Globalist Imperial Network

As explained by a globalist.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand July 30, 2011 - The mechanics of world empire, in particular the current corporate-financier oligarchy has been examined in great detail. The US State Department, supporting NGOs funded directly by both US taxpayers' money as well as funds from the Fortune 500 corporations they serve, alone constitute a global spanning, incessantly meddling homogeneous network working to undermine both personal and national sovereignty while replacing national governments around the world.

Photo: Globalist warmongering degenerate Anne-Marie Slaughter makes her rounds at the Fortune 500-funded Chatham House. She is the author of the book "A New World Order" and believes foreign policy should be shifted into the unelected, unaccountable hands of corporations, foundations, and NGOs.
....

This is far from a conspiracy theory - it is stated fact admitted to by the US State Department itself who regularly announces its funding of subversive activities around the globe from training, equipping, and funding hordes of youth activists years before the "Arab Spring" unfolded, to helping dupes in China circumvent national cyber defenses, to forming brigades of youth fodder to take to the streets in Belarus and Malaysia, to propping up pro-globalist propaganda outlets like Prachatai in Thailand.

Perhaps sensing that the secrecy and public ignorance the global elite have been operating behind for decades is now fading, globalist footstool and degenerate warmonger Anne-Marie Slaughter has written a sweeping essay openly admitting "foreign policy" is moving beyond governments and being put into the hands of unelected organizations, corporations, NGOs, and "social movements." By social movements, Slaughter cites and apparently is referring to the "Arab Spring" which is on record the result of US meddling and organizing, and nothing close to resembling true grassroots activism. It is merely the latest trick out of the social engineering, human exploitation, propagandist playbook.

Slaughter's admissions should send shivers down the spines of anyone who believes in a constitutional representative government, personal and national sovereignty, and freedom in general - for the world Slaughter proposes is one run by unaccountable, self-appointed arbiters, the likes of which have been covered ad nauseum within these pages. Self-serving hypocrisy has already rendered contrived institutions like the International Criminal Court illegitimate, as it turns its head at documented war crimes committed by Libyan rebels while pursuing in earnest cases against Libya's Qaddafi based on evidence not even collected within the nation itself.

As we peel back the layers of Slaughter's vision of the "new foreign policy frontier," we see nearly every institution, organization, NGO, or consortium mentioned lined with Fortune 500 corporate sponsors and representatives pursing an agenda of global economic and military hegemony. No one would suggest that manipulating people on a massive scale, leveraging legitimate ideals such as democracy, human rights, or freedom to further a corporate-financier oligarchy's agenda constitutes anything progressive, nonetheless, Slaughter seems to believe this is not only the future of foreign policy, but an appropriate future at that.


Image
: The cover of globalist, degenerate warmonger Anne-Marie Slaughter's book "A New World Order." Slaughter believes the future belongs to "global networks" which upon closer examination are all chaired, funded, and directed by the Fortune 500.
....

It should be noted that Slaughter has sat upon the boards of Fortune 500 corporations McDonald's and Citigroup as well as a Council on Foreign Relations board member. She is the author of a book literally titled, "A New World Order" whose catch line is "Global governance is here." In it she argues that such governance is done through "a complex global web of government networks." Upon examination it is obvious to anyone who looks into these "networks" that they represent the Fortune 500, answer to no one, and apply the rule of law as an arbitrary reflection of their self-serving interests subject to change upon a political whim. Despite Slaughter's enthusiasm for a "New World Order," in reality it is the recipe for a corporate fascist planetary regime and constitutes the greatest threat to humanity.

The New Foreign Policy Frontier

Slaughter begins a recent Atlantic article titled "The New Foreign Policy Frontier" by citing "corporations, foundations, NGOs, universities, think tanks, churches, civic groups, political activists, Facebook groups, and others" as the new frontier of foreign policy. She then goes on to state that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "insists that 21st century diplomacy must not only be government to government, but also government to society and society to society, in a process facilitated and legitimated by government." Slaughter continues by saying, "that much broader concept opens the door to a do-it-yourself foreign policy, in which individuals and groups can invent and execute an idea -- for good or ill -- that can affect their own and other countries in ways that once only governments could."

And it is through this door Slaughter describes that "groups," or more specifically corporations, along with their myriad of contrived, disingenuous NGOs, foundations, "charities," and media outfits go about circumventing both domestic and foreign national laws as well as the will of people across the planet to execute their agenda, including free trade and wars of aggression.

Slaughter mentions a myriad of these corporate-funded entities including the Council on Foreign Relations, Google Ideas, US State Department's Movements.org, and the corporate-funded Personal Democracy Forum. She also mentions Jared Cohen, utterly unfazed by the monumental conflict of interest represented by his revolving in and out of the US State Department, Fortune 500 corporations like Google, and fringe organizations like Movements.org that criminally combine corporate agendas with US taxpayers' money to meddle in the sovereign affairs of foreign nations. While Slaughter maintains that these unelected corporate funded organizations are more efficient than governments, she fails to highlight that they are unelected and unaccountable. She also fails to mention what motivates corporations to expend resources on circumventing elected governments to pursue "society to society" efforts.

Slaughter goes on to use the "Arab Spring" as proof positive the new foreign policy paradigm is effective. She mentions her two days spent at the corporate-funded Personal Democracy Forum, which included bloggers and organizers from the contrived "Arab Spring." She notes that other participants included "government officials, corporate executives, and the civic sector." She claims the six months of unrest in the streets as a result of this "new foreign policy" has accomplished more than 30 years of traditional "foreign policy."

Why do corporations like Google, Pepsi, British Petroleum, Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Exxon, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs care about "democracy" in the Middle East? Slaughter never seems to get around to answering this question. A thorough examination of the "Arab Spring," its sponsorship, and the resulting mayhem and wall-to-wall exploitation being attempted clears up any doubt as to the summation of Slaughter's acclaimed "New World Order." It is a parasitic modern day empire spreading its influence, consolidating its power, and deposing all competition to its existence. It is the logical progression of the British Empire and American "Manifest Destiny" combined in a modern day transatlantic, corporate-financier oligarchy.

Arab Spring: New Foreign Policy/Neo-Imperialism in Action

Slaughter's legitimacy stumbles not only because she is a degenerate warmongering corporate fascist who has spent a lifetime in the service of a global corporate-financier oligarchy, it stumbles also because of her poor choice of examples used to sell her concept of "global governance." She believes that "Build Local, Go Global and Change the World" represents the new 21st century activist mantra - however when foreign money representing nefarious corporate agendas are doing the building locally, using their vast media empire to spread it globally and "change the world" it would be difficult to label it as an "activist mantra." It more clearly resembles an imperialist mantra of using duped activists.

Take for example the Egyptian April 6 Movement. It was in New York City as early as 2008 receiving training and an opportunity to "network" at the US State Department sponsored Alliance for Youth Movements (AYM) summit. In 2009, the April 6 Movement then attended training at the US-created CANVAS organization in Serbia before returning to Egypt to partake in the year-long run up to the revolution led by International Crisis Group trustee Mohamed ElBaradei and his "National Front for Change." In fact, April 6 Movement members attempted to welcome ElBaradei when he first returned to Egypt back in February, 2010, almost a full year before the "Arab Spring" would even begin.


Image: Alliance for Youth Movements boasts major corporate support, as well as a partnership with the US State Department. The organization was contrived solely to foment unrest throughout target nations.

....

The US State Department backed by Fortune 500 corporations literally held the Egyptian opposition's hand for years walking them through their "revolution." With an overt US stooge, Mohamed ElBaradei leading them and still to this day attempting to worm his way into Egypt's presidency, the victory is neither the "Egyptian people's" nor "democracy's," but rather the victory of corporations and their interests within the strategically located, 80 million strong nation. Nothing could be more damning of the Egyptian revolution and its final results than the victory lap John McCain, chairman of the International Republican Institute cited by the New York Times as being instrumental in executing the "Arab Spring," conducted with Fortune 500 industry magnates at his side. The June 2010 trip served as an opportunity for these corporate interests, the chief sponsors behind the training and organizing of ElBaradei's army of dupes, to size up assets they soon hope to roll into their financial empires as well as to promote "private sector growth."

