zondag 1 maart 2015

London Academic Boycot Israel

While the complicity of the British government and leading British corporations, like G4S, in Israel's occupation and violations of international law remains intact, British society is steadily shifting towards isolating Israel as it did quite effectively to apartheid South Africa. 

Roger Waters -- of Pink Floyd fame -- is feeling far less lonely nowadays in his beautifully courageous and consistent support for BDS. Two weeks ago, about 1,000 artists in the UK signed a pledge to boycott Israel culturally. Key writers, filmmakers and artists were among the luminaries who have signed this pledge, reminding us of the famous British artists' boycott of apartheid South Africa.

A few months ago, the executive committee of the National Union of Students, representing some 7 million British students, adopted BDS. 

The largest British trade unions, Unite and Unison, among many others, representing millions of workers, also support BDS.

And now this unprecedented, campus-wide vote at an important British university that included academics, staff and students in favor of a full academic boycott of Israel opens the door for much more to come. 

Last month, the respectable Chatham House poll of British public opinion showed that Britons feel more "unfavourable" to Israel than to any other country in the world, with the exception of North Korea!

The BBC annual Globescan poll of international public opinion has consistently shown Israel competing with North Korea in popularity in most of the world, including in the UK, where a whopping 72% perceive Israel "mainly negatively."

Yet the British government continues not only its criminal arms trade with Israel, directly enabling Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity, and its various joint projects with Israel -- in the areas of trade, academic research and culture -- that are overtly intended to counter BDS. It remains one of the worst governments in the world -- competing with the Zionist-influenced French, Canadian and Australian governments -- in acting to suppress civil society efforts in support of BDS.

So much for western "democracy"! 

SOAS gives us hope that this official British complicity is countered by effective grassroots and civil society solidarity.



A historic victory for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement was achieved today in the referendum on the academic boycott of Israel [1], at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. Out of 2056 votes cast, an overwhelming majority of 73% voted in favour of boycotting Israeli academic institutions. This victory reinforces the demands of the BDS call issued in 2005 by Palestinian civil society organizations [2].

The voting took place between 23rd and 27th of February. The referendum was School-wide, that is, it was open to all members of the SOAS community. This included current students, academics, non-academic staff, university governors, and outsourced workers such as cleaners, security, and catering staff. 

SOAS represents one of the most diverse student bodies in the UK with roughly 6,000 students and staff of multi-faith backgrounds from over 133 countries. The referendum was called for by the Students’ Union, and was conducted in an open, fair and transparent environment. Both the Yes and No campaigners were given equal platforms to hold panel discussions and debates.

The academic boycott campaign was led by students and staff from various nationalities, backgrounds, and faith groups reflecting the broad support for the boycott. It has demonstrated the popular appeal of BDS as a powerful form of protest and resistance.

By voting in favour of the academic boycott, the SOAS community has confirmed its unwavering commitment to freedom, equality and justice for all Palestinians and has reasserted its call for an end to Israeli apartheid, oppressive occupation, and settler-colonialism.

Presently, SOAS has ties with the Hebrew University, which unapologetically joined the “war effort” last summer [3] when the Israeli army murdered over 2,000 Palestinians in Gaza. In October 2014, the US weapons-producer Lockheed Martin announced that a cooperation agreement [4] had been signed with Yissum, a technology firm that belongs to the Hebrew University.

The academic boycott campaign stresses that the boycott does not contradict academic freedom as it targets Israeli institutions complicit in the oppression of Palestinians, not individuals. Open enquiry, free exchange of ideas, and intellectual freedom are crucial to every academic community, but freedom can only be real when it is afforded to all. This has to include the Palestinians.

The Palestine Society and the BDS campaign at SOAS state:

“This historic result has brought us one step further in our struggle for freedom and justice. We do not tolerate any collaboration with academic institutions which are complicit in human rights violations and which do not practice the values of academic freedom and equality. We call upon other universities to show their solidarity by joining the academic boycott.”


zaterdag 28 februari 2015

Henk Hofland en de Massa 11

Henk Hofland tijdens de Eerste Koude Oorlog.

