Media Corruptie 34

No one expects the United Nations, or the international criminal courts, to ensure a stable and universal world peace, for this is a Kantian utopia devoid of theoretical and political interest.

Danilo Zolo. Victors’ Justice: From Nuremberg to Baghdad. 2009 

Wanneer deze Italiaanse hoogleraar Filosofie en Rechtssociologie aan de Universiteit van Florence spreekt van 'no one,' dan betekent dit: niemand die meetelt, niemand die ertoe doet, niemand met macht. In de sociale wetenschappen, die in strikte zin geen wetenschappen zijn maar een serie ideologische aannames, geldt maar al te vaak dat de rest van de mensheid — de machtelozen van wie het lot door een uiterst kleine economische en politieke elite wordt bepaald — letterlijk een 'nobody,' is,  een massa zonder stem, zonder gezicht, zonder kern, een nul, als het ware een menigte zonder lichaam, onzichtbaar en gezichtsloos. 

Maar omdat desondanks de massa bestaat gaat de macht in zogeheten 'democratisch' bestuurde samenlevingen uit van de regel dat 'more can be won by illusion than coercion,' zoals de gezaghebbende Amerikaanse socioloog Harold D. Lasswell het formuleerde in zijn studie Propaganda Technique in the World War (1938). Tot nu toe kostte het veel meer om de massa te onderdrukken dan de bevolking via bedrieglijke mythen te beheersen. Lasswell had als adolescent in de jaren twintig van de vorige eeuw de geboorte van de massamaatschappij van nabij meegemaakt en als 'een van de creatiefste en invloedrijkste wetenschappers van zijn tijd' had hij daarop vervolgens een niet geringe stempel gedrukt. Wikipedia meldt over hem:

Door gebruik te maken van een scala van psychologische en sociologische methoden in een discipline die tot dan toe alleen gebruik maakte van historische, juridische en filosofische methoden werd Harold Lasswell de grondlegger van de hedendaagse politieke wetenschap en met name de politieke psychologie.

Ook op het gebied van de communicatiewetenschappen heeft hij met zijn communicatiemodel een grote invloed gehad.

Op het gebied van beleidsstudies was het Harold Lasswell die de richting aangaf met de omschrijving waaraan deze (toen) nieuwe discipline moest voldoen (multidisciplinair, probleem oplossend, expliciet normatief).

Als eerbetoon wordt jaarlijks door de American Political Science Association (APSA) de Harold D. Lasswell Award uitgereikt voor het beste proefschrift op het gebied van de beleidsstudies.

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lasswell 

Met betrekking tot de mainstream media schreef professor Lasswell in 1927: 'Propaganda is one of the most powerful instrumentalities in the modern world.' En de reden waarom het bewust manipuleren van 'significant symbols' zo belangrijk was geworden was volgens hem simpelweg deze: 

The bonds of personal loyalty and affection which bound a man to his chief have long since dissolved. Monarchy and class privilege have gone the way of all flesh, and the idolatry of the individual passes for the official religion of democracy. It is an atomized world, in which individual whims have wider play than ever before, and it requires more strenuous exertions to co-ordinate and unify than formerly. The new antidote to willfulness is propaganda. If the mass will be free of chains of iron, it must accept its chains of silver. If it will not love, honor and obey, it must not expect to escape seduction.

Volgens Lasswell's cynisch mens- en wereldbeeld gold dat aangezien 'the masses are still captive  to ignorance and superstition' de komst van de democratie 'compelled the development of a whole new technique of control, largely through propaganda.' Want, zo stelde hij, propaganda is 'the one means of mass mobilization which is cheaper than violence, bribery or other possible control techniques.' Het spreekt voor zich dat juist in 'democratieën' de taak van het mobiliseren en disciplineren van de massa in handen is gegeven van de commerciële massamedia. De Poolse journalist Ryszard Kapuściński schreef in verband daarmee in De Ander. Essays van de reporter van de eeuw (2011) dat ‘in de eerste decennia’ van de twintigste eeuw