This is surely not what the Egyptian youth had in mind - surely it is not in their best interest to be exposed to the parasitic corporate fascists currently bankrupting every nation from North America to Europe. However their ignorance, short-sightedness, and immense naivety allowed this nefarious global network to manipulate and mislead them, their nation, their entire future into the shackles of modern day imperialism.

Conclusion

This nefarious global network is precisely what Slaughter is promoting in her writings, constituting what she admittedly calls a "New World Order" for enabling global governance. For those that take the time to examine who is behind the "NGOs, universities, think tanks, churches, civic groups, political activists, Facebook groups" Slaughter refers to, they will find corporations like Exxon, Dyncorp, Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Rothschild, Halliburton, Bechtel, BP, and many others.

Could anyone seriously accept corporations that are responsible for the worst chapters in modern human history as the architects of a system of global governance and ultimately our future? With the power and wealth they wield, how would they be held accountable? They have the ability to literally buy politicians on both sides of every election from one side of the planet to the other with bottom-lines that eclipse many national GDPs - they do so in a process that is streamlined with the creation of supranational entities like the European Union, North American Union, ASEAN and others. Already the EU is proclaiming dictates each member state is beholden to, with supranational law superseding national and local laws.

It is a bleak future indeed, one where true freedom is replaced with the mere illusion of it. Pragmatism and self-reliance is replaced with trips to the ballot box to pick from a variety of bought-off, ineffectual, self-serving crooks serving a degenerate global oligarchy.

Policy is already being produced not by the people but by corporate-funded think-tanks that then market it to the public through their control of the mainstream media. Their system is refined down to a science - their system is now merely being replicated, nation to nation. The solution to this problem is obvious. If the power truly lies with these corporations, the very foundation upon which Slaughter's "New World Order" rests, undermining these corporations through full-spectrum boycotts and the systematic replacement of their goods and services on a local level shifts that power back into the people's hands - pragmatically, not politically. It is a solution as elegant as it is simple and one that is impossible to commandeer as the globalists have done with so many attempted political solutions in the past.

There is no doubt now, with daily affirmations coming from the global elite themselves that their "New World Order" is coming. There is no doubt, as exemplified in Libya, that they are willing to murder on vast scales to eliminate any obstruction to their designs. There is no doubt, after the corporate-financiers have just helped themselves to trillions of taxpayers's dollars to cover their collapsing pyramid schemes that they are far from the progressive "international order" they claim to represent. There is no doubt that now is the time to act. There is absolutely no justification for buying another Pepsi, Coke, Big Mac, or Starbucks and further empowering this modern day empire. What we have been taught are the features of a civilized society are in fact the padded, gilded shackles of our enslavement. There is absolutely nothing the global corporatocracy can do that people can't do better locally. The only barrier is ambition, education, and a shift in our collective paradigm to see ourselves, not some elected savior, as the ultimate solution to our problems.

The fulfillment of Slaughter's depraved vision of the future rests entirely in our hands. It will be determined day by day, depending on how we choose to spend our resources, time, attention, and energy. The simple decision to buy or produce locally rather than patronize Walmart, Starbucks, or any number of other globalist consumer feeding troughs as an individual may seem futile, but a shift in our collective actions and paradigm will undoubtedly derail this ignoble future that awaits us.

For more on the illegitimate parasites that constitute the "international community" and how to remove them, please read the follow:

Globalists' Australian Nexus
Big Oil's Tree Huggers: Harvard's Belfer Center
Naming Names: Your Real Government
Wisdom from the Orient: Self-Sufficiency
Self-Sufficiency: A Universal Solution to the Globalist Problem

Belarus Under Siege

Joint Onslaught by US and Russian Oligarchs

by Michèle Brand


On June 29 and 30, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Vilnius, Lithuania to participate in a meeting of the “Community of Democracies” and to visit one of the many US-funded international “tech camps.” These camps host “civil society” (i.e.opposition) activists from various nations whose governments the US doesn’t appreciate, and teach them internet and social network organizing skills to be used toward fostering, in official words, “democratic transition,” or more correctly, color revolutions and regime change. According to the AP, “Much of the democracy meeting’s opening day dealt with the new mechanics of protest, such as social media networks.” During her visit Clinton stated that “The United States has invested $50 million in supporting internet freedom and we’ve trained more than 5,000 activists worldwide.” This is of course in addition to the hundreds of millions that the US spends in other ways attempting to destabilize its enemies and to force “democratic transitions.”

The choice of Vilnius was not by chance: it lies 30 kilometers from the Belarusian border. This tech camp is hosting 85 activists from the region, “primarily from Belarus.” Belarus is currently being targeted by a concerted effort towards an orange revolution, financed and remote-controlled by the West. Simultaneously, the country is being subjected to a relatively new pressure from the East: certain Russian elements have apparently decided that Belarus and its profitable state-owned enterprises should belong to them, and are contributing in their own way to the effort to destabilize the government.

I’ve just returned to Paris from a second extended trip to Belarus. Western media faithfully relay the monstrous picture of Belarus that our governments want to convey, and so I’d like to report on the situation in this little-known country, and encourage others to visit it in order to experience for themselves the Belarusian culture, economy, hospitality and character. Among other visits I attended an international conference on the resistance to Nazi fascism, in Brest on June 22, the 70th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. In a country which lost between a third and a quarter of its population during the war, the memory of the ravages of foreign attacks and the heroism of those who resisted it is very strong and alive. Located dangerously between Europe and Russia, entirely flat and endowed with few natural resources, Belarus has fought hard to build a successful independent state. It is not inclined to lose its sovereignty now.

The United States and other Western countries have been attacking the government of President Alexander Lukashenko ever since it refused to follow the path of the other ex-Soviet countries in the 1990s, which famously sold off the state-owned industries to oligarchs, destroyed the social protection system and allowed kleptocratic mafia capitalism to take over. Under Lukashenko, Belarus has developped gradually into a strong socially-oriented market economy with the highest growth rate in the CIS even during its current financial troubles (according to the CIS Interstate Statistical Committee, between January and April 2011 Belarusian industry grew 12.9% year-on-year), while still maintaining its free health care, job protection, social services, retirement programs, low unemployment, state-subsidized housing and utilities, and high level of education. This is one reason why the country is naturally in the line of fire of the West, whose bankrupt governments are now obsessively telling their citizens that “there is no alternative”: we must drastically decrease or kill pensions and other social programs, fire government employees, flexibilize the work force, privatize education, health care, infrastructure and everything possible, etc. etc. Located just next door to crisis-stricken Europe, Belarus is more than a thorn in its side; it is living proof that European and American neoliberal propaganda is only lies.

This seems to be one reason that the attacks against the Belarusian economic model and its government have recently gone into higher gear. Its economy is an isolated pocket of export-oriented production next to the Western economies of consumption. Belarus was the most highly industrialized area in the Soviet Union, manufacturing machines, petroleum and chemical products for the whole Soviet sphere and receiving its energy and raw materials from the East. 75% of the economy is exports; 80% is state-owned production, and there are many public-private partnerships. Smaller businesses are mainly private. The country has recently benefitted from a good deal of foreign investment, for example from China, which has invested in infrastructure projects and with whom Belarus has a unique commercial credit swap program. GDP grew 7.6% in 2010. Signs of growth are to be seen everywhere, much more so than during my first visit to the country two years ago, and the skyline of Minsk is dotted with cranes.