President Poetin wil geen compromis, zoals de praktijk van deze oorlog aantoont, en het is dus noodzaak voor het Westen om grenzen aan de Russische expansie te stellen. We naderen het stadium waarin van Poetin alles te verwachten valt,

aldus columnist Henk Hofland in De Groene Amsterdammer van 11 februari 2015. Deze gevaarlijk tendentieuze voorstelling van zaken, zo typerend voor de zelfbenoemde 'politiek-literaire elite' in de polder, staat in schril contrast met die van de ware intelligentsia in grote cultuurlanden. Geen enkele kritische Angelsaksische deskundige zal ooit hetzelfde schrijven dat de, in Nederland zo bewonderde, nestor van de polderpers op 19 februari 2014 in De Groene Amsterdammer beweerde:

Dankzij een uiteindelijk beheerste buitenlandse politiek hebben de machtsblokken met het kernwapen leren leven. Het heeft geen actuele invloed meer, behalve in de verhouding tussen Israël en Iran en ook daar raakt het sinds het aantreden van de nieuwe president Hassan Rohani geleidelijk op de achtergrond. Op 23 maart begint in Den Haag de tweedaagse nucleaire topconferentie waaraan 58 wereldleiders en zo’n vijfduizend delegatieleden deel­nemen. Geen halve maatregelen, maar een actueel gevaar valt daar niet te bedwingen.

Januari 2015, nog geen jaar later, waarschuwden goed geïnformeerde bronnen in zowel Rusland als de VS ervoor dat de escalatie in vijandigheden tussen de twee grootste nucleaire mogendheden kan uitlopen op een nucleaire confrontatie, waardoor wel degelijk 'een actueel gevaar' is ontstaan. Bovendien getuigt ook Hoflands pedante bewering dat 'de machtsblokken met het kernwapen' hebben 'leren leven,' van een schrikbarend gebrek aan kennis en verbeeldingskracht. Ik citeer iemand die de werkelijkheid uit directe ervaring kent, namelijk de voormalige Amerikaanse minister van Defensie, Robert McNamara, die in zowel in zijn boek In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (1996) als in de bekroonde documentaire The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. (2003) met betrekking tot een nucleair armageddon op het volgende wees:

I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was
luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the 
end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; 
Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total
 destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today.

Over de Amerikaanse kernbom op Hiroshima en Nagasaki verklaarde Mcnamara:

Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning 
up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of 
Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of 
Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of
 New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was 
Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was
all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was
dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in 
war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

LeMay said, 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war 
criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as 
war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought 
immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not
immoral if you win?

Terugkijkend op zijn ministerschap van 1961 tot 1968, het hoogtepunt van de Koude Oorlog en de Vietnam-Oorlog, verklaarde Mcnamara:

We all make mistakes. We know we make mistakes. I don't know any military commander, who is honest, who would say he has not made a mistake. There's a wonderful phrase: 'the fog of war.' What 'the fog of war' means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily.

The major lesson of the Cuban missile crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations. Is it right and proper that today there are 7500 offensive strategic nuclear warheads, of which 2500 are on a 15 minute alert to be launched at the decision of one human being?

Het is dus 'pure mazzel' geweest dat er een nucleaire oorlog niet is uitgebroken. Het gevaar blijft groot, vooral ook omdat 'war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily.' Maar humanitaire overwegingen spelen geen doorslaggevende rol voor de hoogbejaarde voormalige 'huzaar eerste klas,' Henk Hofland, die in 1949 werd 'gedetacheerd bij de Leger Film- en Fotodienst,' en 'speelfilms af[draaide] op de troepenschepen die de militairen van en naar Batavia verscheepten.' Als kneus heeft hij nooit gevechtshandelingen van nabij meegemaakt, en juist daarom kan hij moeiteloos beweren dat 'het Westen grenzen aan de Russische expansie,' moet stellen, desnoods met grootscheeps geweld. Met het in zijn ogen 'vredestichtende Westen,' bedoelt de opinieheld natuurlijk de NAVO, die overal wordt ingezet om met massaal geweld de belangen van de economische elite te handhaven of uit te breiden, geheel in lijn met president Theodore Roosevelt's en de Amerikaanse staalmagnaat Andrew Carnegie's devies 'Speak softly and carry a big stick.' Of zoals in 1907 de latere president Woodrow Wilson het formuleerde:

Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down… Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.