twee nieuwe, in de geschiedenis tot dan toe onbekende verschijnselen [worden] waargenomen: de geboorte van de massasamenleving en het ontstaan van totalitaire systemen… Het woord ‘massa’ is tot sleutelwoord geworden waarmee die wereld wordt beschreven. Zo zijn er: massacultuur en massahysterie, massamode (of veeleer gebrek aan smaak) en massagekte, massaknechting en tot slot massavernietiging. De massa is de enige held op het wereldtoneel en het belangrijkste kenmerk van deze menigte is haar anonimiteit, haar gebrek aan individualiteit, identiteit, gezicht. Het individu raakte verdwaald in die menigte, werd overspoeld door de massa, werd door de wateren verzwolgen. Het individu verwerd, zoals Gabriel Marcel (Franse  filosoof svh) het formuleerde, tot ‘een onpersoonlijke anonymus in een onvolledige toestand.’

De massa is in deze optiek als een wild beest, een voortdurende bedreiging, al was het maar omdat de psychologische wetten van de massa anders zijn dan die van het individu. Om over de massa te heersen moet de elite haar indoctrineren; haar negeren kunnen de heersers natuurlijk niet zonder hun eigen positie in gevaar te brengen. Elke dag weer moeten de machtigen de massa controleren, indoctrineren en manipuleren willen zij hun positie legitimeren. Dit feit gaat op voor zowel een zogenaamde 'democratie' als voor een dictatuur, het maakt niet uit aangezien beide systemen totalitaire technocratieën zijn. Beide systemen moeten per definitie alle aspecten van het bestaan van de massa beheersen, zowel in de publieke- als in de privé-sfeer, want niets in de wereld beangstigt de elite zo intens als de massa. Vandaar dat de Amerikaanse National Security Agency ook de eigen bevolking permanent bespioneert. 'Security' is net als 'democracy,' een verhullend politiek begrip, waarachter de werkelijk macht schuilgaat. Of zoals George Orwell het formuleerde: 'Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.' 

De politieke taal moet het feit maskeren dat ondanks alle uiterlijke verschillen de angsten van eveneens de machtige zijn gedrag blijven bepalen. Degene met macht is nog banger dan de machteloze, en wel omdat de machtige van nature meer vijanden heeft. Nobelprijswinnaar Elias Canetti schreef in zijn beroemde studie Massa & Macht (1960) het volgende:

Voor niets is de mens meer beducht dan voor de aanraking door iets onbekends…. Overal gaat de mens de aanraking door een vreemd element uit de weg… Alle afstanden die de mensen om zich heen geschapen hebben, zijn door deze aanrakingsvrees ingegeven… Deze weerzin tegen de aanraking verlaat ons ook niet wanneer we ons onder de mensen begeven. De manier waarop we ons op straat, tussen veel mensen, in restaurants, in treinen en autobussen bewegen, wordt door deze vrees ingegeven…

Alleen in de massa kan de mens van deze aanrakingsvrees worden verlost. Het is de enige situatie waarin deze vrees in haar tegendeel omslaat. Hiertoe is de dichte massa nodig, waarin lichaam tegen lichaam gedrukt is; dicht ook in geestelijke zin, namelijk zo dat men er niet op let wie het is die zich ‘opdringt.’ Zodra men zich eenmaal aan de massa heeft overgegeven, vreest men haar aanraking niet. In het ideale geval zijn allen aan elkaar gelijk. Er geldt geen enkel verschil, zelfs niet tussen de geslachten. Wie het ook is die zich tegen ons aandrukt, hij is gelijk aan onszelf. Men ondergaat hem zoals men zichzelf ondergaat. Alles speelt zich dan plotseling als binnen één lichaam af… Hoe steviger de mensen tegen elkaar aangedrongen zijn, des te zekerder ze voelen dat ze geen angst voor elkaar hebben. Dit omslaan van de aanrakingsvrees is een kenmerk van de massa.

