hotel as an irresponsible promotion of racist ideology, and if you choose not to cancel the conference, I will no longer be giving any of my business to the Westin, and will be advising all of my family and friends to do the same. Thanks for your time."
PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY. TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS, RELATIVES AND AQUAINTANCES! SHUT DOWN THE RACISTS!
Afterword:
But what about free speech?
From the ARA FAQ: "Free speech shouldn't endanger people's lives. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because people will probably get hurt trying to get out. We think that hate speech acts in the same way - by trying to make certain kinds of people seem less than human and by glorifying violent acts against them - it's just a matter of time before a follower or supporter of a hate group puts words into action We think that hate speech, turning people into scapegoats and targets for hateful action, is an abuse of free speech and that people's lives are more important than the right of someone to publicly encourage others to target certain groups for a campaign of murder, rape, assault, genocide, ethnic cleansing and terror. If you actively go out of your way to tell people that 90% of the world's population should be enslaved or that the best thing they can do is kill someone because of their skin color, religion, ethnic background, immigration status, sexual orientation, disability, etc., we think you've forfeited your right to free speech.
and
Isn't it better to just ignore racists?
"Ignoring a problem never makes it go away. If hate groups encounter no opposition to their activities in a community, they'll take that to mean that they have no opposition there willing to stand up to them and they will act accordingly. This makes it more likely that hate group activity will increase and they will start hurting people. This also isolates the people they target - people of color, immigrants, religious or ethnic minorities, gays and lesbians, the disabled, women, etc. - making them feel vulnerable and afraid because it seems like no one has their back."
Call to cancel the Nazi event at: 703-793-3366
Monday, January 18, 2010
The CIA Controls the Media
BY JOHN POTASH of the ROCK CREEK FREE PRESS
A review of the CIA and the media helps explain how the wealthiest families gained control over a vast majority of Americans’ information. US Intelligence whistle-blowers and mainstream media insiders revealed that a group of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant elites own or influence virtually all of our media sources that shape our opinions about events at home and abroad. News Anchor Dan Rather typified some insiders’ thoughts about America’s press when he described our media as a “miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states” (Jarecki, 2005).
Wealthiest Direct US Intelligence
The history of US Intelligence, as described by insiders and researchers, supports that elite multinational corporate owners influenced the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency. Through the National Security Act of 1947, the CIA leadership ruled over all other 14+ intelligence agencies (though changes occurred after 2000). These agencies included the FBI, NSA, Army Intelligence, Naval Intelligence, etc.
The highest-ranking CIA whistleblower, former assistant Deputy Director Victor Marchetti, was a 14-year CIA veteran. He and State Department Intelligence analyst John Marks wrote that CIA leaders came from the wealthiest families, some of which had led the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) wartime intelligence group. Marchetti reported that virtually the entire CIA leadership and middle ranks were filled with white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male family members of corporate moguls and it remained that way with few exceptions (Marchetti and Marks, 1974, pp266-8).
Marchetti and Marks cited a CIA Inspector General’s study in 1964 that found no Black, Jewish or female professionals in the entire CIA, and the agency contained only a few Catholics (Marchetti and Marks, p269). British editor Frances Stonor Saunders also pored through government documents to make similar claims. She listed the family members of the Mellons, J.P. Morgan, and the Vanderbilts, along with the Rockefellers’ lawyers, the Dulles Brothers, amongst other elites in the CIA leadership (Stonor Saunders, 1999, pp.34-5).
CIA’s Early Media Assets
The history of the CIA work for multinational corporate interests further reveals how the wealthiest maintain their vast control over information. Victor Marchetti; Philip Agee, a 12 year CIA veteran; and Frances Stonor Saunders also concurred that US Intelligence generally acts as agents of these corporations rather than working on behalf of all Americans’ interests. Award-winning Washington Post reporter Morton Mintz quoted Phil Agee as summarizing that “the CIA is essentially an instrument for the pursuit of the great transnational corporate interests in the name of ‘national security.’ (Mintz and Cohen, 1977, p.40)”
Multinational corporations have always maintained public relations and psychological operations as a major component for advancing their interests. Their financing of political campaigns helped them gain influence over top politicians. President Harry Truman made this evident when he started the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) in 1948, which merged with the CIA in 1951.
In 1952, OPC Director Frank Wisner supervised 2,800 personnel in the US and 3,100 overseas working on psychological warfare operations with an $82 million budget. Saunders detailed how their budget and personnel increased annually. Individuals such as Charles Douglas Jackson went back and forth between Psychological Operations and Vice-President of Time Inc.’s media empire. Evidence supports that he aided these operations through Time’s magazines (Stonor Saunders, p.40-1, 116-7, 129, 146-9, 152-3).
The New York Times, itself under multinational corporate control, ended up concurring with many of these disclosures. They reported that Wisner had also kept a highly secret “Propaganda Assets Inventory,” representing a network of more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals. These assets became part of the CIA’s opinion-making propagandists within both American and international mainstream media (Crewden, 1977, p.1).
CIA’s Media Network Controls Hearts and Minds
Frances Stonor Saunders reviewed a trove of buried archival US Intelligence documents that explained their goals. For example, in a 1950 “NSC Directive,” the US Intelligence umbrella group, the National Security Council, described its “psychological warfare… [through] propaganda… to influence [people’s] thoughts and actions… [so that] the subject moves in the direction [they] desire for reasons which he believes to be his own” (Stonor Saunders, p.4).
In the 1950s, CIA propaganda chief Frank Wisner said that he could “play the media like a mighty Wurlitzer (Crewden, 1977, p.1).” By 1977, Watergate muckraking reporter Carl Bernstein wrote a seminal expose on the media. Despite his earlier ’70s Watergate fame, only Rolling Stone magazine published this revealing article. A Senate Intelligence Committee forced CIA Director George Bush, Sr. to admit that “more than 400 journalists had lived double lives, maintaining covert relationships with the CIA,” Bernstein wrote. Others in the CIA told Bernstein that the number was far higher (Bernstein, 1977, pp.55-66.).
The Senate Committee found that virtually all of the leading media companies have top executives, editors and journalists who are paid by the CIA, for example, to reprint CIA written articles verbatim under their names (Bernstein, pp55-66). US Intelligence leaders could eventually boast about their almost complete control over the media. Former veteran CIA agent Ralph McGehee obtained a CIA memo in ’91 that contained such a boast. It claimed that the agency had representatives in every media outlet in the country; these representatives help to spin and censor the news (DiEugenio and Pease, 2003, p.311).
Multinational Corporate Media Control
As previously noted, the CIA supervised the whole of US Intelligence, and CIA leadership came from the families that owned the multinational corporations. Ben Bagdikian, dean of the University of California-Berkeley School of Journalism, explained how multinational corporate owners gained even tighter controls over public information.
During a sabbatical to study the media industry, Bagdikian set out to research another topic before he found out about the ever-consolidating media ownership. Bagdikian detailed how the media industry experienced a huge consolidation trend approaching “monopolization” by a smaller and smaller number of controlling multinational corporations (Bagdikian, 1992, pp.ix, 24-5).
Bagdikian, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter, first noted the history of corporate media control. He detailed how the reform-minded journalism of the early 1900s helped elect reformist politicians such as President Theodore Roosevelt. But, he added, the Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan interests bought control of the most influential media outlets (Bagdikian, pp.210-11). These conservative robber barons installed their own managers. These managers stopped the newspapers from publishing information that threatened their owners’ profits or promoted populist politicians (The film, “America: Freedom to Fascism”, also cites this information, first stated in the Capital by US Congressman Oscar Callaway in 1917).
Bagdikian further explained that most major media outlets have directors on their company boards that also sit on the boards of these major multinational corporations. For example, the Board of Directors of Time magazine and the industry standard-bearer New York Times also sit on corporate boards involved in military defense contracting, oil, and pharmaceuticals, as well as banks, finance and insurance companies. Bagdikian explained that under corporate law, “the director of a company is obliged to act in the interests of his or her own company (Bagdikian, pp.24-5).”