De vraag is nu: hoe is het te verklaren dat een insider als McNamara op zijn 85ste jaar opmerkte:

I'm at age where I can look back and derive some conclusions about my actions. My rule has been try to learn, try to understand what happened. Develop the lessons and pass them on,

terwijl de outsider Henk Hofland op zijn 87ste nog steeds niet geleerd heeft dat zijn logica op niets concreets is gebaseerd, behalve dan dat de nucleaire holocaust nog niet heeft plaatsgevonden, met andere woorden: dat de koorddanser nog niet naar beneden is gestort? De enige serieuze verklaring is dat een mainstream-journalist als Hofland betaald wordt om de gesanctioneerde officieële versie van de werkelijkheid te verspreiden. Zou hij het kapitalisme en de NAVO-doctrine van de Mutual Assured Destruction fundamenteel ter discussie hebben gesteld dan was hij nooit door zijn mainstream-collega's uitgeroepen tot 'de beste Nederlandse journalist van de twintigste eeuw.' Niet alleen zijn status, maar ook zijn inkomen zou dan een forse deuk hebben opgelopen, want dit onderwerp is uiterst controversieel en dus taboe voor de commerciële pers. Daarom blijft de grijsaard de technologische waanzin verspreiden die de Amerikaanse socioloog C. Wright Mills zo treffend betitelde met de term 'rationality without reason.' Als men maar dwaas genoeg is, schopt de mens het in elk systeem heel erg ver. Tegelijkertijd worden dissidenten, in Rusland zowel als in het 'vrije Westen' gemarginaliseerd, en wel omdat, zoals de historicus Huizinga uiteenzette 

elke organisatie tot zekere perfectie gekomen en in gang gehouden door haar eigen mechanisme de neiging [heeft], haar doel in haar eigen bestaan en functie te verplaatsen…

Organisatie betekent macht, en macht in zichzelf, niet geheiligd door een volwaardig doel, is een kwaad. Zij kan slechts heilzaam worden, indien zij gedragen wordt door persoonlijke zedelijke verantwoordelijkheid, en haar doel heeft buiten en boven de machtswil en het belang der dragers van die macht. Hierbij maakt het geen onderscheid, of het de macht van één of van miljoenen is.

Op grond van dit besef verklaarde Robert McNamara:

The major lesson of the Cuban missile crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations. Is it right and proper that today there are 7500 offensive strategic nuclear warheads, of which 2500 are on a 15 minute alert to be launched at the decision of one human being?

De feiten spreken voor zich, behalve dan voor een ideologische verblinde als Henk Hofland. Het feit dat 'one human being,' zonder last of ruggespraak kan beslissen of de mensheid al dan niet moet worden uitgeroeid, neemt hij voor kennisgeving aan. Als overtuigde propagandist van de 'Atlantische eenheid,' die vandaag de dag door 'Poetin' (daar is hij weer) wordt getroffen, steunt hij, met zijn ene been al in het graf, de waanzin van een nucleaire holocaust. Ook al waarschuwt een insider als McNamara dat 'Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today,' dan nog meent Hofland dat hij precies het tegenovergestelde kan beweren. En zijn dwaasheid blijft in Nederland onweersproken. Dit maakt de rol van de hedendaagse commerciële massamedia zo bedreigend. Hoe misdadig de bewering van Hofland in feite is, wordt duidelijk wanneer u het volgende leest: 

UNITED NATIONS -- Delivering a clarion call for nuclear disarmament, former US Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara was the focal point of back-to-back sessions at the United Nations on October 17, 2001, including a high level luncheon for key ambassadors and a public presentation before an overflow crowd at the Dag Hammarskjöld Library Auditorium…

The current United States and NATO nuclear policy is 'absurdly dangerous' Mr. McNamara told some forty ambassadors, dignitaries and representatives from more than twenty countries at the luncheon. The event was hosted by the San Francisco-based Global Security Institute and co-sponsored by the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs, and began with remarks by Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala.