The first impression one has of Belarus is how clean it is -- there’s hardly a cigarette butt on the street -- and the second is the immense number of trees and parks in the cities. (The third might be, depending on whether one had presuppositions about the country being a late Soviet backwater, the modern cars, cell phones and cosmopolitan way of life of its citizens.) Belarusian cuisine is healthy and delicious; agricultural products are local, low-chemical and inexpensive. The food distribution system is not parasited by rapacious large private distributors. The tomatoes are actually red inside and have a real tomato flavor, not whitish inside and tasteless like in the West. The country’s Gini coefficient, measuring income equality, is excellent (29.7, much better than France or the US, or its neighbors Russia and Poland). The country is attracting immigrants from other CIS states who are fleeing their countries’ corruption, crime and drugs in favor of Belarus’ low crime, low unemployment, social services, clean streets and green cities.

These are some of the reasons that the government of President Lukashenko is genuinely popular among the majority of Belarusians, who naturally compare their society’s development over 20 years to that of their neighbors. And it is this popularity that poses a problem for the West and its desire for “democratic” regime change.

Western governments claim that the presidential election of last December 19 was fraudulent, and use this to justify their recent round of attacks. I have spoken with a number of international observers of that election who affirm that they saw no fraud or irregularities, and exit polls confirmed that the majority of Belarusians voted to reelect President Lukashenko. One such report can be read here: http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir12312010.html. The CIS observers reported that they had witnessed a fair election, while the OSCE, predictably, stated the opposite. The selective coverage of this election in Western media is astounding, and to understand the events I recommend this short documentary: “Ploshcha: Beating Glass with Iron” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFKHrZPfCqg).

For about a month before the election the major opposition candidates were spending more time calling on their supporters to protest in a central square in Minsk on the evening of the election, than on campaigning in a normal way by outlining their policies and calling on people to vote. On the evening of the election at around 7:00, before voting stations had closed and well before the results were announced, the opposition groups rallied in October Square in Minsk, the traditional place for demonstrations, flying the blue European flag and the red and white former Belarusian flag, symbol of the opposition. Then the presidential candidates called on their supporters to head to the central government building “and ask them to vacate the offices,” and led a crowd of around 7,000 to Independence Square, just in front of the Parliament. It should be said in passing that out of 1.3 million voters in Minsk, this is a small number. Opposition candidates proceded to announce that they contested the election results and to proclaim they were forming a new government, the “government of rescue,” reading a printed statement clearly prepared in advance, before results were announced. The police did not interfere with the rally until a large group of well-prepared individuals forcibly tried to enter the Parliament building, using metal rods and shovels. It could have been worse: in the weeks before the election, Belarusian border authorities had seized a number of cargoes of metal rods, grenades, knives, guns, and explosives. The police intervened and prevented what was clearly an attempt at a coup d’état, following the pattern used in the “tulip revolution” in Kyrgyzstan in 2005. Opposition representatives later claimed that the attack on the Parliament was done by government provocateurs, but many of those arrested and / or filmed trying to break into the Parliament were identified as having relations with various opposition groups.

The goal was apparently twofold: either seize power by occupying the buildings, or if not, at least get international media footage of combat between police and protesters, preferably with blood. Though there were no major injuries, the second goal was obtained since now Western governments and media call this a “violent crackdown” on an opposition rally, and accuse the government of breaching human rights. The hypocrisy of the West, who (with Russia) paid for the campaigns of much of the Belarusian opposition, and who try to foster a “democratic” transition by violently overturning a democratic electoral process, is extraordinary. As many know well, the US has no lessons to give on human rights. I have directly experienced the way in which the US police protect the human rights of non-violent protesters, for example on April 16, 2000 in front of the Treasury building in Washington, when riot cops violently dispersed a group of non-violent activists sitting in the street to protest the policies of the World Bank and IMF, and a young man near me who couldn’t crawl away fast enough had 3 ribs broken by a riot cop’s bludgeon. It seems that the Belarusian police, given the destruction of government property and attempt to take over Parliament, were very restrained. The people still imprisoned after the events of December 19, including 3 ex-candidates, were convicted of participation in or instigation of the riot. Imagine the reaction if a similar event had taken place at the Capitol building.

Many of the ex-presidential candidates (there were 10 candidates in all) have well-documented relations with the West, which isn’t surprising given the millions that the US and Europe spend on “democratic transition” in the country. They generally call for privatization of state enterprises, liberalization of the economy and adhesion to NATO. A number of them have spent time studying regime change at the George C. Marshall Center European Center for Security Studies in Germany, a partnership between the US military (US European Command) and the German government, which, according to the US embassy in Minsk, hosts 25 Belarusians per year. Since 2001, the US has enacted a series of Belarus Democracy Acts, applying economic sanctions, visa blacklists and asset freezes on government-related people and companies, and providing tens of millions of dollars per year for the promotion of “democracy.” In February of this year, citing the recent elections, the US State Department announced an increase of its “democracy assistance” to Belarusian civil society by 30% to $15 million for the year. In 2009, the National Endowment for Democracy gave $2.7 million to finance Belarusian “independent” media, civil society (promoting “democratic ideas and values... and a market economy”), NGOs and political groups. A Wikileaks cable (VILNIUS 000732, dated June 12, 2005) confirmed money smuggling into Belarus on the part of USAID contractors, though such proof is hardly necessary. Also in February, the EU, individual European countries, Canada and the US put together a “war chest” of 87 million euros aiming toward regime change in Belarus. With so much money being offered to anyone who wants a job as an activist, it’s not hard to find takers. Youth who run into trouble are offered free education in the West. There is evidence that many of those who partook in the violent acts of the night of December 19th were paid for their participation, by either Western or Russian elements.

For the West is not the only source of financing, nor of interventionist pressure. One of the most important ex-candidates was financed by the Russians. While Western pressure is a known quantity in Belarus, Russian attempts at destabilization are relatively new. Russian oligarchs have been ogling the profitable Belarusian state enterprises, and since the government has historically refused to sell them, the Russian kleptocracy has begun to try to topple Lukashenko. The Russian media have begun a concerted campaign against the Belarusian government, airing pro-opposition documentaries and indulging in smearing and misinformation. Russian operatives are now making inroads; on the Minsk-Moscow highway, my Belarusian friend pointed out the expensive Russian cars with tinted black windows heading into Minsk. Russian oil prices have risen sharply -- 30% in January -- and the price of natural gas imported from Russia has quadrupled in four years. Although the economy has diversified since independence, it is still reliant on importing energy and raw materials for its production. The hike in energy and commodity prices has had a harsh impact in Belarus, where the cost of energy now makes up 78 cents of every dollar of goods produced. High commodity prices explain the trade deficit despite strong industrial and export growth.

In January of this year, at the same time that the Russians severely raised oil prices, Belarus was subjected to a major speculative attack on its currency. The Russians control 37% of the country’s banking sector, and according to analysts in Minsk, early this year Russian banks started to sell off their Belarusian rubles. In January, 50 times more foreign currency was bought with Belarusian rubles than in December, and that pattern continued in February and March. This sparked the effect desired: inflation of 33% in the first half of the year, general panic and a run on the bank where people tried to convert their Belarusian rubles into dollars or gold. The central bank was obliged to devalue the Belarusian ruble by 36%. The government has not printed currency, contrary to some media reports. The speculative attacks have not been covered in the news; Ria Novosti for example typically stated that “the Belarusian ruble collapsed in the first five months of the year as the result of a large trade deficit, generous wage increases and loans granted by the government ahead of the December 2010 presidential elections, which spurred strong demand for foreign currency.” But the trade deficit is not new and would not itself spark a currency collapse, while wage increases or loans would not logically provoke a demand for foreign currency.