The rare disclosures by The New York Times and other mainstream news sources usually came despite their owners’ political agenda. These disclosures do come more often in The New York Times than the more blatantly conservative news sources such as The New York Post, or The Washington Post, but editors usually limit the content of the disclosures or print other articles that contradict the disclosures. In the introduction of his book, Inventing Reality, Yale-trained political science professor Michael Parenti explained mainstream media’s occasional disclosures by brashly stating, “…like any liar the press is filled with contradictions…without a word of explanation (Parenti, 1986, p.ix).”
Pentagon and US Intelligence Ownership of Media
US Intelligence helped the elite further tighten their control over public information by gaining direct ownership over the vast majority of information sources. For example, one of their own publications, Armed Forces Journal International, revealed that the Pentagon (military intelligence) published 371 magazines in 1971, making it 16 times larger than the nation’s biggest publisher that year. This number increased to 1,203 different periodicals by 1982. The quantity suggests that these 1200 magazine and journal titles straddled many areas of life, thus controlling information that could make it to the pages of news, fashion and sports magazines crowding book chain outlets (Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, 1988, p.20).
In the mid-70s, a Senate intelligence committee issued an investigative report on other US Intelligence media assets. It stated that the CIA owned outright, “more than 200 wire services, newspapers, magazines, and book publishing complexes,” according to Professor Michael Parenti (Parenti, p.233). Washington Post reporter Morton Mintz also detailed this in his book, Power Inc (Mintz and Cohen, p.364).
Following these reports and Carl Bernstein’s Rolling Stone exposé, The New York Times published one of its few disclosures, the aforementioned piece by Crewden, on the CIA and the media. The Times reported another fifty media outlets run by the CIA and added that the CIA secretly commissioned over 1,200 books by 1977, including 200 in 1967 alone (Crewden, 1977). Morton Mintz quoted a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities 1976 report describing how the CIA promoted their own propaganda in that a book written “by one CIA operative was reviewed favorably by another CIA agent in The New York Times (Mintz and Cohen,p.364).”
Furthermore, William Casey, who was in and out of US Intelligence for years before he became CIA director under President Reagan, presents another example of this ownership. Casey led a group of Intelligence officials that founded the Capital Cities media company in 1954. Capital Cities bought the ABC television network in 1985 (Mazzocco, 1994).
And finally, former OSS agent John Elroy McCaw attended meetings of the US Intelligence umbrella group, the National Security Council, as he served on their Advisory Council. He also owned WINS, one of New York City’s top music stations at that time. WABC Program Director Rick Sklar published a memoir detailing how McCaw lead the nationwide promotion of the Top 40 music format that permanently changed radio programming. John McCaw’s four sons gained a large ownership in cable television networks and other communications companies, each accumulating a net worth of at least $750 million (Constantine, 2001, pp.20-3). Other US Intelligence leaders set up similar spheres of influence in music and entertainment.
Advertising Control and Insider Disclosures
The wealthiest have also gained further control over Americans’ information by use of a different tactic. They’ve gained control over media content through advertising. Disclosures from media insiders present general agreement on advertisers’ huge influence over media content.
New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzburger provided one example when he openly admitted that he had his editors put forth the auto industry line in censoring auto safety and pollution issues because otherwise it “would affect the advertising.” Another Times staff member said that stories on the automobile industry in the early 1970s were “more or less put together by the advertisers.” A CBS television news veteran supported this notion in saying that advertising agencies and their affiliates are “always taken into account,” when it came to programming decisions, in order not to offend them (Parenti, p.48-9).
One of the most well-known media insiders, Dan Rather, described the media’s conservative censorship in stark terms. Rather started in journalism working for United Press International in the 1950s. His journalistic achievements moved him up to the position of CBS Southern Bureau chief and then anchorman on the CBS Evening News in 1981. He remained in that position until 2005. In 2002, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) interviewed Dan Rather about the media’s aid in the suppression of dissent in the United States. Rather said, “What you have here is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states” (Jarecki, 2005). However, the above information suggests that we have a more sophisticated version of what takes place in totalitarian states.
John Potash contributed this article by adapting two chapters of his book The FBI War on Tupac Shakur and Black Leaders. A film of the same title based on the book is now available on DVD, www.fbiwarontupac.com.
A review of the CIA and the media helps explain how the wealthiest families gained control over a vast majority of Americans’ information. US Intelligence whistle-blowers and mainstream media insiders revealed that a group of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant elites own or influence virtually all of our media sources that shape our opinions about events at home and abroad. News Anchor Dan Rather typified some insiders’ thoughts about America’s press when he described our media as a “miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states” (Jarecki, 2005).
Wealthiest Direct US Intelligence
The history of US Intelligence, as described by insiders and researchers, supports that elite multinational corporate owners influenced the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency. Through the National Security Act of 1947, the CIA leadership ruled over all other 14+ intelligence agencies (though changes occurred after 2000). These agencies included the FBI, NSA, Army Intelligence, Naval Intelligence, etc.
The highest-ranking CIA whistleblower, former assistant Deputy Director Victor Marchetti, was a 14-year CIA veteran. He and State Department Intelligence analyst John Marks wrote that CIA leaders came from the wealthiest families, some of which had led the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) wartime intelligence group. Marchetti reported that virtually the entire CIA leadership and middle ranks were filled with white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant male family members of corporate moguls and it remained that way with few exceptions (Marchetti and Marks, 1974, pp266-8).
Marchetti and Marks cited a CIA Inspector General’s study in 1964 that found no Black, Jewish or female professionals in the entire CIA, and the agency contained only a few Catholics (Marchetti and Marks, p269). British editor Frances Stonor Saunders also pored through government documents to make similar claims. She listed the family members of the Mellons, J.P. Morgan, and the Vanderbilts, along with the Rockefellers’ lawyers, the Dulles Brothers, amongst other elites in the CIA leadership (Stonor Saunders, 1999, pp.34-5).
CIA’s Early Media Assets
The history of the CIA work for multinational corporate interests further reveals how the wealthiest maintain their vast control over information. Victor Marchetti; Philip Agee, a 12 year CIA veteran; and Frances Stonor Saunders also concurred that US Intelligence generally acts as agents of these corporations rather than working on behalf of all Americans’ interests. Award-winning Washington Post reporter Morton Mintz quoted Phil Agee as summarizing that “the CIA is essentially an instrument for the pursuit of the great transnational corporate interests in the name of ‘national security.’ (Mintz and Cohen, 1977, p.40)”
Multinational corporations have always maintained public relations and psychological operations as a major component for advancing their interests. Their financing of political campaigns helped them gain influence over top politicians. President Harry Truman made this evident when he started the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) in 1948, which merged with the CIA in 1951.
In 1952, OPC Director Frank Wisner supervised 2,800 personnel in the US and 3,100 overseas working on psychological warfare operations with an $82 million budget. Saunders detailed how their budget and personnel increased annually. Individuals such as Charles Douglas Jackson went back and forth between Psychological Operations and Vice-President of Time Inc.’s media empire. Evidence supports that he aided these operations through Time’s magazines (Stonor Saunders, p.40-1, 116-7, 129, 146-9, 152-3).
The New York Times, itself under multinational corporate control, ended up concurring with many of these disclosures. They reported that Wisner had also kept a highly secret “Propaganda Assets Inventory,” representing a network of more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals. These assets became part of the CIA’s opinion-making propagandists within both American and international mainstream media (Crewden, 1977, p.1).
CIA’s Media Network Controls Hearts and Minds
Frances Stonor Saunders reviewed a trove of buried archival US Intelligence documents that explained their goals. For example, in a 1950 “NSC Directive,” the US Intelligence umbrella group, the National Security Council, described its “psychological warfare… [through] propaganda… to influence [people’s] thoughts and actions… [so that] the subject moves in the direction [they] desire for reasons which he believes to be his own” (Stonor Saunders, p.4).