Although Mr. McNamara praised recent pledges by President Bush to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal from its current 7,500 warheads, he said that even an exchange between arsenals reduced to 1,500 warheads each would be catastrophic. Furthermore, he said, the combination of launch-on-warning policy and human error make an inadvertent nuclear war a very real possibility as long as the weapons exist in their current deployment.

Mr. McNamara described the planned response of the United States government in the case of a detected launch of nuclear weapons against the United States. First, he said, the commander of the nuclear forces (who must always be 'within three rings of a telephone') would be informed. He or she must first decide whether the warning was reliable.

'Russia has received many unreliable warnings. We [the United States] receive many unreliable warnings,' Mr. McNamara said. 'You've got to decide whether to launch or not to launch' within only a few minutes.

The commander then makes a recommendation to the president, Mr. McNamara said. 'And then the president is allowed maybe five minutes to think what the hell to do and whom to consult with. The American people? No way. The Congress? No way. The Cabinet? No way. Maybe possibly the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and then he transfers his decision with the codes from that football [the President's brief case containing nuclear weapon launch codes] and they're launched.'

Mr. McNamara blasted this situation and the public ignorance that he believes allows it to continue. 'Now that's what we've gone through for 40 years. And that's where we are today. I think it is absolutely insane and I don't believe any of your people or any of our people who have good judgment would tolerate it if they knew it. They don't know it.'

A longtime advocate of the total elimination of nuclear weapons through verifiable treaty regimes, Mr. McNamara criticized U.S. plans for a ballistic missile defense system on two fronts. First, he said that deployment of such a system would threaten 'strategic stability' by undermining deterrence, a doctrine that Mr. McNamara was instrumental in developing during his tenure as Secretary of Defense.

'Strategic stability does not require nuclear parity,' Mr. McNamara said. 'At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, October '62, we had 5,500 strategic offensive warheads. We believed the Soviets had 350.' However, 'stability existed, because we did not believe we could launch our 5,500 against their 350 and destroy so many of them that so few would be left that they couldn't inflict unacceptable damage. This is absolutely fundamental to security.'

Secondly, Mr. McNamara said, deployment of an elaborate ballistic missile defense system would be a clear indication of 'our determination to maintain large offensive nuclear forces indefinitely.'

Because this intention is a 'direct violation' of Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which binds the five declared nuclear weapons states to eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, it will further undermine the nonproliferation regime, possibly leading to its collapse.

'And if it collapses, we're not going to then have three aircraft bombs killing 7,000 people,' Mr. McNamara said, referring to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. 'We're going to have three nuclear bombs killing 7 million people. Very, very quickly after the collapse of the nonproliferation regime, there would be proliferation,' the result of a 'latent, pent-up demand for nuclear weapons in many, many parts of the world.'
Therefore, Mr. McNamara called for the United States to work with other nations toward nuclear disarmament.

Pakistani Ambassador Shamshad Ahmad… cited Albert Einstein's comment that 'the fourth world war will be fought with rocks and stones.'

'This is a very meaningful message: that man has an innate tendency to fight and to use whatever he can use as a weapon,' Ambassador Ahmad said. 'So the best and the ideal solution is to root out the causes of conflict.'

However, Ambassador Ahmad said, the United Nations is 'faring no better' than Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations at this task.
Mr. McNamara concurred with Ambassador Ahmad's assessment and called for a sweeping change of the United Nation's structure to make it 'an effective power in the world.'

The American people 'are not yet ready to cede sovereignty as they see it to the UN,' Mr. McNamara said. Nevertheless, 'we're going to have to move in that way, and it requires all of us to help do it.'

Terwijl de voltallige polderpers de hetze tegen 'Poetin' fanatiek voortzet, en Hofland met zijn Koude Oorlogsretoriek furore maakt, blijft de vooraanstaande Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist Robert Parry daarentegen uiterst waakzaam, en waarschuwde hij zijn lezers:

A year after a U.S.-backed coup ousted Ukraine’s elected president, the new powers in Kiev are itching for a 'full-scale war' with Russia — and want the West’s backing even if it could provoke a nuclear conflict. 