According to Minsk residents, the main problem this Spring has not been a lack of products on the shelves, as one reads in the West, but rising prices, a shortage of foreign currency and hoarding, which has somewhat disrupted the supply chain. When I was there in mid-late June, the shelves were fully stocked, the stores and markets were full of shoppers and there were no lines at gas stations, contrary to what Western media have been reporting. Inflation is apparently stabilizing now. Protests on the Western borders by cross-border traders have been widely covered by Western media who are seeking signs of unrest, but who rarely show that the traffic of cheap Belarusian products and gasoline for sale at a profit in the West is a practice that is harmful for the Belarusian economy, especially in the context of the current economic difficulties. This is why the government recently limited such border crossings to once every 5 days (formerly traders would often go 5 times per day) and to limit the products that can be individually exported. The scarcity of foreign currency explains the late payment of bills to the Russian electricity supplier (which demands payment in dollars), prompting it to temporarily halt delivery of electricity to Belarus a number of times recently. This strong-arming, reported extensively in the international press, is more bark than bite since Russia only provides around 12% of Belarusian electricity and there have been no blackouts.

Because of the spiraling Belarusian ruble, the government has had to seek foreign loans. It has appealed to the IMF for a loan of $8 billion, though the IMF replied on June 13 that a loan would come with the usual strings attached -- structural adjustment programs, privatizations, a freeze on salaries, letting the Belarusian ruble float, etc. The IMF admonishes the government that it has not yet enacted similar conditions that were set with the last loan it received in 2009 during the world financial crisis; for example, a government agency to oversee privatizations was created but no privatizations carried out. On the other hand, it was rarely reported that the IMF also hailed measures by Belarus' government to end the country's financial crisis, for example raising interest rates and supporting the unemployed and poor.

Whether the country will get an IMF loan or not, the traditional refusal to privatize is now ending, since the country was granted a $3 billion emergency loan from the Russian-controlled Eurasian Economic Community, which also had strings attached for the privatization of $7.5 billion of state enterprises over 3 years. This is part of what the Russian oligarchs have been working toward. The first disbursement of this loan, $800 million, was released on June 21, putting an end to the immediate financial problems. However, the Russians may not be getting the cheap deals they had wanted, nor will they necessarily be the beneficiaries of the privatizations. The actual sales and IPOs are in negotiation, and President Lukashenko has been very clear that by Belarusian law, privatizations of state enterprises must follow strict conditions. On June 17th, he stated, “The conditions have been spelt out: the company should develop, it should not be closed, the workers' pay should increase each year, they should be protected socially and, most importantly, the company should be modernized. That is, if you come and buy it, you should invest in its development.” On June 30, Venezuela, with whom Belarus has close economic and diplomatic ties (among other agreements, Venezuela has provided oil to Belarus), announced its interest in acquiring shares in Belarusian state companies. Analysts in Minsk say that the country is reorienting itself away from Russia and toward China. An IPO on foreign stock exchanges of a minority stake in the huge state potash and fertilizer company, Belaruskali, is in preparation, and the national gas pipeline will most likely be sold to Gazprom. Other state enterprises are on the block, and the future is unknown; but President Lukashenko stated recently that “I would like to give you firm assurances that we will not accept risky experiments or an unacceptable lowering of living standards. We will continue implementing a Belarusian economic model, which has proved to be stable under different and complex circumstances for over 15 years.”

The economy seems to be showing signs of stabilizing now. Despite the recent financial troubles, Belarus’ debt remains at an impressively low level: including the recent loan, public debt will not exceed 45% of GDP, including both domestic and foreign public debt. The foreign debt ceiling is 25% of GDP. The government has reported a slight trade surplus of $116 million in May, apparently because of import restrictions enacted this Spring. The finance ministry has recently lowered its 2011 GDP growth forecast to 4.5% and the World Bank has recently lowered it to 2.5%; at even 2.5%, the economy is clearly resisting. The World Bank added that the Belarusian economic model isn’t viable; rather it should be more concerned with the US model of credit-based consumption and skyrocketing foreign debt.

In June, coinciding with these financial problems, Western governments returned to the attack, as though to take advantage of the momentum to destabilize the Belarusian government. On June 14, President Obama renewed and reinforced US sanctions against the country, declaring a “national emergency” (that is, for the US, not Belarus) and citing, incredibly, “the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States” that Belarus constitutes. The only way in which he may be right is simply in that the success of the Belarusian economic model constitutes a threat to neoliberal dogma. It is also possible that for Obama the country represents a “threat” to US foreign policy by being located next to Russia, and it may be caught within escalating US and Russian tensions over NATO and the missile shield. If the US could manage to install a Western-friendly government in Belarus, it would be a great step forward in its attempt to surround Russia, which has close military ties with Belarus and whose own missile shield is located there.

Be this as it may, the sanctions are coming from all sides. On June 17, the UN Human Rights Council voted to condemn “human rights violations” following the recent presidential election. On June 20, the European Union in their turn reinforced its sanctions against Belarus, adding companies and names to the blacklist (the Belarusian government has stated its intention to sue the initiators of the sanctions), and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has reoriented its financing activities away from the government and toward “civil society.”

And “civil society” hasn’t missed the opportunity provided by US tech camps and the recent financial troubles. Since the beginning of June, there has been a new movement on the part of various opposition groups in Belarus, calling itself “revolution through social networks.” They have taken to weekly protests in the central streets organized on the internet or by twitter in which participants clap their hands, without banners or chanting. Since the violence of December 19th, protests have been prohibited in the central area of Minsk, though they are allowed in certain other areas of the city. Whatever one thinks of this prohibition, it is clear that these protests consist of the same pro-Western, well-financed groups with a new, high-tech face. According to Western media, the protests are being violently repressed and protesters arbitrarily arrested. According to Belarusian authorities, participants have been arrested because they were shouting profanities at police and pushing them. I unfortunately didn’t happen to see one of the protests while I was in Belarus recently, and can’t personally report more details about them. A number of videos of the protests are available on the web, and I’ve seen no violence in them, no raised billy clubs and no blood; one can see protesters being arrested but not what immediately preceded the arrests. If there were major police violence, one could be sure that images of it would be all over the web. Of course, the government should make images available showing that it is violent participants who are arrested, since the arrests only play into the protesters’ hands and give Western governments more fodder for sanctions. The number of participants is unclear from the videos, which are usually closely framed shots. One video claiming to show a clapping protest was clearly not one, as within the clapping crowd (probably an audience applauding an outdoors show) one can see the red and green Belarusian flag, which is never used by those who protest the government -- they fly the former red and white national flag as well as the European blue one.

I did speak to people, including youth, about the protests. One young man, when he learned that I was from the US, said to me, “Flashmob! Fun!” giving me the thumbs up. For him, it was clearly more of a fun public gathering with drums, stomping and clapping, than a real political statement. Another young man told me, “When I read Western media, I wonder, is this my country? Am I in a war zone?” What is clear in the videos is that the crowd is well-off. Belarusian participants in Clinton’s tech camp said as much; according to the AP, they “described the active opposition as largely limited to students and educated citizens. The movement needs the support of working class people, said the activists.” Clearly, the Belarusian working class has reasons not to support the current movements: they are generally satisfied with the policies of President Lukashenko. If the movements are limited to the Western-oriented elite, Western or Russian financed operatives, and youth wanting to have a street party, then they have no future, no matter how many millions the US and others throw at them.

On July 6, the US House renewed the Belarus Democracy Act, sponsored by Rep. Christopher Smith of New Jersey, chairman of the Helsinki Commission. During the debate, Rep. Ron Paul denounced it. He said:

“I rise in opposition to the Belarus Democracy Act reauthorization. This title of this bill would have amused George Orwell, as it is in fact a US regime-change bill. Where does the United States Congress derive the moral or legal authority to determine which political parties or organizations in Belarus -- or anywhere else -- are to be US-funded and which are to be destabilized? How can anyone argue that US support for regime-change in Belarus is somehow promoting democracy? We pick the parties who are to be supported and funded and somehow this is supposed to reflect the will of the Belarusian people? How would Americans feel if the tables were turned and a powerful foreign country demanded that only a political party it selected and funded could legitimately reflect the will of the American people? I would like to know how many millions of taxpayer dollars the US government has wasted trying to overthrow the government in Belarus. I would like to know how much money has been squandered by US government-funded front organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, Freedom House, and others.... It is the arrogance of our foreign policy establishment that leads to this kind of schizophrenic legislation, where we demand that the rest of the world bend to the will of US foreign policy and we call it democracy. We wonder why we are no longer loved and admired overseas. Finally, I strongly object to the sanctions that this legislation imposes on Belarus. We must keep in mind that sanctions and blockades of foreign countries are considered acts of war. Do we need to continue war-like actions against yet another country? Can we afford it? [...] We have no constitutional authority to intervene in the wholly domestic affairs of Belarus or any other sovereign nation.”