Het is vanzelfsprekend dat de machtige nooit kan opgaan in de massa. Het is daarom  dat de elite deze eenwording, waarin iedereen gelijk wordt aan elkaar, zo intens vreest. Op dat moment is namelijk de massa voor de machtigen onbeheersbaar geworden en kan de menigte haar eigen weg gaan. De hiërarchie is doorbroken, tenzij de elite de massa mobiliseert en de energie die vrijkomt op een vermeend gevaar of vijand weet te concentreren. Canetti:

In zijn afstanden verstart en versombert de mens. Hij tilt zwaar aan deze last en komt niet van zijn plaats. Hij vergeet dat hij zichzelf zijn last heeft opgelegd en hunkert naar een bevrijding ervan. Maar hoe kan hij zich in zijn eentje bevrijden? Wat hij er ook voor zou doen, en hoe vastbesloten hij ook zou zijn, hij zou zich onder andere mensen bevinden die zijn pogingen verijdelen. Zolang zij aan hun afstanden vasthouden komt hij geen stap nader. Slechts allen tezamen kunnen zich van de last van hun afstanden bevrijden. En dat is precies wat in de massa gebeurt. In de ontlading worden de verschillen afgeworpen en voelen zich gelijk. In deze dichtheid, waarin nauwelijks ruimte tussen hen is, waarin lichaam zich tegen lichaam perst, is de een de ander even nabij als zichzelf. De verlichting hierover is kolossaal. Ter wille van dit gelukkige ogenblik, waarin niemand méér, niemand beter is dan de ander, worden de mensen tot massa.

Die massa wordt gedreven door instincten, niet door ideeën, omdat die abstract zijn. De massa zoekt ook geen oplossing, maar een ontlading en wel omdat 'in de ontlading de verschillen [worden] afgeworpen en allen zich gelijk [voelen]… De verlichting hierover is kolossaal. Ter wille van dit gelukkige ogenblik, waarin niemand méér, niemand beter is dan de ander, worden de mensen tot massa.' Canetti voegde hieraan toe: 

Maar het zo begeerde en zo gelukkige ogenblik van ontlading draagt zijn eigen gevaar in zich. Het lijdt aan een fundamentele zinsbegoocheling: de mensen die zich plotseling gelijk voelen zijn niet werkelijk en voor altijd gelijk geworden. 

In Massa & Macht beschreef Canetti dit fenomeen aan de hand van de machtsverschillen:

De voldoening in rangorde hoger te staan dan anderen compenseert niet het verlies aan bewegingsvrijheid. In zijn afstanden verstart en versombert de mens. Hij tilt zwaar aan deze last en komt niet van de plaats. Hij vergeet dat hij zichzelf zijn last heeft opgelegd en hunkert naar bevrijding ervan. Maar hoe kan hij zich in zijn eentje bevrijden? Wat hij er ook voor zou doen, en hoe vastbesloten hij ook zou zijn, hij zou zich onder andere mensen bevinden die zijn pogingen verijdelen. Zolang zij aan hun afstanden vasthouden komt hij hun geen stap nader. Slechts allen tezamen kunnen zich van de last van hun afstanden bevrijden. En dat is precies wat in de massa gebeurt. In de ontlading worden de verschillen afgeworpen en voelen allen zich gelijk. In deze dichtheid, waarin nauwelijks ruimte tussen hen is, waarin lichaam zich tegen lichaam perst, is de een de ander even nabij als zichzelf. De verlichting hierover is kolossaal. Ter wille van dit gelukkige ogenblik, waarin niemand méér, niemand beter is dan de ander, worden de mensen tot massa.

Maar het zo begeerde en zo gelukkige ogenblik van de ontlading draagt zijn eigen gevaar in zich. Het lijdt aan een fundamentele zinsbegoocheling: de mensen die zich plotseling gelijk voelen zijn niet werkelijk en voor altijd gelijk geworden. Ze keren in hun afzonderlijke huizen terug, ze leggen zich in hun eigen bedden te slapen.

Kortom, de massa

valt uiteen. Ze voelt dat ze uiteen zal vallen. Ze vreest de afbraak. Ze kan slechts blijven bestaan als het proces van ontlading wordt voortgezet, in nieuwe mensen die zich bij haar aansluiten. Slechts het aangroeien van de massa belet hen die er reeds toe behoren om onder het juk van hun persoonlijke lasten terug te keren.