Onder de kop 'Ready for Nuclear War over Ukraine?' schreef hij op 23 februari 2015:

A senior Ukrainian official is urging the West to risk a nuclear conflagration in support of a 'full-scale war' with Russia that he says authorities in Kiev are now seeking, another sign of the extremism that pervades the year-old, U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.

In a recent interview with Canada’s CBC Radio, Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said, 'Everybody is afraid of fighting with a nuclear state. We are not anymore, in Ukraine — we’ve lost so many people of ours, we’ve lost so much of our territory.'

Prystaiko added, 'However dangerous it sounds, we have to stop [Russian President Vladimir Putin] somehow. For the sake of the Russian nation as well, not just for the Ukrainians and Europe.' The deputy foreign minister announced that Kiev is preparing for “full-scale war” against Russia and wants the West to supply lethal weapons and training so the fight can be taken to Russia.

'What we expect from the world is that the world will stiffen up in the spine a little,' Prystaiko said.

Yet, what is perhaps most remarkable about Prystaiko’s 'Dr. Strangelove' moment is that it produced almost no reaction in the West. You have a senior Ukrainian official saying that the world should risk nuclear war over a civil conflict in Ukraine between its west, which favors closer ties to Europe, and its east, which wants to maintain its historic relationship with Russia.

Why should such a pedestrian dispute justify the possibility of vaporizing millions of human beings and conceivably ending life on the planet? Yet, instead of working out a plan for a federalized structure in Ukraine or even allowing people in the east to vote on whether they want to remain under the control of the Kiev regime, the world is supposed to risk nuclear annihilation.

But therein lies one of the under-reported stories of the Ukraine crisis: There is a madness to the Kiev regime that the West doesn’t want to recognize because to do so would upend the dominant narrative of 'our' good guys vs. Russia’s bad guys. If we begin to notice that the right-wing regime in Kiev is crazy and brutal, we might also start questioning the 'Russian aggression' mantra.

According to the Western 'group think,' the post-coup Ukrainian government 'shares our values' by favoring democracy and modernity, while the rebellious ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine are 'Moscow’s minions' representing dark forces of backwardness and violence, personified by Russia’s 'irrational' President Putin. In this view, the conflict is a clash between the forces of good and evil where there is no space for compromise.

Yet, there is a craziness to this 'group think' that is highlighted by Prystaiko’s comments. Not only does the Kiev regime display a cavalier attitude about dragging the world into a nuclear catastrophe but it also has deployed armed neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists to wage a dirty war in the east that has involved torture and death-squad activities.

Volgende keer meer over de onbegrensde, levensgevaarlijke dwaasheden van H.J.A. Hofland.

Henk Hofland tijdens de Tweede Koude Oorlog, een halve eeuw na de bovenste foto, uiterlijk veranderd, maar innerlijk nog steeds dezelfde Koude Oorlogspropagandist. 

Jarenlang was Hofland bevriend met journalist Willem Oltmans. Aan die vriendschap kwam in 1972 een abrupt einde. Tijdens een feestje bij Oltmans, waren naast Hofland en anderen ook Sovjet-diplomaten aanwezig. De eveneens aanwezige Telegraaf-journalist Peter Zonneveld schoot foto's met een verborgen camera en bracht daarmee, gelet op de gespannen Oost-West verhoudingen van destijds, Oltmans' journalistieke integriteit in diskrediet. Volgens Oltmans zaten de inlichtingendiensten er achter en had Hofland een aandeel in dat complot. De door De Telegraaf gepubliceerde foto's (waarvoor de krant overigens werd veroordeeld op grond van de Wet op de Privé-sfeer) deden veel stof opwaaien en hadden grote gevolgen voor Hofland als hoofdredacteur; in die functie had hij het al moeilijk met een progressieve redactie contra een lezerspubliek dat over het algemeen conservatief was. De affaire-Zonneveld betekende het einde van zijn redacteurschap. Hij mocht zich gaan bezighouden met het berichten over televisie, maar bedankte daarvoor.