I can only agree wholeheartedly, and wish the government and the people of Belarus courage in their resistance to the current attacks, and success in protecting their independence. At the international conference in Brest on the resistance to Nazism, participants described again and again the heroic courage and strength of the Belarusian people during the war years under the invasion coming from the West. Belarusians will need to continue to draw on that strong character for some time to come, as the attacks are not yet finished, but they have proven they are up to the fight.

Michèle Brand is an independent journalist and researcher originally from the US, living in Paris. She can be reached at michbrand@free.fr.

WaPo Whitewashes Al Qaeda War Criminals

Propaganda campaign ensues after US recognizes terrorists as Libya's government.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand July 18, 2011 - The so-called Libyan "rebels" are on record having been funded and supported for nearly 3 decades by the United States and Britain in their bid to oust Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi. The most recent rebellion after decades of terrorist campaigns, was literally directed out of both Washington and London via the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, with opposition leader Ibrahim Sahad pleading for foreign intervention against Qaddafi while sitting directly in front of the White House.

Since the UN Security Council's resolution (r.1973), NATO led by the US, UK, and France have ignominiously violated it by providing weapons to Libyan rebels and targeting the Libyan government, not to protect civilians as directed by r.1973, but for the expressed purpose of toppling Qaddafi from power.

During the months-long intervention, the very accused atrocities supposedly carried out by Qaddafi and the Libyan military have been in fact documented amongst the rebels, according to the New York Times. This includes brutalizing captured suspects, the use of child soldiers, the deployment of landmines and indiscriminate "Grad" rockets. More alarming is the fact that the Libyan rebels themselves admit to being the battle hardened foreign Al Qaeda forces long plaguing US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan with Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, according to the London Telegraph, himself having "earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan." Hasidi was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before his release in 2008.

Quite obviously the Libyan rebels are not the indigenous, pro-democracy, fighters for freedom we are made to believe. However, a recent Washington Post article tells a baseless tale of reluctant rebel fighters, sickened by the sight of blood, and hampered by concerns of "families in the way" on the road to Tripoli that is so ludicrous the Post's credibility as a journalistic source can safely be resigned as non-existent.

The article titled, "Among Libyan rebels, reluctant warriors," is quite obviously not news - rather a point-by-point rebuttal to concerns raised over America's involvement with the Libyan rebels that are now heightened since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recognized them as the "legitimate government" of Libya. The rebuttal is told through the words of alleged Libyan rebels who may or may not even exist, and begins with, "as armed rebellions go, the enthusiastic revolutionaries here in Libya’s western mountains are amateurs, many schooled in battle from playing video games. They confess they sometimes fire their rifles over the heads of their enemies because they don’t like the sight of blood." This after a Human Rights Watch report, confirmed by defacto rebel "prime minister" Mahmoud Jibril, indicated that towns seized by these very rebel forces underwent ethnic motivated violence, looting, beatings, detainments, and other abuses including shooting off rival tribesmen's feet.

The Washington Post goes on to assert that “there are too many families in the way,” as to why Libya's rebels have taken so long to reach Tripoli. The Post article continues by claiming, "some days, it seems that half of the rebel leaders are engineers — and the other half are schoolteachers." "We are good Muslims, not crazy Muslims,” states an alleged rebel who the Washington Post claims was educated in Edinburgh, Scotland. The piece then states, "the rebels are not anti-American," apparently indifferent or ignorant of the US Army West Point report that concluded the second largest contributor (after Saudi Arabia) to foreign fighters killing US soldiers in Iraq came from Libya's Benghazi, Darna, and Tobruk areas, the heart of Libya's current rebellion.

The Post then quotes another alleged rebel who states in regards to the type of government he'd like to see after Qaddafi steps down, “first, we want a country of love, where all are equal, all the same. We all say these things: We want justice, democracy and freedom, no arguments, no problems, okay?” Again the Post conveniently side-steps and attempts to excuse a torrent of reports coming out of both east and west Libya indicating racial and ethnic violence as the primary motivation behind the recent unrest.

Conclusion

Millions of Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Somalians, and Yemenis have died, been maimed, displaced, or otherwise affected by the so-called "global war on terror." Thousands of brave, dedicated, but misled US troops have given their lives for what now amounts to a total hoax. The very same, exact men the US spent trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives fighting in Iraq are now receiving US air support, French and Qatari arms, recognition from the US State Department, and poised to receive billions in aid for their cause. In other words, the West is now bolstering an army of terrorists it just spent 10 years fighting. This literally means the US State Department, the French and Qatari governments, along with supporting propagandists like the Washington Post are guilty of conspiring and providing material support for terrorists. Reckless mass murder with absolute abandon for even a plausible excuse for committing such murder illustrates the audacity of a ruling elite insane with power, wealth, and an utterly self-serving agenda.

It should be clear now that such a ruling elite will not stop on its own accord and that it is up to the very people who have built it up through their complicity and apathy to now bring it to an end. People must recognize who these elite are, the corporations and organizations through which they propel their agenda and we must then commit to a full-spectrum boycott of these corporations and organizations. Furthermore, we must replace on a local level the responsibilities currently meted out to these dysfunctional megalomaniacs.

Malaysia's Bersih & the Facade of "Clean Elections"

A foreign-funded movement for a foreign-serving agenda.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand July 16, 2011 - No one would honestly suggest that cleaning up politics and holding any given government accountable for their actions is not an honorable, noble cause. It is honorable indeed, however, when such a movement takes to the streets but is funded by a foreign government and led by a servants of foreign interests it becomes obvious it has been hijacked in order to exploit the aspirations of a frustrated public for a self-serving agenda. Such a movement will ultimately fail to achieve the goals it proclaims to support and will give rise to corruption and tyranny the likes of which its followers could not imagine.

A recent example of this phenomenon is unfolding in the streets and within the political scene of Malaysia where a movement calling themselves "Bersih," or the "Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections" has captured the minds and imaginations of Malaysia's youth and progressive enclaves, both in Malaysia and around the world. While Bersih's leader Ambiga Sreenevasan claims ad nauseum "we are fighting for free and fair elections," what she fails to share quite as often with her impressionable, well-intentioned followers is the fact that her movement is also funded and has received training from the United States government and a host of foreign corporate-funded foundations.

The Malaysian Insider reported on June 27, 2011 that Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevassan "admitted to Bersih receiving some money from two US organisations — the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Open Society Institute (OSI) — for other projects, which she stressed were unrelated to the July 9 march." A visit to the NDI website revealed indeed that funding and training had been provided by the US organization - before NDI took down the information and replaced it with a more benign version purged entirely of any mention of Bersih. For funding Ambiga claims is innocuous, the NDI's rushed obfuscation of any ties to her organization suggests something more sinister at play.

Photo: NDI's website before taking down any mention to Malaysia's Bersih movement. (click image to enlarge)
....

Casting further doubt on Bersih's real agenda is the involvement of Malaysia's opposition front Pakatan Rakyat whose coalition members promised to bring in hundreds of thousands of supporters to take part in the July 9th, 2011 Bersih 2.0 rally. The opposition front is led by Anwar Ibrahim and a coalition of opposition parties with a long history of affiliation with Anwar. That Anwar Ibrahim himself was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant to the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy's "Democracy Award" and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony - the very same US organization funding and supporting Bersih - casts irrefutable doubt on their official agenda for "clean and fair elections."