In the 1950s, CIA propaganda chief Frank Wisner said that he could “play the media like a mighty Wurlitzer (Crewden, 1977, p.1).” By 1977, Watergate muckraking reporter Carl Bernstein wrote a seminal expose on the media. Despite his earlier ’70s Watergate fame, only Rolling Stone magazine published this revealing article. A Senate Intelligence Committee forced CIA Director George Bush, Sr. to admit that “more than 400 journalists had lived double lives, maintaining covert relationships with the CIA,” Bernstein wrote. Others in the CIA told Bernstein that the number was far higher (Bernstein, 1977, pp.55-66.).
The Senate Committee found that virtually all of the leading media companies have top executives, editors and journalists who are paid by the CIA, for example, to reprint CIA written articles verbatim under their names (Bernstein, pp55-66). US Intelligence leaders could eventually boast about their almost complete control over the media. Former veteran CIA agent Ralph McGehee obtained a CIA memo in ’91 that contained such a boast. It claimed that the agency had representatives in every media outlet in the country; these representatives help to spin and censor the news (DiEugenio and Pease, 2003, p.311).
Multinational Corporate Media Control
As previously noted, the CIA supervised the whole of US Intelligence, and CIA leadership came from the families that owned the multinational corporations. Ben Bagdikian, dean of the University of California-Berkeley School of Journalism, explained how multinational corporate owners gained even tighter controls over public information.
During a sabbatical to study the media industry, Bagdikian set out to research another topic before he found out about the ever-consolidating media ownership. Bagdikian detailed how the media industry experienced a huge consolidation trend approaching “monopolization” by a smaller and smaller number of controlling multinational corporations (Bagdikian, 1992, pp.ix, 24-5).
Bagdikian, a Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter, first noted the history of corporate media control. He detailed how the reform-minded journalism of the early 1900s helped elect reformist politicians such as President Theodore Roosevelt. But, he added, the Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan interests bought control of the most influential media outlets (Bagdikian, pp.210-11). These conservative robber barons installed their own managers. These managers stopped the newspapers from publishing information that threatened their owners’ profits or promoted populist politicians (The film, “America: Freedom to Fascism”, also cites this information, first stated in the Capital by US Congressman Oscar Callaway in 1917).
Bagdikian further explained that most major media outlets have directors on their company boards that also sit on the boards of these major multinational corporations. For example, the Board of Directors of Time magazine and the industry standard-bearer New York Times also sit on corporate boards involved in military defense contracting, oil, and pharmaceuticals, as well as banks, finance and insurance companies. Bagdikian explained that under corporate law, “the director of a company is obliged to act in the interests of his or her own company (Bagdikian, pp.24-5).”
The rare disclosures by The New York Times and other mainstream news sources usually came despite their owners’ political agenda. These disclosures do come more often in The New York Times than the more blatantly conservative news sources such as The New York Post, or The Washington Post, but editors usually limit the content of the disclosures or print other articles that contradict the disclosures. In the introduction of his book, Inventing Reality, Yale-trained political science professor Michael Parenti explained mainstream media’s occasional disclosures by brashly stating, “…like any liar the press is filled with contradictions…without a word of explanation (Parenti, 1986, p.ix).”
Pentagon and US Intelligence Ownership of Media
US Intelligence helped the elite further tighten their control over public information by gaining direct ownership over the vast majority of information sources. For example, one of their own publications, Armed Forces Journal International, revealed that the Pentagon (military intelligence) published 371 magazines in 1971, making it 16 times larger than the nation’s biggest publisher that year. This number increased to 1,203 different periodicals by 1982. The quantity suggests that these 1200 magazine and journal titles straddled many areas of life, thus controlling information that could make it to the pages of news, fashion and sports magazines crowding book chain outlets (Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, 1988, p.20).
In the mid-70s, a Senate intelligence committee issued an investigative report on other US Intelligence media assets. It stated that the CIA owned outright, “more than 200 wire services, newspapers, magazines, and book publishing complexes,” according to Professor Michael Parenti (Parenti, p.233). Washington Post reporter Morton Mintz also detailed this in his book, Power Inc (Mintz and Cohen, p.364).
Following these reports and Carl Bernstein’s Rolling Stone exposé, The New York Times published one of its few disclosures, the aforementioned piece by Crewden, on the CIA and the media. The Times reported another fifty media outlets run by the CIA and added that the CIA secretly commissioned over 1,200 books by 1977, including 200 in 1967 alone (Crewden, 1977). Morton Mintz quoted a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities 1976 report describing how the CIA promoted their own propaganda in that a book written “by one CIA operative was reviewed favorably by another CIA agent in The New York Times (Mintz and Cohen,p.364).”
Furthermore, William Casey, who was in and out of US Intelligence for years before he became CIA director under President Reagan, presents another example of this ownership. Casey led a group of Intelligence officials that founded the Capital Cities media company in 1954. Capital Cities bought the ABC television network in 1985 (Mazzocco, 1994).
And finally, former OSS agent John Elroy McCaw attended meetings of the US Intelligence umbrella group, the National Security Council, as he served on their Advisory Council. He also owned WINS, one of New York City’s top music stations at that time. WABC Program Director Rick Sklar published a memoir detailing how McCaw lead the nationwide promotion of the Top 40 music format that permanently changed radio programming. John McCaw’s four sons gained a large ownership in cable television networks and other communications companies, each accumulating a net worth of at least $750 million (Constantine, 2001, pp.20-3). Other US Intelligence leaders set up similar spheres of influence in music and entertainment.
Advertising Control and Insider Disclosures
The wealthiest have also gained further control over Americans’ information by use of a different tactic. They’ve gained control over media content through advertising. Disclosures from media insiders present general agreement on advertisers’ huge influence over media content.
New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzburger provided one example when he openly admitted that he had his editors put forth the auto industry line in censoring auto safety and pollution issues because otherwise it “would affect the advertising.” Another Times staff member said that stories on the automobile industry in the early 1970s were “more or less put together by the advertisers.” A CBS television news veteran supported this notion in saying that advertising agencies and their affiliates are “always taken into account,” when it came to programming decisions, in order not to offend them (Parenti, p.48-9).
One of the most well-known media insiders, Dan Rather, described the media’s conservative censorship in stark terms. Rather started in journalism working for United Press International in the 1950s. His journalistic achievements moved him up to the position of CBS Southern Bureau chief and then anchorman on the CBS Evening News in 1981. He remained in that position until 2005. In 2002, the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) interviewed Dan Rather about the media’s aid in the suppression of dissent in the United States. Rather said, “What you have here is a miniature version of what you have in totalitarian states” (Jarecki, 2005). However, the above information suggests that we have a more sophisticated version of what takes place in totalitarian states.
John Potash contributed this article by adapting two chapters of his book The FBI War on Tupac Shakur and Black Leaders. A film of the same title based on the book is now available on DVD, www.fbiwarontupac.com.
Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 “Hijack"
By Sheila Casey of the Rock Creek Free Press
Pilots for 9/11 Truth has reported that the data stream from the flight data recorder (FDR) for American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment.
The FDR is one of two “black boxes” in every commercial airliner, which are used after accidents to help determine the cause of a crash. One black box records flight data, the other records voice data (everything said in the cockpit during the flight). With those two sets of data, NTSB investigators can usually piece together the events that led to a crash. The status of the door to the cockpit is checked every four seconds throughout a flight and relayed as a simple 0 or 1, where 0=closed and 1=open, with approximately 1,300 door status checks performed during AA77’s 90 minute flight. Every one of those door status checks shows as a 0, indicating that the door to the cockpit never opened during the entire flight.
Accident investigators monitor the cockpit door with the FDR because it may yield clues to pilot error in a crash. The FDR begins recording once the pilots are in their seats and readying for takeoff, and the plane cannot take off unless the FDR is working.