Nemtsov Murder: Anti-Putin False Flag!

As if on cue, the murder yesterday of Boris Nemtsov, a Washington-funded Russian “opposition politician” with a tiny following, has become a major news item for the American presstitute media.  The presstitutes have responded as if orchestrated by a conductor with insinuations of Putin’s responsibility and the death of democracy in Russia.

Stephen Lendman who watches these matters closely notes that clearly Nemtsov is worth more to Washington dead than alive.

Nemtsov Murder: Anti-Putin False Flag! — Stephen Lendman


Nemtsov Murder: Anti-Putin False Flag!

by Stephen Lendman

Overnight Friday, opposition politician/Putin antagonist Boris Nemtsov was shot and killed in central Moscow. 

Tass said he was “shot dead (by) four shots from a handgun from a car passing by him…”
He was RPR-Parnas party co-chair, a Yaroslavi Oblast regional parliament member, and Solidarnost co-founder/co-chair – modeled after CIA-financed anti-communist Lech Walesa’s Polish Solidarnosc.
In the 1990s, he held various government posts – including first deputy prime minister and deputy prime minister under Boris Yeltsin. 
He served in Russia’s lower house State Duma and upper house Federation Council. He ignored clear US responsibility for Ukrainian crisis conditions. He lied calling Donbass “Vladimir Putin’s war.”
Before Washington’s coup, he said “(w)e support Ukraine’s course toward European integration…By supporting Ukraine, we support ourselves.”
Along with Aleksey Navalny, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Ryzhkov, and other Putin opponents, he had close Western ties.
He got State Department funding through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). It wages war on democracy worldwide. 
It advances US interests. Its board of directors includes a rogue’s gallery of neocon extremists.
In 2009, Nemtsov and Kasparov met personally with Obama. They discussed anti-Putin tactics – regime change by any other name.
Nemtsov’s killing was strategically timed – ahead of Sunday’s Vesna (Russian Spring anti-government) opposition march. 
I’ll now be a Nemtsov memorial rally – turning an anti-Putin/pro-Western opportunist/convenient stooge into an unjustifiable martyr. 
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “Putin has stressed that this brutal murder has all (the) signs of a contract murder and is extremely provocative.”
“The president has expressed his deep condolences to the family of tragically deceased Nemtsov.”
Serial-killer/unindicted war criminal Obama “condemn(ed) (his) brutal murder.” 
He ludicrously called him “a tireless advocate for his country, seeking for his fellow Russian citizens the rights to which all people are entitled.”  
“I admired Nemtsov’s courageous dedication to the struggle against corruption in Russia and appreciated his willingness to share his candid views with me when we met in Moscow in 2009.”
“(T)he Russian people…have lost one of the most dedicated and eloquent defenders of their rights.”
John Kerry made similar duplicitous comments. Mikhail Gorbachev called his killing “an attempt to complicate the situation in the country, even to destabilize it by ratcheting up tensions between the government and the opposition.”
Nemtsov was a Western financed self-serving opportunist. His killing has all the earmarks of a US-staged false flag. Cui bono remains most important.
Clearly Putin had nothing to gain. Rogue US elements have lots to benefit from trying to destabilize Russia.
If Putin wanted Nemtsov dead, it’s inconceivable he’d order a Mafia-style contract killing. An “unfortunate” plane or car crash would have been more likely.
Perhaps cleverly poisoning him the way Obama murdered Chavez and Sharon killed Arafat.
Gunning him down in central Moscow automatically rules out Kremlin involvement. 
His demise has all the earmarks of a CIA-staged false flag. Expect no evidence whatever surfacing suggesting Putin’s involvement.
Nemtsov’s martyrdom is much more valuable to Washington than using him alive as an impotent opposition figure.
Despite challenging economic conditions, Putin’s approval rating exceeds 85%. Nemtsov’s party has less than 5%. He was no popular favorite. Most Russians disliked him.
Expect his hyped martyrdom to be fully exploited in the West. Does Washington plan more political assassinations to heighten the Nemtsov effect?
Expect Sunday’s march to be nothing more than another US failed attempt to enlist anti-Putin support.
Russians aren’t stupid. They know how Washington operates. How it vilifies their government. How neocon lunatics in charge are capable of anything.
They know Washington bears full responsibility for Ukrainian crisis conditions. How Putin goes all-out trying to resolve them diplomatically.
Obama wants war, not peace. He wants destabilizing regime change in Russia – perhaps by nuclear war if other methods fail.
Killing Nemtsov changes nothing. Expect Western anti-Putin propaganda to fall flat after a few days of suggesting his involvement.
The New York Times practically accused him of murder calling Nemtsov’s killing “the highest-profile assassination in Russia during (his) tenure.”
His death occurred “just days before he was to lead (an anti-Putin) rally to protest the war in Ukraine.”
The Times absurdly claimed “doors are now closing on the vision of a pluralistic political system of the type (Nemtsov) said he wanted for Russia.”
It quoted discredited (on corruption charges) Putin opposition figure Gennady Gudkov saying “(t)hey have started to kill ‘enemies of the people.’ Mr. Nemtsov is dead. Who is next?”
The Times called him a “dashing, handsome young politician..often touted as an heir apparent to (Boris) Yeltsin.”
Neocon Washington Post editors called his murder “another dark sign for Russia.”
They flat-out lied saying he “was a courageous Russian politician who never gave up on the dream that the country could make the transition from dictatorship to liberal democracy.”
They tried turning a nobody into a political icon. Ludicrously claiming he “be(came) one of the most enduring political figures of the post-Soviet era.”
Disgracefully saying “he was by no means the first Putin opponent to be murdered in brazen fashion.” Practically accusing Putin of ordering his killing.
Claiming he’s “unwilling to tolerate opposition of any kind.” Ignoring his overwhelming popularity. His opposition does a good job of rendering itself irrelevant.
Neocon Wall Street Journal editors proved true to form. They outrageously said “(i)n the gangster state that is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, we may never learn who shot Boris Nemtsov in Moscow late Friday night.”
They absurdly claimed “he might have steered Russia toward a decent future had he been given a chance.”
“Instead, he was fated to become a courageous voice for democracy and human rights who risked his life to alert an indifferent West to the dangers of doing business with the man in the Kremlin.”
Journal and like-minded editorials and commentaries repeated one Big Lie after another. Irresponsible Putin bashing substitutes for honest reporting and analysis.
Nemtsov’s killing is Washington’s latest attempt to destabilize Russia. It’s part of its longstanding regime change strategy.
It bears repeating. Russians are too smart to fall for thinly veiled US schemes. 
Their overwhelming support for Putin shows flat rejection of what Washington neocons have in mind for their country. 
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