Photo: Taken from the US National Endowment for Democracy's 2007 Democracy Award event held in Washington D.C., Anwar Ibrahim can be seen to the far left and participated as a "panelist." It is no surprise that NED is now subsidizing his bid to worm his way back into power in Malaysia. (click image to enlarge)
....

In reality, Bersih's leadership along with Anwar and their host of foreign sponsors are attempting to galvanize the very real grievances of the Malaysian people and exploit them to propel themselves into power. While many may be tempted to suggest that "clean and fair elections" truly are Bersih and Anwar's goal, and that US funding via NED's NDI and billionaire bankster George Soros' Open Society are entirely innocuous, a thorough examination of these organizations, how they operate, and their admitted agenda reveals the proverbial cliff Bersih is leading its followers and the nation of Malaysia over.

NED, NDI, IRI, & Freedom House are run by warmongering imperialists

We begin our thorough examination of these organizations with a look at the board of directors of NED, which funds NDI and who, judging by their supposed mission to support "freedom around the world," should be filled with Nobel Peace Prize laureates, accomplished diplomats, and definitive examples of democracy in action. Instead, we have John Bohn who traded petrochemicals, was an international banker for 13 years with Wells Fargo, and is currently serving as a principal for a global advisory and consulting firm, GlobalNet Partners, which assists foreign businesses by making their "entry into the complex China market easy." Surely Bohn's ability to manipulate China's political landscape through NED's various activities both inside of China and along its peripheries constitutes an alarming conflict of interests. However, it appears "conflict of interests" is a reoccurring theme throughout both NED and Freedom House.



Video: Noam Chomsky in 1993 on the NED's projects in Nicaragua: "It's about what you would expect from a bipartisan democracy campaign - it's an attempt to impose what is called democracy, meaning rule by the rich and the powerful, without interference by the mob but within the framework of formal electoral procedures."
....


Bohn is joined by Rita DiMartino who worked for Council on Foreign Relations corporate member AT&T as "Vice President of Congressional Relations" as well as a member of the CFR herself. Also representing the Fortune 500 is Kenneth Duberstein, a board member of the war profiteering Boeing Company, big oil's ConocoPhillips, and the Mack-Cali Realty Corporation. Duberstein also served as a director of Fannie Mae until 2007. He too is a CFR member as are two of the companies he chairs, Boeing and ConocoPhillips.

We then consider several of the certified warmongers serving upon NED's board of directors including Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Will Marshall, and Vin Weber, all signatories of the pro-war, pro-corporate, utterly insane Project for a New American Century. Within the pages of documents produced by this "think tank" are pleas to various US presidents to pursue war against sovereign nations, the increase of troops in nations already occupied by US forces, and what equates to a call for American global hegemony in a Hitlerian 90 page document titled "Rebuilding Americas Defenses." As we will see, this warmongering think tank serves as a nexus around which fellow disingenuous "rights advocate" Freedom House also gravitates.

The "Statement of Principles," signed off by NED chairmen Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Vin Weber, states, "we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Of course by "international order" they mean meddling beyond the sovereign borders of the United States and is merely used as a euphemism for global imperialism. Other Neo-Con degenerates that signed their name to this statement include Freedom House's Paula Dobriansky, Dan Quayle (formally), and Donald Rumsfeld (formally), along with Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen, and Elliot Abrams.

A PNAC "Statment on Post-War Iraq" regarding a wholehearted endorsement of nation-building features the signatures of NED chairman Will Marshall, Freedom House's Frank Carlucci (2002), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Martin Indyk (Lowy Institute board member, co-author of the conspiring "Which Path to Persia?" report), and William Kristol and Robert Kagan both of the warmongering Foreign Policy Initiative. It should be noted that the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is, for all intents and purposes, PNAC's latest incarnation and just recently featured an open letter to House Republicans calling on them to disregard the will of the American people and continue pursuing the war in Libya. The FPI letter even suggests that the UN resolution authorizing the war in the first place, was holding America "hostage" and that it should be exceeded in order to do more to "help the Libyan opposition."

An untitled PNAC letter addressed to then US President George Bush regarding a general call for global warmongering received the seal of approval from Freedom Houses' Ellen Bork (2007), Ken Adelman (also former lobbyist for Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra via Edelman), and James Woolsey (formally), along with Neo-Con degenerates Richard Perle, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and the always disingenuous demagogue Daniel Pipes.

Other notable corporate-fascists populating NED's board of directors include:

William Galston: Brookings Institution (board of trustees can be found on page 35 here).
Moises Naim: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (corporate funding here).
Robert Miller: corporate lawyer.
Larry Liebenow: US Chamber of Commerce (a chief proponent of SOPA), Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE).
Anne-Marie Slaughter: US State Department, Council on Foreign Relations (corporate members here), director of Citigroup, McDonald's Corporation, and Political Strategies Advisory Group.
Richard Gephardt: US Representative, Boeing lobbyist, Goldman Sachs, Visa, Ameren Corp, and Waste Management Inc lobbyist, corporate consultant, consultant & now director of Ford Motor Company, supporter of the military invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
Marilyn Carlson Nelson: CEO of Carlson, director of Exxon Mobil.
Stephen Sestanovich: US State Department, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, CFR.
Judy Shelton: director of Hilton Hotels Corporation & Atlantic Coast Airlines.

It is safe to say that the National Endowment for Democracy is not interested in any shape, form, or way in "supporting freedom around the world," nor Malaysia's "clean and fair elections," but rather leveraging these ideals to establish an insidious, self-serving, global corporate oligarchy. Within the confines of PNAC, and its successors, the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, these supposed "democracy and human rights advocates" have engineered and promoted the continuation of the most obscene and horrendous chapters of mass murder, invasion, occupation, and unrelenting war in recent human history.

Photo: NED's long reach: Thai protesters in Bangkok rallied at the Malaysian Embassy on behalf of Bersih protesters that were arrested preceding the July 9th rally in Kuala Lumpur. The event was covered by NED-funded Prachatai, featuring NED-funded protesters drawn from the "People's Empowerment Foundation," protesting on behalf of NED's NDI-funded Bersih movement in Malaysia.
....

In turn, NED, an organization that Malaysia's Anwar Ibrahim is an active participant in, funds a myriad of propagandists and sub-funding arms, most notably Freedom House, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute which is on record funding Malaysia's Bersih movement. Disingenuous, warmonger-infested advocacy groups like Freedom House have been relentlessly campaigning in support of Bersih. A selection of their "reports" can be read below, and seen cited by the international corporate media to bolster Bersih's non-existent legitimacy.

A selection of Freedom House's rhetorical support for Malaysia's Berish:

"Arrests in Advance of Rally for Electoral Reforms in Malaysia Raise Deep Concerns"
"Malaysian Government’s Brutal Crackdown Violates Fundamental Rights"
"Freedom of Association Under Threat: The New Authoritarians' Offensive Against Civil Society"
"Letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Re: Malaysian Government Crackdown"

The Council on Foreign Relations

The Council on Foreign Relations, a US based think tank that represents the collective interests and agenda of the Fortune 500 corporations that constitute its membership has also weighed in on Malaysia's Bersih movement, decidedly behind the foreign-funded organization and applauding the division it is creating within Malaysian society. It should be noted that the CFR praises the "fine" coverage of Bersih by Australian National University's New Mandala blog run by imposter-academic Andrew Walker. Walker in turn, has been recently caught denying his involvement with the Lowy Institute, yet another collection of fraud academics, fake journalists, and policy wonks all in the employ of the Fortune 500.