Centraal in de massapsychologische uiteenzetting van Elias Canetti staat zijn constatering dat  'Ter wille van dit gelukkige ogenblik, waarin niemand méér, niemand beter is dan de ander, worden de mensen tot massa.' Dit verklaart ook de nadruk van het kapitalisme op het 'individualisme.' Het opmerkelijke feit doet zich voor dat terwijl het 'individualisme' wordt verheerlijkt, tegelijkertijd reclame en politieke propaganda conformisme afdwingen. In deze schizofrene werkelijkheid speelt de 'vrije pers' een doorslaggevende rol, waardoor  elke dag weer het dogma opgaat dat 'more can be won by illusion than coercion.' Hoe onvrijer de massamens is, des te meer de illusie van vrijheid wordt gepropageerd. Tot uiteindelijk de werkelijkheid en de illusie zover uit elkaar komen te liggen dat de propaganda wordt doorzien en daardoor zijn werking verliest. 

De westerse wereld staat aan de vooravond van een dergelijk demasqué. Eén van de symptomen daarvan is dat fundamenteel afwijkende zienswijzen vandaag de dag door de poortwachters van de elite onmiddellijk worden gemarginaliseerd en dissidenten ogenblikkelijk worden gemarginaliseerd. Maar het probleem, de frictie, de sociale onrust, het maatschappelijke verzet verdwijnt daardoor natuurlijk niet. Zoals de auteurs van Four Horsemen. The Survival Manual (2012) stellen: 'in a world where well-oiled media machines display images of privilege and obscene wealth to the poorest people, it's hardly surprising that growing numbers feel deprived.' Het systeem zelf bereid per definitie zijn eigen ondergang voor. Desondanks, of beter nog, juist daarom proberen de mainstream media in een ultieme poging de status quo te handhaven, door de werkelijkheid te ontdoen van logica. De wetten van oorzaak en gevolg worden ontkend, en het slachtoffer wordt geportretteerd als dader. Blaming the victim. Four Horsemen stelt daar tegenover dat 

Economic exclusion inevitably causes resentment and alienation. Securing economic advantage through military superiority is wrong. It may have been the way of things for much of human history but moral advance renders it unacceptable today. In the face of disastrous military interventions, many people have lost all faith in the arguments of politicians and their policy decisions, devoid as they are of any moral reflection.

If democracy is unable to prevent the abuse of military power by rich nations, it is no better at holding elites to account over an economic system which favors rich nations over poor… 

In the rich countries, institutions have evolved to legitimize the channelling of wealth from those who create it to those who set the rules.

Naar aanleiding van de tendentieuze berichtgeving van de mainstream media over de grootscheepse rellen in Groot-Brittannië tijdens de zomer van 2011, die door de commerciële pers werden afgedaan als 'gewelddadige confrontaties' van 'jeugdige relschoppers,' schreven de auteurs van Four Horsemen:

The rioting and looting was a spontaneous explosion of social violence with no cause beyond the moral failings of its perpetrators. Politicians — many of whose reputations survived the MPs' expenses scandal on legal but not moral grounds — were wheeled out to drench the airwaves with moral indignation. No further explanation was necessary: these looters were just bad people. Politicians demanded tough sentences and the judiciary delivered. Anyone who dared suggest that the worst civil unrest in thirty years might have some connection to the most severe economic conditions since the 1930s was accused of trying to make political capital out of a situation that had no political or economic content. 

It is a recipe for trouble when a society arranges itself so that, even in economic boom times, an underclass of long-term unemployed and poorly paid people becomes a necessary and permanent feature. When thousands more then lose their jobs, and other low paid workers are warned that this is only the tip of the iceberg, there is bound to be civil unrest…

The riots were a result of deepening economic exclusion in a society in which the gap between rich and poor is now wider than ever. As journalist Suzanne Moore wrote in The Guardian, 'We cannot permanently exclude the already excluded and expect no reaction.'