Meer over de NED, de Amerikaanse organisatie die de zogeheten 'democratische oppostie' financiert in landen die kritisch tegenover Washington staan.

Trojan Horse:

The National Endowment for Democracy

excerpted from the book

Rogue State

A Guide to the World's Only Superpower

by William Blum

Common Courage Press, 2000


How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate-the Church Committee of the Senate, the Pike Committee of the House and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name-the National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.

It was a masterpiece. Of politics, of public relations and of cynicism. Thus it was that in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to "support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts". Notice the "nongovernmental"-part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO (non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a GO.

Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.

The Endowment has four principal initial recipients of funds: the International Republican Institute; the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs; an affiliate of the AFL-CIO (such as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity); and an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce (such as the Center for International Private Enterprise). These institutions then disburse funds to other institutions in the US and all over the world, which then often disburse funds to yet other organizations.

In a multitude of ways, NED meddles in the internal affairs of foreign countries by supplying funds, technical know-how, training, educational materials, computers, fax machines, copiers, automobiles and so on, to selected political groups, civic organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, other media, etc. NED programs generally impart the basic philosophy that working people and other citizens are best served under a system of free enterprise, class cooperation, collective bargaining, minimal government intervention in the economy and opposition to socialism in any shape or form. A freemarket economy is equated with democracy, reform and growth, and the merits of foreign investment are emphasized.