George Soros & Open Society Institute (OSI)

George Soros' Open Society Institute not only was cited by Bersih leader Ambiga Sreenevasan as having funded her opposition street-front, but is also funding a myriad of corporate agenda-serving "democracy and human rights advocacy" groups providing rhetorical support and contrived metrics cited by the corporate media to further lend Bersih legitimacy. Open Society funds NDI partner organization "Transparency International" which also receives funding from Exxon, General Electric, Shell, Pfizer, British Petroleum, HSBC Holdings, and Procter & Gamble. Soros' Open Society also funds Amnesty International (page 10) and Human Rights Watch which have both rushed to Bersih's defense before, during, and after their July 9th street rally.

Soros-funded Human Rights Watch's support for the Malaysian Bersih movement:

"Malaysia: Investigate Crackdown on Pro-Democracy March"
"Malaysia: End Crackdown on Peaceful Campaigners"
"Malaysia: Free 30 Peaceful Political Activists"
"Joint Letter to Prime Minister on Violations against Bersih 2.0"

It should be noted that the "joint letter" was signed off by fellow Soros and Fortune 500-funded Amnesty International, as well as NED, Soros, and Tides Foundation-funded International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).

Soros-funded Amnesty International's support for the Malaysian Bersih movement:

"Malaysia: Further information: Repression continues after reform rally"
"Malaysia: Police use brutal tactics against peaceful protesters"
"Malaysia: Hundreds of Peaceful Protesters Arrested"
"Malaysia: Malaysian activists held in secret detention"
"Malaysia: MP, activists detained for protesting"
"Malaysia: End mass repression of pro-reform activists"
"Malaysia: Joint open letter: Human Rights Violations against Bersih 2.0"

Conclusion

If there was any doubt in one's mind regarding the nature of the National Endowment for Democracy, George Soros' Open Society, and the myriad of contrived self-appointed international arbiters serving the globalists' agenda, who they support, and why, reading the signed confession put out by the Project for a New American Century, calling for American global hegemony should lay it to rest. Just as the British Empire and the Romans before them leveraged the concept of spreading "civilized society" to sell their aspirations of global conquest to an ignorant population, the modern Anglo-American corporate-financier oligarchy is leveraging the concepts of spreading "human rights," "democracy," and "freedom" to sell their emerging "international order." This is an order described by Neo-Con degenerate Robert Kagan as serving "the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it," and clearly not the liberal democratic utopia many progressive activists believe they are contributing to.

Image: The modern day imperial networks building the Anglo-American corporate-financier "international order." (click on image to enlarge)
....

Consider the insidious methods used by the Romans to pacify and conquer entire populations by "integrating" them into their own Roman "international order."

From HistoryWorld.net:

'His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as 'civilization', when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.'

Tacitus
Annals of Imperial Rome, translated Michael Grant, Penguin 1956, 1975, page 72


Indeed the alleged "free and fair elections," proposed to Malaysia by the likes of NED and Freedom House to be carried out by foreign-funded Bersih, are nothing more than features of Malaysia's own enslavement. For a look into Malaysia's future, one should consider Egypt's recent turmoil - turmoil many Bersih supporters eagerly hold up as an inspiration for their current movement.

As Egyptians rallied to "free" themselves, they toppled a nationalist government and ushered in Mohammed ElBaradei, a stooge in full service of the United States via the International Crisis Group, alongside unlikely allies like the President of Israel Shimon Peres, Bank of Israel's Stanley Fischer, and America's geopolitical meddler Zbigniew Brzezinski. Just recently, Senator John McCain, chairman of the International Republican Institute, a NED-funded NGO on record for being behind the "Arab Spring," took with him members of various Fortune 500 corporations for a tour of newly "freed" Cairo. Their agenda is "economic liberalization" and the total integration of Egypt's once sovereign economy into the Anglo-American empire. Like the ancient British, the Egyptian youth are dazzled with their new Western trappings and their new liberal democracy, courtesy of the insidious, unseen tentacles emanating from the globalist oligarchy and led by a known agent of the West.

Malaysia faces similar crossroads and must decide for themselves if they will clean up their government themselves through pragmatism, truly independent grassroots activism, and technical solutions to solve the problems they face as a sovereign nation, or if they will follow a feckless, self-defeating political agenda manipulated and led by foreign interests, dividing and destabilizing their nation so that foreign powers can sweep into power their stooges and once again direct Malaysia's destiny for them, to the benefit of no Malaysian.

For more information please read: "In-depth: Foreign Meddling in Malaysia" & "Globalist Sedition takes to Malaysian Streets"

US Recognizes Al-Qaeda War Criminals As Libya's Official Government

Unbelievable, though not unexpected, departure from reality.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand July 15, 2011 - Associated Press reports that, "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the Obama administration has decided to formally recognize Libya’s main opposition group as the country’s legitimate government. The move gives foes of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi a major financial and credibility boost."

In an act of utter desperation as the brutal, though entirely ineffective Libyan rebels flounder in their NATO-backed offensives against Libya's ruling government in Tripoli, the US has now recognized the Libyan rebels as the country's "legitimate government" allowing the US to directly fund, arm, and support with US troops, the Al-Qaeda tied war criminals operating out of Benghazi. The recent farcical move indicates that France's Foreign Minister Alain Juppé has failed in his threats and posturing to get Libya's Qaddafi to stand down, and that the NATO-backed war of aggression is about to reach new heights of brutality most likely including the involvement of US, UK, and French troops on the ground.

Libyan Rebels are Al-Qaeda - On Record

Operating out of the Libyan cities of Benghazi, Darna, and Tobruk, Libyan rebels themselves have admitted that many of their members are drawn from Al Qaeda. The London Telegraph has reported that Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi had admitted many of his fighters had just returned from fighting US forces in Iraq. The Telegraph also reported that Hasidi himself had "earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan. He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008." A United States Army West Point report confirms indeed that fighters drawn from the Libyan cities of Benghazi, Darna, and Tobruk were second only to Saudi Arabia in contributing forces to fight US troops in Iraq.

Photo: According to US-educated Mahmoud Jibril, "prime minister" of the contrived “Libyan Transitional National Council,” in a May 12, 2011 talk before the Brookings Institution, “what’s taking place is a natural product of the globalizational process that started in the mid-80′s.” He most recently confirmed allegations reported by HRW regarding rebel atrocities but claimed they represent only a "few incidents" and that those responsible would be "brought to justice."
....

This illustrates the absurdity of both the "War on Terror" and the current NATO-backed operations unfolding in Libya, where the same known terrorists are used both as an excuse for global intervention and continued foreign occupation while concurrently provided arms, air cover, legitimacy, and now direct funding while participating in global intervention. On full display for the world to see is how the global corporatocracy manipulates and exploits all sides of any given conflict for their own nefarious self-serving ends. One must wonder what races through the minds of US and UK pilots as they provide air support for the very men they strafed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Libyan Rebels are Documented War Criminals

In an April 2011 New York Times article titled, "Inferior Arms Hobble Rebels in Libya War," a weepy narrative is told of under-armed, outclassed rebels who have been compelled by their circumstances to commit horrific atrocities and war crimes. The New York Times describes a "tolerance for at least a small number of child soldiers," and blamed a lack of command-and-control for "instances of abusive or outright brutal conduct" rather than a lack of ethical principles or their foreign-funded, illegitimate cause.

The New York Times article describes the rebels' use of Grad rockets often described as indiscriminate war weapons and whose use by Qaddafi's forces have been cited as a contributing factor for NATO's intervention. The article also makes mention of the rebels' use of landmines - also a contributing factor cited by the warmongering criminals of NATO for their intervention in North Africa.