The official story about flight 77 is that five Muslim terrorists brandishing box cutters forced their way into the cockpit and herded two pilots, four flight attendants and all the passengers to the back of the plane. This story came into being via Ted Olson, US Solicitor General, who told CNN — that he received two phone calls from his wife Barbara Olson, a passenger on the doomed flight. Ted Olson’s story changed several times. Sometimes he claimed that the calls from his wife were made from seat back phones, other times that she used her cell phone.
According to American Airlines customer service, the American Airlines maintenance manual for that aircraft, and American Airlines Captain Ralph Kolstad, seatback phones on 757s had been deactivated prior to 9/11/01. (They were later removed entirely, as they never worked well.)
Barbara Olson couldn’t have used a cell phone either: numerous 9/11 researchers, most notably David Ray Griffin, have pointed out that cell phones did not work on airplanes on 9/11. The speed and altitude of a commercial airliner both present overwhelming obstacles to a cell phone’s need to lock onto a cell tower and then hand off to another tower in a new location.
It was the FBI that revealed the evidence that decisively disproves Ted Olson’s story. In the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI presented a report on the cell phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. Their report on AA77 shows that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, but that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. So Ted Olson either lied about receiving calls from his wife or was deceived into believing he received calls from her.
According to the UK Telegraph, Barbara Olson delayed her flight on 9/11 so that she could have breakfast with her husband on his birthday. That delay put her on the doomed flight. Ted Olson remarried in 2006 to tax attorney Lady Booth, whom he reportedly met the year after Barbara died.
There are numerous oddities and contradictions about AA77’s black boxes.
The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this would be the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.
While it was widely reported in the media that the FDR for AA77 was found at 4 am on September 14, 2001, the file containing the FDR data was dated over four hours earlier. In other words, we are asked to believe that the data from the FDR was downloaded prior to the FDR being found.
Researcher Aidan Monagahan has established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from AA77. The NTSB’s own handbook indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving us another reason to question how the FDR data was created.
Structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer claimed that he personally found AA77’s black box on 9/11. But in the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Kilsheimer is quoted as saying, “I stood on a pile of debris that we later found contained the black box …”
Kilsheimer’s story changes again in August 2007 in a piece done by the History Channel, “The 9/11 Conspiracies,” where he claims “I tripped over something; it was the black box.”
In earlier work, Pilots for 9/11 Truth (P4T) has determined that the same data set provided by the NTSB shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon, based on an altimeter that uses air pressure to calibrate altitude.
As reported in the April 2009 Rock Creek Free Press, Citizen Investigation Team, citizen journalists from southern California, has collected evidence from 14 eyewitnesses that shows that the plane seen that morning near the Pentagon did not hit the building, but flew over it at the moment explosives detonated in the Pentagon, leading observers to conclude that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon.
Questions about what happened at the Pentagon have intrigued 9/11 researchers for years, beginning with photos from the alleged crash scene which do not show the wreckage of a plane.
This new evidence, showing that the cockpit door never opened during flight, is another nail in the coffin of the official story about flight 77. Clearly, if the cockpit door never opened, then hijackers did not storm the cockpit and herd the pilots to the back of the plane. The data, which originated from the government, does not support the government’s story.
Why would the government release data which contradicts its own version of events? It is possible they were just sloppy, or that they never anticipated that anyone would parse the data as carefully as Pilots for 9/11 Truth have. They may have also felt secure, that regardless of what damning revelations were contained in the FDR data, no mainstream media outlet would give them ink or air time, keeping the official story intact for the vast majority of Americans who receive their news from mainstream sources.
Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, stated: “We have not located any independently verified data which confirms the government’s story. The FBI and NTSB refuse to comment.” Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe who are investigating the government’s claims about the attacks of 9/11.
Sheila Casey is a DC based journalist. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice and Common Dreams.
Pilots for 9/11 Truth has reported that the data stream from the flight data recorder (FDR) for American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment.
The FDR is one of two “black boxes” in every commercial airliner, which are used after accidents to help determine the cause of a crash. One black box records flight data, the other records voice data (everything said in the cockpit during the flight). With those two sets of data, NTSB investigators can usually piece together the events that led to a crash. The status of the door to the cockpit is checked every four seconds throughout a flight and relayed as a simple 0 or 1, where 0=closed and 1=open, with approximately 1,300 door status checks performed during AA77’s 90 minute flight. Every one of those door status checks shows as a 0, indicating that the door to the cockpit never opened during the entire flight.
Accident investigators monitor the cockpit door with the FDR because it may yield clues to pilot error in a crash. The FDR begins recording once the pilots are in their seats and readying for takeoff, and the plane cannot take off unless the FDR is working.
The official story about flight 77 is that five Muslim terrorists brandishing box cutters forced their way into the cockpit and herded two pilots, four flight attendants and all the passengers to the back of the plane. This story came into being via Ted Olson, US Solicitor General, who told CNN — that he received two phone calls from his wife Barbara Olson, a passenger on the doomed flight. Ted Olson’s story changed several times. Sometimes he claimed that the calls from his wife were made from seat back phones, other times that she used her cell phone.
According to American Airlines customer service, the American Airlines maintenance manual for that aircraft, and American Airlines Captain Ralph Kolstad, seatback phones on 757s had been deactivated prior to 9/11/01. (They were later removed entirely, as they never worked well.)
Barbara Olson couldn’t have used a cell phone either: numerous 9/11 researchers, most notably David Ray Griffin, have pointed out that cell phones did not work on airplanes on 9/11. The speed and altitude of a commercial airliner both present overwhelming obstacles to a cell phone’s need to lock onto a cell tower and then hand off to another tower in a new location.
It was the FBI that revealed the evidence that decisively disproves Ted Olson’s story. In the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI presented a report on the cell phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. Their report on AA77 shows that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, but that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. So Ted Olson either lied about receiving calls from his wife or was deceived into believing he received calls from her.
According to the UK Telegraph, Barbara Olson delayed her flight on 9/11 so that she could have breakfast with her husband on his birthday. That delay put her on the doomed flight. Ted Olson remarried in 2006 to tax attorney Lady Booth, whom he reportedly met the year after Barbara died.
There are numerous oddities and contradictions about AA77’s black boxes.
The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this would be the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.
While it was widely reported in the media that the FDR for AA77 was found at 4 am on September 14, 2001, the file containing the FDR data was dated over four hours earlier. In other words, we are asked to believe that the data from the FDR was downloaded prior to the FDR being found.
Researcher Aidan Monagahan has established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from AA77. The NTSB’s own handbook indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving us another reason to question how the FDR data was created.
Structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer claimed that he personally found AA77’s black box on 9/11. But in the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Kilsheimer is quoted as saying, “I stood on a pile of debris that we later found contained the black box …”
Kilsheimer’s story changes again in August 2007 in a piece done by the History Channel, “The 9/11 Conspiracies,” where he claims “I tripped over something; it was the black box.”
In earlier work, Pilots for 9/11 Truth (P4T) has determined that the same data set provided by the NTSB shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon, based on an altimeter that uses air pressure to calibrate altitude.
As reported in the April 2009 Rock Creek Free Press, Citizen Investigation Team, citizen journalists from southern California, has collected evidence from 14 eyewitnesses that shows that the plane seen that morning near the Pentagon did not hit the building, but flew over it at the moment explosives detonated in the Pentagon, leading observers to conclude that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon.
Questions about what happened at the Pentagon have intrigued 9/11 researchers for years, beginning with photos from the alleged crash scene which do not show the wreckage of a plane.
This new evidence, showing that the cockpit door never opened during flight, is another nail in the coffin of the official story about flight 77. Clearly, if the cockpit door never opened, then hijackers did not storm the cockpit and herd the pilots to the back of the plane. The data, which originated from the government, does not support the government’s story.
Why would the government release data which contradicts its own version of events? It is possible they were just sloppy, or that they never anticipated that anyone would parse the data as carefully as Pilots for 9/11 Truth have. They may have also felt secure, that regardless of what damning revelations were contained in the FDR data, no mainstream media outlet would give them ink or air time, keeping the official story intact for the vast majority of Americans who receive their news from mainstream sources.
Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, stated: “We have not located any independently verified data which confirms the government’s story. The FBI and NTSB refuse to comment.” Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe who are investigating the government’s claims about the attacks of 9/11.
Sheila Casey is a DC based journalist. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice and Common Dreams.
Obama Brings No Good Change for Black Community
It's Martin Luther King Day, Obama is the American President, and everyone thinks that black people have a better life now. Despite these delusions about Obama and African-Americans, the unemployment rate for blacks is higher than it is for whites. It is said to be going up. It seems nothing has changed for black people, and Obama is just a lying puppet who was put in office in order to remove the revolutionary potential from African-Americans. For more information, watch this news video about Obama and black people.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Haiti: Getting the Picture
The following was taken from http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/01/haiti-getting-picture.html which has sources of its own.
So, if we can summarise. Haiti is a country which is subject to "progress-resistant cultural influences", such as:
This (rather than this), says neoconservative David Brooks, explains why Haiti is so poor. The appropriate response is imperial disdain for Haitian culture, and paternalistic intervention. Such a culturalist reading of social institutions and political economies is not exclusive to neoconservatives, but it is their preferred variant of the liberal defence of murder. As you would expect ftom the savages described by Brooks, though, they have responded to the disaster of the quake by looting and building roadblocks from the dead. The security situation (a phrase worth unpacking) is... what, you tell me - 'deteriorating'? 'Testing'? 'Tricky'? 'Challenging'? What is the bromide of choice these days? At any rate, the state of affairs arising from said "progress-resistant cultural influences" is so baleful that it is compelling the US to use its military power to obstruct the delivery of aid, because delivering aid will - so Obama's defence secretary tells us - lead to riots.
Brooks is not alone in hoping that American power can be used to discipline the hapless natives. As Obama sends in the marines and the 82nd Airborne, precisely to deal with the above-mentioned "security situation", the American Enterprise Institute insists that such forces are used to "ensure that Haiti’s gangs—particularly those loyal to ousted President Jean‐Bertrand Aristide—are suppressed." The worry about the prospect of a return of the elected president, Aristide, which "can only create further mischief". The AEI, I would confidently wager, has no reason to fret over this particular exercise in humanitarian intervention. Obama is committed to maintaining the coup government, the sweatshop oligarchy and the phoney elections. The troops are there because the Haitian population is seen not merely as pathetic supplicants but as a threat. The very sophisticated networks of community and solidarity that have been developed in Haiti under dictatorship and terror, and which are best placed to deliver assistance to those in need of it, are precisely the problem as far as the US government is concerned. It is they, the 'gangs' who refuse to assimilate to America's benevolent programme of racial uplift, whom successive US governments have attempted to destroy, whether through the IMF or the Tonton Macoutes. It cannot be long before the marines find themselves gunning down some restless ingrates, and there is certainly no prospect that the Obama administration will allow Aristide to return to his country.
Just as well, then, that we have been apprised of all these horror stories about bodies doubling as road-blocks (as if people in need of aid would actually try to block the roads), machete wielding 'looters', security breakdowns, gang violence, etc. Otherwise we might have been inclined to misunderstand the situation, and wonder whether in sending trained killers into a disaster area the Obama administration isn't hijacking a catastrophe according to a premeditated plan, a pre-conceived set of priorities, and a prefabricated story.
So, if we can summarise. Haiti is a country which is subject to "progress-resistant cultural influences", such as:
the influence of the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile. There are high levels of social mistrust. Responsibility is often not internalized. Child-rearing practices often involve neglect in the early years and harsh retribution when kids hit 9 or 10.
This (rather than this), says neoconservative David Brooks, explains why Haiti is so poor. The appropriate response is imperial disdain for Haitian culture, and paternalistic intervention. Such a culturalist reading of social institutions and political economies is not exclusive to neoconservatives, but it is their preferred variant of the liberal defence of murder. As you would expect ftom the savages described by Brooks, though, they have responded to the disaster of the quake by looting and building roadblocks from the dead. The security situation (a phrase worth unpacking) is... what, you tell me - 'deteriorating'? 'Testing'? 'Tricky'? 'Challenging'? What is the bromide of choice these days? At any rate, the state of affairs arising from said "progress-resistant cultural influences" is so baleful that it is compelling the US to use its military power to obstruct the delivery of aid, because delivering aid will - so Obama's defence secretary tells us - lead to riots.
Brooks is not alone in hoping that American power can be used to discipline the hapless natives. As Obama sends in the marines and the 82nd Airborne, precisely to deal with the above-mentioned "security situation", the American Enterprise Institute insists that such forces are used to "ensure that Haiti’s gangs—particularly those loyal to ousted President Jean‐Bertrand Aristide—are suppressed." The worry about the prospect of a return of the elected president, Aristide, which "can only create further mischief". The AEI, I would confidently wager, has no reason to fret over this particular exercise in humanitarian intervention. Obama is committed to maintaining the coup government, the sweatshop oligarchy and the phoney elections. The troops are there because the Haitian population is seen not merely as pathetic supplicants but as a threat. The very sophisticated networks of community and solidarity that have been developed in Haiti under dictatorship and terror, and which are best placed to deliver assistance to those in need of it, are precisely the problem as far as the US government is concerned. It is they, the 'gangs' who refuse to assimilate to America's benevolent programme of racial uplift, whom successive US governments have attempted to destroy, whether through the IMF or the Tonton Macoutes. It cannot be long before the marines find themselves gunning down some restless ingrates, and there is certainly no prospect that the Obama administration will allow Aristide to return to his country.
Just as well, then, that we have been apprised of all these horror stories about bodies doubling as road-blocks (as if people in need of aid would actually try to block the roads), machete wielding 'looters', security breakdowns, gang violence, etc. Otherwise we might have been inclined to misunderstand the situation, and wonder whether in sending trained killers into a disaster area the Obama administration isn't hijacking a catastrophe according to a premeditated plan, a pre-conceived set of priorities, and a prefabricated story.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
On the Crisis in Haiti
As Haitians try to survive on their ruined island after the recent disaster devastated it, US President Barack Obama is sending paratroopers to keep things secure in Haiti. Obama is also sending 100 million dollars in financial aid.
The damage done in Haiti will cost the poor country 15% of its GDP according to the World Bank. Eduardo Gamarra, a political scientist at Florida International University, has said that 15% is an underestimate. The US has sent only 100 million dollars. If Haiti was a big bank that needed a bailout, then the US government would have sent millions upon millions more to help save it. I bet the US could end poverty in Haiti and clean up after the earthquake for the same price as a bailout. Unfortunately, that will never happen because regular people are disposable and rich bankers and businessmen are extremely valuable, at least according to Bush and Obama.
The mainstream media is already trying to portray the poverty-stricken Haitians, who are now disaster victims on top of that, as criminals. Just like they did with the people in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. The US government is mainly concerned with preserving the control of the oppressive Haitian government, which explains the military aid.
I believe Revolution newspaper, despite the many criticisms it has recieved from other left-wing groups (and I'm not trying to make a statement on the criticisms or the RCP), has a good explanation to why Haiti is poor and how it relates to the current situation.
Now, I will give an alternative editorial ending.
The current destruction in Haiti will take years to repair. Even New Orleans is still feeling the shock of Katrina, a deadly hurricane from 2005. My point here is that disasters take years to undo, but not when a collective system of work is applied. Let's take the town of Canutillo for example.
Canutillo was destroyed by the war that was going on in Mexico during the days of Zapata and Pancho Villa. Villa was able to repair the town within three years by simply applying a collectivist fashion of work. Canutillo also gained technology that was considered modern at the time. Three years was quick for back in Villa's time.
With the advanced form of collectivist work Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has developed, communism could restore Haiti a lot faster than the capitalists and their puppet governments. Given the scale of the destruction in Haiti, it might take longer than three years, but it would certainly be faster than current efforts.