From 1994 to 1996, NED awarded 15 grants, totaling more than $2,500,000, to the American Institute for Free Labor Development, an organization used by the CIA for decades to subvert progressive labor unions. AlFLD's work within Third World unions typically involved a considerable educational effort very similar to the basic NED philosophy described above. The description of one of the 1996 NED grants to AIFLD includes as one its objectives: "build union-management cooperation". Like many things that NED says, this sounds innocuous, if not positive, but these in fact are ideological code words meaning "keep the labor agitation down...don't rock the status quo boat". The relationship between NED and AIFLD very well captures the CIA origins of NED.

The Endowment has funded centrist and rightist labor organizations to help them oppose those unions which were too militantly proworker. This has taken place in France, Portugal and Spain amongst many other places. In France, during the 1983-4 period, NED supported a "trade union-like organization for professors and students" to counter "left-wing organizations of professors". To this end it funded a series of seminars and the publication of posters, books and pamphlets such as "Subversion and the Theology of Revolution" and "Neutralism or Liberty". ("Neutralism" here refers to being unaligned in the Cold War.)

NED describes one of its 1997-98 programs thusly: "To identify barriers to private sector development at the local and federal levels in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to push for legislative change...[and] to develop strategies for private sector growth." Critics of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have been supported by NED grants for years.

In short, NED's programs are in sync with the basic needs and objectives of the New World Order's economic globalization, just as the programs have for years been on the same wavelength as US foreign policy.

Because of a controversy in 1984-when NED funds were used to aid a Panamanian presidential candidate backed by Manuel Noriega and the CIA-Congress enacted a law prohibiting the use of NED funds "to finance the campaigns of candidates for public office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money".

... NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996 and helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992. In Haiti in the late l990s, NED was busy working on behalf of right wing groups who were united in their opposition to former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive ideology. NED has made its weight felt in the electoral-political process in numerous other countries.

NED would have the world believe that it's only teaching the ABCs of democracy and elections to people who don't know them, but in all five countries named above there had already been free and fair elections held. The problem, from NED's point of view, is that the elections had been won by political parties not on NED's favorites list.

The Endowment maintains that it's engaged in "opposition building" and "encouraging pluralism". "We support people who otherwise do not have a voice in their political system," said Louisa Coan, a NED program officer. But NED hasn't provided aid to foster progressive or leftist opposition in Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua or Eastern Europe-or, for that matter, in the United States even though these groups are hard pressed for funds and to make themselves heard. Cuban dissident groups and media are heavily supported however.

NED's reports carry on endlessly about "democracy", but at best it's a modest measure of mechanical political democracy they have in mind, not economic democracy; nothing that aims to threaten the powers-that-be or the way-things-are, unless of course it's in a place like Cuba.

The Endowment played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's shadowy "Project Democracy" network, which privatized US foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs and engaged in other equally charming activities. At one point in 1987, a White House spokesman stated that those at NED "run Project Democracy". This was an exaggeration; it would have been more correct to say that NED was the public arm of Project Democracy, while North ran the covert end of things. In any event, the statement caused much less of a stir than if-as in an earlier period-it had been revealed that it was the CIA which was behind such an unscrupulous operation.

NED also mounted a multi-level campaign to fight the leftist insurgency in the Philippines in the mid-1980s, funding a host of private organizations, including unions and the media. This was a replica of a typical CIA operation of pre-NED days.

And between 1990 and 1992, the Endowment donated a quarter-million dollars of taxpayers' money to the Cuban-American National Fund, the ultra-fanatic anti-Castro Miami group. The CANF, in turn, financed Luis Posada Carriles, one of the most prolific and pitiless terrorists of modern times, who was involved in the blowing up of a Cuban airplane in 1976, which killed 73 people. In 1997, he was involved in a series of bomb explosions in Havana hotels.

The NED, like the CIA before it, calls what it does supporting democracy. The governments and movements whom the NED targets call it destabilization.


William Blum is the author of "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" (Common Courage Press, 1995).