More recently, the Soros-funded Human Rights Watch released a report indicating that civilians were being abused (including having their feet shot off by victorious rebels) and their property looted and destroyed by Libya's rebels upon taking over towns from "suspected Qaddafi supporters." While the report, and a torrent of corporate-owned media outlets attempt to play-down and spin the allegations confirmed by defacto rebel "prime minister" Mahmoud Jibril, they represent evidence indicating that Libya's violence is not divided along political aspirations for "liberal democracy" and support for Qaddafi, but rather along predictable, long standing ethnic divisions. These confirmed reports of rebel war crimes also provide evidence that NATO's involvement in Libya is justified by selective enforcement of an already illegitimate UN Security Council resolution for the sole purpose of removing Qaddafi - clearly not protecting Libyan civilians.

Libyan Intervention One of Imperialism, not Humanitarianism

Stated quite clearly in the corporate-funded, corporate-serving Brookings Institution's piece titled, "Libya's Test of the New International Order," the intervention in Libya "is a test that the international community has to pass. Failure would shake further the faith of the people's region in the emerging international order and the primacy of international law." Indeed this intervention is about asserting international law above national sovereignty and upholding an "international order" described by globalist degenerate Robert Kagan, a chief proponent of the current war in Libya, as serving "the needs of the United States and its allies, which constructed it."

This has absolutely nothing to do with democracy, human rights, or even the rule of law, international or otherwise. The same warmongering degenerate Robert Kagan who brazenly admits the "international order" serves American, not international interests, recently signed a letter to US House Republicans imploring them to disregard both the American people's will as well as UN Security Council r.1973 in order to commit to full intervention in Libya on behalf of rebels admittedly members of Al-Qaeda who are committing a myriad of war crimes in support of this neo-imperial campaign. Kagan's willingness to disregard even the contrived legalities authorizing NATO's involvement in Libya in the first place illustrates the unchecked, arbitrary nature of this emerging "international order," an order that feels it needs answer to no one.

It is imperative that people understand the true nature not only behind this intervention in Libya, but the "international order's" involvement, meddling, and intervention throughout the world. Any thorough examination of the United States government, the unelected corporate-funded think tanks that produce its policy, the corporate-owned media outfits that promote their agendas, and the immense global network of foreign-funded NGOs, foundations, and organizations carrying the agenda out, reveals a self-serving oligarchy merely using attractive ideals to sell their otherwise unpalatable agenda. As the Romans and the British had foisted upon millions during the construction of their despotic world spanning empires, the United States and their global allies are now using the facade of "civil society," "human rights," "democracy," and "freedom" to construct a new oligarchical global empire.

CFR to Thailand: Accept US-Stooge or Else

CFR degenerates back globalist-stooge & his illegal proxy party, warn against moves to remove him.
by Tony Cartalucci

Bangkok, Thailand July 14, 2011 - The corporate-funded, corporate-serving unelected arbiters of US domestic and foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations have recently written an article titled, "Is Thailand Headed for Another Coup? What Should the United States Do About It?" Considering Thailand is a sovereign nation, the obvious answer as to what the US should do is mind its own business. However CFR shill Joshua Kurlantzick, a "Fellow for Southeast Asia" suggests otherwise.

Kurlantzick first misleads a readership he must regard with utter contempt by stating, "Thailand's voters decisively backed the populist Puea Thai Party," in recent July elections. In reality, of the 74% of Thais that turned out to vote on July 3, only 48% actually cast votes for Peua Thai (PTP). Of all eligible voters, that is a tenuous 35% mandate, hardly what can be called "decisively backed." While Kurlantzick states, "Thaksin, who faces a jail term in Thailand on charges of corruption and has lived in exile since the coup, seems to have had his revenge: His sister, Yingluck, whom he has called “his clone,” runs Puea Thai, and she appears poised to become Thailand's first female prime minister," he utterly fails to point out how Thaksin literally runs the party by proxy from abroad, with the party's slogan being "Thaksin thinks, Peua Thai does."

Photo: Thailand's Thaksin Shinawatra, long time servant of the global elite, sits before the Council on Foreign Relations on September 18, 2006, the day before the Thai Army removed his autocratic, foreign-serving regime from power in a peaceful military coup.
....

Aside from the slogan's overt admission to his role, Thaksin has also contributed to PTP's recent campaigning activities by conducting video call-ins to political rallies and using his image upon PTP campaign signs to bolster support for PTP candidates. In essence, a convicted criminal, overtly admitting to running a proxy political party, has taken part in the campaigning activities of an opposition political party contesting a national election. Illegal in any nation, such activity is also specifically prohibited by Thai law. Despite this, CFR's Kurlantzick suggests that if Thailand's establishment attempts to address this overt criminality, "Washington must take action." He goes on to say, "To help put Thai democracy back on track, Washington should make clear that the U.S. would no longer tolerate meddling by the Thai establishment," and that "the Thai people should have the right to choose the leaders they want," apparently, it would seem, with complete disregard for the rule of law.


Photos: Thaksin, a convicted criminal evading a 2 year jail sentence, indisputably still runs Thailand's opposition party by proxy. His image is used on PTP campaign posters, he regularly calls into political & campaign rallies, and PTP's campaign slogan literally is, "Thaksin Thinks, Peua Thai does." PTP executives regularly fly to Dubai, Cambodia, Brunei, and Hong Kong to consort with the US-backed fugitive regarding political affairs.
....

While Kurlantzick disingenuously portrays the US response to Thaksin's ouster in September 2006 (a day after Thaksin had spoken before the CFR in New York City) as one of indifference, the reality is that America's corporate establisment have been supporting and working with Thaksin vigorously ever since. Thaksin has been represented by this monied elite via their lobbying firms, including Kenneth Adelman of the Edelman PR firm (Freedom House, International Crisis Group, PNAC), James Baker of Baker Botts (CFR), Robert Blackwill of Barbour Griffith & Rogers (CFR), Kobre & Kim, and currently Robert Amsterdam of Amsterdam & Peroff (Chatham House). The above mentioned Edelman, it should be noted, is also a sponsor of the US State Department's project, Movements.org which is on record training the Egyptian April 6 Movement that triggered the now admittedly US-engineered "Arab Spring."

Meanwhile, Thaksin's street mobs dubbed the "red shirts" have received rhetorical support by US-funded NGOs like Prachatai which received 1.5 million baht from the Neo-Con lined National Endowment for Democracy. Prachatai has also received funds from the Rockefeller Foundation, George Soros' Open Society, and the Sigrid Rausing Trust (who also funds the International Crisis Group) via the Global Human Rights Fund (2008). Additionally, a recent addition to Thaksin's red shirt mob's leadership includes Sombat Boonngamanong who has spent a lifetime in the service of UN projects and Fortune 500-funded foundations like "Ashoka."

Kurlantizick, to address Thailand's rejection of a US-backed convicted criminal and his illegitimate proxy-party, suggests that the US should cut its military aid to Thailand as well as applying sanctions that would cut off military transfers. He also suggests that Congress begin subjecting Thailand to the same "scrutiny' applied to other Asian nations. Kurlantzick also suggests that Thailand is drifting toward "civil war" and that "the U.S. must do its part to ensure that this doesn't come to pass."

In reality, Thaksin's proxy party failed to garner support from more than 35% of Thailand's eligible voters. In the past, Thaksin's attempts at triggering violent uprisings yielded only a small group of hardcore supporters willing to commit to such violence, augmented by a paltry 300 armed mercenaries, put down by the Thai military two years consecutively. While PTP will undoubtedly attempt to bring in more arms and spill more blood, and while CFR is clearly signaling the US elitist establishment will throw its full weight behind PTP, recent election results lays bare the true moral and political bankruptcy of Thaksin's proxy movement. Any violence they now commit to, they do so in a climate of complete illegitimacy. With revelations regarding pro-Thaksin, pro-PTP, pro-red shirt propaganda outlet "Prachatai" and their wall-to-wall United States foundation funding, Thais must decide for themselves whether they sort out their own problems inwardly and work pragmatically to improve their nation's future, or invite in the self-serving meddling of the US and their stooge Thaksin Shinwatra via his proxy party PTP.