The damage done in Haiti will cost the poor country 15% of its GDP according to the World Bank. Eduardo Gamarra, a political scientist at Florida International University, has said that 15% is an underestimate. The US has sent only 100 million dollars. If Haiti was a big bank that needed a bailout, then the US government would have sent millions upon millions more to help save it. I bet the US could end poverty in Haiti and clean up after the earthquake for the same price as a bailout. Unfortunately, that will never happen because regular people are disposable and rich bankers and businessmen are extremely valuable, at least according to Bush and Obama.
The mainstream media is already trying to portray the poverty-stricken Haitians, who are now disaster victims on top of that, as criminals. Just like they did with the people in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. The US government is mainly concerned with preserving the control of the oppressive Haitian government, which explains the military aid.
I believe Revolution newspaper, despite the many criticisms it has recieved from other left-wing groups (and I'm not trying to make a statement on the criticisms or the RCP), has a good explanation to why Haiti is poor and how it relates to the current situation.
-----
The news reports talk about Haiti’s poverty, but they don’t tell you why Haiti is so poor. Very few people know that Haiti was the scene of the only successful slave revolution in history – when the heroic descendants of African slaves drove out the strongest army in the world at that time, the French. Very few people know that the world’s powers – especially the U.S., which at that time feared the influence of Haiti on the slaves in America and France – embarked on a policy of isolating and impoverishing Haiti. Very few people know that for nearly 20 years in the early 1900's the U.S. Marines occupied Haiti, suppressing a liberation struggle and implanting puppets. Very few people know that the U.S. backed the infamously cruel tyrant “Papa Doc” Duvalier, and then his son “Baby Doc,” in the middle of the century. And all too few know that it then conspired to overthrow the popular president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in the 1990's and then again just a few years ago in 2004. All these criminal actions – this long criminal history of oppression – flowed from the economic and political needs of the U.S. ruling classes during the time when the United States was run, first, by a coalition of capitalist and slave-holding classes, and then more recently (and up to today) by the ruling capitalist-imperialist class. Throughout the last two centuries the U.S. has backed up reactionary ruling classes within Haiti as part of this.
Now, I will give an alternative editorial ending.
The current destruction in Haiti will take years to repair. Even New Orleans is still feeling the shock of Katrina, a deadly hurricane from 2005. My point here is that disasters take years to undo, but not when a collective system of work is applied. Let's take the town of Canutillo for example.
Canutillo was destroyed by the war that was going on in Mexico during the days of Zapata and Pancho Villa. Villa was able to repair the town within three years by simply applying a collectivist fashion of work. Canutillo also gained technology that was considered modern at the time. Three years was quick for back in Villa's time.
With the advanced form of collectivist work Marxism-Leninism-Maoism has developed, communism could restore Haiti a lot faster than the capitalists and their puppet governments. Given the scale of the destruction in Haiti, it might take longer than three years, but it would certainly be faster than current efforts.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Britain Bans Islamist Group
An Islamist group called Islam4UK, or Muhajiroun, will soon be outlawed by the British government. The ban will come into effect on Thursday, January 14. In order to prevent the group from circumventing the ban, it will also be outlawed under the other names that it goes by. These names include Call to Submission, Islam4UK, Islamic Path, and London School of Sharia.
"I have ... laid an order which will proscribe Al Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, and a number of the other names the organisation goes by," Home Secretary Alan Johnson said.
"Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly. We are clear that an organisation should not be able to circumvent proscription by simply changing its name," he continued.
"What the people will see is if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship," said Anjem Choudary, the disgruntled leader of the banned organization.
Islam4UK sparked outrage and debate earlier this year by trying to march through a town where dead British soldiers are honored.
This ban is not only undemocratic, but it is hypocritical. There is a variety of neo-Nazi groups in Britain that are just as violent and disgusting as any Islamist group. Why didn't the British government ban those fools as well? Is it because they think they can get away with bullying a minority religion? Maybe they find Nazi thugs to be more useful. I think this exposes the prejudiced, pro-fascist views that the pig Queen and her lackeys secretly cling to.
"I have ... laid an order which will proscribe Al Muhajiroun, Islam4UK, and a number of the other names the organisation goes by," Home Secretary Alan Johnson said.
"Proscription is a tough but necessary power to tackle terrorism and is not a course we take lightly. We are clear that an organisation should not be able to circumvent proscription by simply changing its name," he continued.
"What the people will see is if you don't agree with the government and you want to expose their foreign policy, then freedom quickly dissipates and turns into dictatorship," said Anjem Choudary, the disgruntled leader of the banned organization.
Islam4UK sparked outrage and debate earlier this year by trying to march through a town where dead British soldiers are honored.
This ban is not only undemocratic, but it is hypocritical. There is a variety of neo-Nazi groups in Britain that are just as violent and disgusting as any Islamist group. Why didn't the British government ban those fools as well? Is it because they think they can get away with bullying a minority religion? Maybe they find Nazi thugs to be more useful. I think this exposes the prejudiced, pro-fascist views that the pig Queen and her lackeys secretly cling to.
Boy Suspended Over Hair
A story has been making news recently about a four-year-old child from suburban Dallas, Texas. Taylor Pugh, also known as Tater Tot, has been suspended from his public school since November because, oh horrors, his hair is too long!
Pugh's parents, however, are heroically refusing to meet the school's demands.
"He's my son. I love him. I will back him to the end," said the boy's father.
Pugh's hair violates the school dress code, which is ridiculous. Just have a look at it for yourself.
- Top and bottom clothing items cannot be the same color.
- Acceptable colors for pants, skirts, short and jumpers are khaki, navy blue or black (solid, single colors)
- Bottom of sweatshirt, sweater or sweater vest may not extend more than 4 inches below the belt.
- Shoes must be solid color brown, black, gray, navy blue or white.
- Undershirts must be white, black, gray or same color as top shirt.
- Shoelaces must be white or match the color of the shoe.
- Hair is to be clean and well groomed.
- Unusual coloring or excessive hairstyles that may include "tails", "designs", "puffs", etc. are prohibited.
Not allowed:
- Zippers, snaps, etc.
- Leather, suede, vinyl, corduroy, denim and knit materials
- Suspenders
- Visible stripes, check or other designs
From this picture I have of Pugh, we can see that his hair barely touches his shoulders, if at all. Taylor Pugh plans to keep growing his hair, despite what the idiots at his school want, so that he can one day get it cut off and donate it to a charity that makes wigs for cancer patients. What kind of assholes are we letting run our schools now? For god's sake, they're preventing people from doing generous things!
It seems that the school boards in suburban Dallas are filled with a bunch of uptight, monocle-wearing snobs. All the school is doing here is forcing traditionalist crap on children, the very same crap that defines what is and is not acceptable for males and females to do. As if there was a big meeting and everyone decided men should be like this and females should be like that. The school's actions are unconstitutional, uncalled for, and they violate Taylor Pugh's right to express his individuality in a manner that doesn't harm anyone. Somebody please go to Texas and ask what happened to individuality and democracy.
School kids, regardless of age, and all those who stand for youth rights should organize themselves in order to fight against the oppression of youth. They should form something along the lines of the Chinese Red Guards, only they should use methods that are more appropriate for their given conditions.
"The young are not our inferiors"- Mao Zedong, Take the Characteristics of Youth Into Consideration, 1953.
Youth liberation NOW!
------
For more information on Texassholes, click here to read another entry that I wrote.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Protest at CIA HQ
There will be a protest at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The protest will take place on Saturday, January 16, 2010. It will be from 1:00 to 4:00 PM. The protest is against American drone attacks on Pakistan. Cindy Sheehan will be there and probably some other speakers.
The exact location for the CIA protest is: RTE 123 between Potomac School Rd and Savile Lane in Langley, VA.
Please spread the world.
For more information, please vist:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=263609450055
The exact location for the CIA protest is: RTE 123 between Potomac School Rd and Savile Lane in Langley, VA.
Please spread the world.
For more information, please vist:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=263609450055
American Drone Attacks
Military technology enthusiasts are always quick to point out the benefit of using drone aircraft. If you don't know what drones are, they are bomber aircraft piloted by a person with a remote control who is far away from his target. Yes, this is safer for the "pilot," but the attacks are often inaccurate.
The vast majority of the people who have been killed by American drone attacks are civilians. This is because the US military uses horrible intelligence to select drone targets. The intelligence the US receives is second and third hand information (hearsay) from tribesmen. Sometimes the tribesmen will give false information to the US in order to trick the military into bombing their rival tribes.
Very few high-profile Taliban militants, as well as other militants, have been killed despite the fact that the US has launched 44 drone attacks in 2009. Of the 44 attacks carried out, only a handful have been acknowledged by the US government. This is due to their no-comment-policy about unsuccessful drone attacks.
The vast majority of the people who have been killed by American drone attacks are civilians. This is because the US military uses horrible intelligence to select drone targets. The intelligence the US receives is second and third hand information (hearsay) from tribesmen. Sometimes the tribesmen will give false information to the US in order to trick the military into bombing their rival tribes.
Very few high-profile Taliban militants, as well as other militants, have been killed despite the fact that the US has launched 44 drone attacks in 2009. Of the 44 attacks carried out, only a handful have been acknowledged by the US government. This is due to their no-comment-policy about unsuccessful drone attacks.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Maoist Economist on Russia Today News
Raymond Lotta, a political economist and Maoist, gave an interview to Russia Today recently. He thinks Americans aren't ready for communism, but that world revolution is still possible. He seems very excitable.
Prachanda Renews Call to Revolt
Hours after agreeing join a high-level political mechanism, which is widely seen as a breakthrough in the efforts to find an outlet to the protracted political impasse, Maoist chairman Prachanda aka Pushpa Kamal Dahal warned that his party would launch 'people's revolt' if the country does not get a new constitution on time and the peace process gets derailed.
Addressing a programme organised by the local civil society in Biratnagar Friday afternoon, Dahal said Nepali people would take to the streets if a scenario, which might derail the peace process and scuttle the constitutional-making drive, is created in the country. He added that the parties should be careful not to invite such a scenario.
The Maoist strongman also raised objection to Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal's statement on Thursday that the Maoists would face the fate of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka if they continued to engage on violence and intimation.Speaking at the same programme, UML chairman Jhala Nath Khanal stressed the need for consensus among the parties to write new constitution and conclude the peace process.
Likewise, Nepali Congress vice-president and parliamentary leader Ram Chandra Poudel said peace process should be the main priority at the moment. Alluding to the recent statements of the Maoist leaders, Poudel maintained that the threat of power capturing and ethnicity-based federalism will not help the peace process.
At the programme the senior leaders of the major parties, who announced the high-level political mechanism from a meeting earlier today, gave their signatures to an appeal of the civil society to the political parties to write the new constitution on time.
Addressing a programme organised by the local civil society in Biratnagar Friday afternoon, Dahal said Nepali people would take to the streets if a scenario, which might derail the peace process and scuttle the constitutional-making drive, is created in the country. He added that the parties should be careful not to invite such a scenario.
The Maoist strongman also raised objection to Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal's statement on Thursday that the Maoists would face the fate of the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka if they continued to engage on violence and intimation.Speaking at the same programme, UML chairman Jhala Nath Khanal stressed the need for consensus among the parties to write new constitution and conclude the peace process.
Likewise, Nepali Congress vice-president and parliamentary leader Ram Chandra Poudel said peace process should be the main priority at the moment. Alluding to the recent statements of the Maoist leaders, Poudel maintained that the threat of power capturing and ethnicity-based federalism will not help the peace process.
At the programme the senior leaders of the major parties, who announced the high-level political mechanism from a meeting earlier today, gave their signatures to an appeal of the civil society to the political parties to write the new constitution on time.
Source: NepalNews.com
US, Holland Spying on Venezuela
Venezuela is now claiming that American spy planes have violated Venezuelan airspace over the past two months. The latest violation occurred on Friday when an American plane was within 300 nautical miles of Venezuelan airspace.
"They are provoking us ... these are warplanes," said Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
The United States is denying that their jets flew into Venezuelan territory. American military officials claim they are unaware of the incident.
Chavez said an American P-3 aircraft that came from American bases in the Netherlands' Caribbean Islands came into Venezuelan airspace on Friday. Chavez reportedly sent two F-16's to try to intercept the P-3.
"We're not inventing anything when we say the government of Holland must assume their responsibilities," Chavez said.
"We are here ready to defend Venezuela's sovereignty. ... We accuse the governments of the United States and Holland of launching provocative actions against Venezuela, to find an excuse to attack Venezuela."
The Netherlands (Holland) is also denying all responsibility.
Chavez also claims that American spy aircraft came in from Colombia. This makes sense since the US recently made a new military base deal with Colombia that would aid American military intelligence.
For more information on the American bases in Colombia, click here.
"They are provoking us ... these are warplanes," said Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
The United States is denying that their jets flew into Venezuelan territory. American military officials claim they are unaware of the incident.
Chavez said an American P-3 aircraft that came from American bases in the Netherlands' Caribbean Islands came into Venezuelan airspace on Friday. Chavez reportedly sent two F-16's to try to intercept the P-3.
"We're not inventing anything when we say the government of Holland must assume their responsibilities," Chavez said.
"We are here ready to defend Venezuela's sovereignty. ... We accuse the governments of the United States and Holland of launching provocative actions against Venezuela, to find an excuse to attack Venezuela."
The Netherlands (Holland) is also denying all responsibility.
Chavez also claims that American spy aircraft came in from Colombia. This makes sense since the US recently made a new military base deal with Colombia that would aid American military intelligence.
For more information on the American bases in Colombia, click here.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Tough Job Losses for US in Late 2009
Employers have lost around 85,000 American jobs in the December of 2009. The unemployment rate stayed at 10%, but only because more and more American workers are leaving the labor force, giving up the job search, because they can't find work. 661,000 people gave up looking for jobs in December.
When discouraged workers and part-time workers can't find better jobs, they are considered "underemployed." The underemployment rate rose to 17.3% in December. These past few months have seen the highest underemployment rates since 1994.
"One word sums it up: Disappointment," said Credit Suisse economist Jonathan Basile.
Revisions show that 16,000 more jobs than previously estimated were lost in the October of 2009. Participation in the labor force fell to 64.6% in December, the lowest since 1985 when conservative hero Ronald Reagan was ruining the economy.
Employers cut 4.2 million jobs in 2009. Nearly 15.3 million people are unemployed, with an increase of 3.9 million during 2009.
"The economy is in a rough situation," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told the Associated Press.
When Stalin ran the USSR, the employment rate went up and so did the growth rate of the Soviet economy. There was work for everyone, none of this standing on the corner and begging crap. You didn't have to get on your hands and knees and beg some capitalist manager to allow you to provide for your family like you must do in the US. Only communism can solve the unemployment problem of America, as well as that of the world.
When discouraged workers and part-time workers can't find better jobs, they are considered "underemployed." The underemployment rate rose to 17.3% in December. These past few months have seen the highest underemployment rates since 1994.
"One word sums it up: Disappointment," said Credit Suisse economist Jonathan Basile.
Revisions show that 16,000 more jobs than previously estimated were lost in the October of 2009. Participation in the labor force fell to 64.6% in December, the lowest since 1985 when conservative hero Ronald Reagan was ruining the economy.
Employers cut 4.2 million jobs in 2009. Nearly 15.3 million people are unemployed, with an increase of 3.9 million during 2009.
"The economy is in a rough situation," Labor Secretary Hilda Solis told the Associated Press.
When Stalin ran the USSR, the employment rate went up and so did the growth rate of the Soviet economy. There was work for everyone, none of this standing on the corner and begging crap. You didn't have to get on your hands and knees and beg some capitalist manager to allow you to provide for your family like you must do in the US. Only communism can solve the unemployment problem of America, as well as that of the world.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Did the Nepali Maoists Ban Strikes?
Did the Nepali Maoists ban strikes? Are they against strikes? Find out by watching this video.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Josip Broz Tito and Yugoslavia (in Russian)
К моему несчастью, мне удалось заметить, что многие из наших товарищей в Восточной Европе восхваляют Иосипа Броз Тито, бывшего всевдо-коммунистического лидера полу-социалистической Югославии. С помощью этой статьи я хочу напомнить им обо всех тех преступлениях и ошибках, которые сделал Тито. Да, Тито сделал много хороших вещей в жизни. И борьба против фашизма одна из них. Но мало говориться о недостойных вещах которые он сделал. Статья служит так же для напоминания буржуазным патриотам наций НАТО о преступных действиях их стран в Европе.
Тито голосовал за империалистическое вмешательство в дела Кореи и даже рассматривал возможность отсылки солдат в помощь Американской стороне вести войну против Корейской стороны. Тито балканским пактом примкнул к НАТО. Под руководством Тито, Югославия поддерживала самые реакционные режимы, заявляя при этом, что они “недружественные” (Mavrakis, 184)
Тито голосовал за империалистическое вмешательство в дела Кореи и даже рассматривал возможность отсылки солдат в помощь Американской стороне вести войну против Корейской стороны. Тито балканским пактом примкнул к НАТО. Под руководством Тито, Югославия поддерживала самые реакционные режимы, заявляя при этом, что они “недружественные” (Mavrakis, 184)
Наши китайские товарищи пишут в 1965 году:
“Революция в Греции. 10 июля 1949 года Тито объявил о закрытии государственной границы Югославии для народных партизан Греции. В то же время он позволил греческой монархо-фашистской армии пройти через югославскую территорию для нанесения удара в спину народным партизанам Греции. Так титовская клика помогла американо-английскому империализму задушить народную революцию в Греции.” [1] Это случилось после разрыва дипломатических отношений Югославии с Советским Союзом в 1949г.
Тито заявил в “New York Herald Tribune” американской газете: “в случае атаки со стороны Советов где либо в Европе даже если выпад будет далек от Югославской границы, Югославия незамедлительно примет сторону Запада. Югославия обозначила себя как часть единой стены безопасности построенной против Советского империализма”. Кто же строил эту стену? Империалисты НАТО, вот кто! (Klugmann, 98)
Британский лидер Черчилль принял меры для того чтобы Тито был на стороне капитализма.
В мемуарах Черчилля записано обещание Тито: “коммунизм не будет принят в Югославии после войны[Второй Мировой]”. “Тито однажды сказал Черчиллю, “Сейчас я понимаю, что Вы были правы, поэтому я с Вами. Вы мне приятны даже больше, чем были раньше” (Э. Ходжа, 54)
Американские империалисты всё чаще помогали Титовской Югославии экономически, военно-политически и идеологически. Эта помощь была дана с тем условием, что Тито выведет Югославию на дорогу дружественную капитализму, при этом сохранив, только лишь с виду, социалистическую систему (Hoxha, 54-55). Инвестиции, кредиты и займы хлынули в Югославию из капиталистического мира. Только США выделили 7 миллиардов долларов кредитом. Югославский долг другим странам исчислялся 11-ю миллиардами долларов. В то время это были более значимые суммы, чем сейчас. Под руководством Тито, Югославия выступала совладельцем иностранных капиталистических фирм. При Тито цены повышались каждый день, была массовая безработица и миграция рабочей силы (Hoxha, 59-60).
Политика Тито сделала Югославию беднее большинства индустриализированных стран Запада, и сделала Югославию зависимой от поддержки иностранных империалистов (plp.org).
Буржуазный журнал Business Week однажды провозгласил: “доказано, что эта поддержка Тито является самым дешевым, из существующих, способом сдерживания Русского Коммунизма.”
Тито разрешил свободную покупку/продажу земли, и дал свободному рынку разрастись в городах и селах. Это усилило капиталистический характер Югославии. Титовская политика самоуправления принесла в Югославскую экономику хаос. Она ставила одну часть рабочего класса в конкуренцию другой части и как следствие принесла несбалансированное развитие республик и регионов. Эта политика являлась причиной национальных конфликтов и сильных классовых различий(Hoxha, 58).
Александр Клиффорд, корреспондент Daily Mail, написал об экономических реформах принятых Тито в 1951: “Югославия выглядит намного менее “социализировано” чем Британия: цена товаров... определена рынком, а именно – спросом и предложением; заработная плата... установлена на основе дохода или выручки предприятия ; экономические организации, которые решают сами что производить и в каком количестве; не так то и много классического Марксизма во всем этом.” (Klugmann, 150)
В Июне 1948, Информбюро Компартий, включающее восемь разных партий, опубликовало резолюцию, критикующую Югославскую партию. Эта резолюция подчеркивала, что Тито не принимал во внимание усиление классовых различий в селах и деревнях, как и усиление элементов капитализма в стране, в целом.
Тито начал массовую чистку Югославии после того как Информбюро раскритиковала его.
Он посадил в тюрьму, по меньшей мере 200.000 человек, поддержавших эту критику.
(Klugmann, 43, 143)
По утверждению Тито, Лига Коммунистов Югославии играла только образовательную роль. Она избавилась от демократического централизма, и перестала быть авангардом рабочего класса.
Это прямой отход от Марксизма-Ленинизма, несмотря на заверения Югославских ревизионистов. (Hoxha, 56-57). Это и неудивительно, ведь десятки тысяч классовых представителей буржуазии, мелкой буржуазии и кулачества вступили в партию Тито во время войны против нацизма (Klugmann, 13). Партия полностью прогнила изнутри.
Источники:
Является ли Югославия социалистической страной?
Третья статья по поводу открытого
письма ЦК КПСС (26 сентября 1963 г.)
“On Trotskyism: Problems of Theory and History” by Kostas Mavrakis (recommended read)
“Imperialism and the Revolution” by Enver Hoxha (World View Publications, 1979)
“From Trotsky to Tito” by James Klugmann
Business Week,
http://www.plp.org/cd95/cd1220.html
Friday, January 1, 2010
Former CIA Agent Says Afghan War is For Oil, Not Freedom
During an interview with Press TV, former CIA agent Ray McGovern said that the Afghan Taliban does not pose a threat to American national security.
In reference to an attack against an American base in Afghanistan on Wednesday, which killed seven CIA agents, McGovern said the agents should not have been there in the first place. McGovern said that CIA operatives are in Afghanistan only because the US wants to build an oil pipeline to transport oil from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan.
The former CIA man came to his conclusions through documents he had received from the Enron Corporation, which planned on building an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The US Defense Department’s 1992 “Defense Planning Guidance,” written by Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad under the direction of then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, said that the US should gain further control over Persian Gulf oil. George W. Bush approved 40 million dollars in financial aid to Taliban-led Afghanistan in May 2001. He hoped this would bring the Taliban closer to the American line so the US could get cheaper oil. When this didn't work, a plan to invade Afghanistan hit Bush's desk on September 10, 2001. The war in Afghanistan wasn't over 9/11, it was over oil, and it was planned in advance.
In reference to an attack against an American base in Afghanistan on Wednesday, which killed seven CIA agents, McGovern said the agents should not have been there in the first place. McGovern said that CIA operatives are in Afghanistan only because the US wants to build an oil pipeline to transport oil from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan.
The former CIA man came to his conclusions through documents he had received from the Enron Corporation, which planned on building an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The US Defense Department’s 1992 “Defense Planning Guidance,” written by Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby and Zalmay Khalilzad under the direction of then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, said that the US should gain further control over Persian Gulf oil. George W. Bush approved 40 million dollars in financial aid to Taliban-led Afghanistan in May 2001. He hoped this would bring the Taliban closer to the American line so the US could get cheaper oil. When this didn't work, a plan to invade Afghanistan hit Bush's desk on September 10, 2001. The war in Afghanistan wasn't over 9/11, it was over oil, and it was planned in advance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