The effect of exclusion is exacerbated after three decades during which our collective psyche has been manipulated by the bogus message that endless consumption is the only way to happiness. If you dangle consumerist baubles (snuisterijen svh) in front of people who can't get them through legitimate means, then eventually you will have trouble on the streets. It's not surprising that the shops without which (according to the advertising industry) life is incomplete. It is a perverse society that devotes so much effort to encouraging people to consume and then denies som many the means to do so. The only really surprising thing is that it took the deepest recession in decades to finally tip people over the edge. Suzanne Moore sums it up well: 'If your only purchase into society is what we purchase, then looting is simply a shortcut in the grotesque spectacle.'

Maar deze voor de hand liggende observatie van een journaliste die zelf uit de 'working class' komt, is onbegrijpelijk voor de kleinburgerlijke mentaliteit van de polderpers, in dienst van de neoliberale elite, zoals ik zelf eind jaren zeventig, begin jaren tachtig merkte, toen de zogeheten 'krakersrellen' door de mainstream pers en politici werden afgeschilderd als onverklaarbaar geweld van loslopend tuig op straat. Zodra de macht niet meer in staat is om de tactiek te handhaven waarbij 'more can be won by illusion than coercion' dan doet de 'vrije pers' wat van haar verwacht wordt: het criminaliseren van de oppositie, net als in totalitair bestuurde landen. Het recht en de geschiedenis worden altijd door 'Victors' geschreven.

De volgende informatie die de werkelijkheid in een bredere context plaatst, zal u niet snel in de westerse mainstream media aantreffen, en zeker niet in Nederland:

Russia invades Ukraine. Again. And again. And yet again … using Saddam’s WMD

By William Blum 

November 19, 2014 "ICH" - "Anti-Empire Report"- “Russia reinforced what Western and Ukrainian officials described as a stealth invasion on Wednesday [August 27], sending armored troops across the border as it expanded the conflict to a new section of Ukrainian territory. The latest incursion, which Ukraine’s military said included five armored personnel carriers, was at least the third movement of troops and weapons from Russia across the southeast part of the border this week.”

None of the photos accompanying this New York Times story online showed any of these Russian troops or armored vehicles.

“The Obama administration,” the story continued, “has asserted over the past week that the Russians had moved artillery, air-defense systems and armor to help the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk. ‘These incursions indicate a Russian-directed counteroffensive is likely underway’, Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said. At the department’s daily briefing in Washington, Ms. Psaki also criticized what she called the Russian government’s ‘unwillingness to tell the truth’ that its military had sent soldiers as deep as 30 miles inside Ukraine territory.”

Thirty miles inside Ukraine territory and not a single satellite photo, not a camera anywhere around, not even a one-minute video to show for it. “Ms. Psaki apparently [sic] was referring to videos of captured Russian soldiers, distributed by the Ukrainian government.” The Times apparently forgot to inform its readers where they could see these videos.

“The Russian aim, one Western official said, may possibly be to seize an outlet to the sea in the event that Russia tries to establish a separatist enclave in eastern Ukraine.”

This of course hasn’t taken place. So what happened to all these Russian soldiers 30 miles inside Ukraine? What happened to all the armored vehicles, weapons, and equipment?

“The United States has photographs that show the Russian artillery moved into Ukraine, American officials say. One photo dated last Thursday, shown to a New York Times reporter, shows Russian military units moving self-propelled artillery into Ukraine. Another photo, dated Saturday, shows the artillery in firing positions in Ukraine.”

Where are these photographs? And how will we know that these are Russian soldiers? And how will we know that the photos were taken in Ukraine? But most importantly, where are the fucking photographs?

Why am I so cynical? Because the Ukrainian and US governments have been feeding us these scare stories for eight months now, without clear visual or other evidence, often without even common sense. Here are a few of the many other examples, before and after the one above:

• The Wall Street Journal (March 28) reported: “Russian troops massing near Ukraine are actively concealing their positions and establishing supply lines that could be used in a prolonged deployment, ratcheting up concerns that Moscow is preparing for another [sic] major incursion and not conducting exercises as it claims, US officials said.”
• “The Ukrainian government charged that the Russian military was not only approaching but had actually crossed the border into rebel-held regions.” (Washington Post, November 7)
• “U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove told reporters in Bulgaria that NATO had observed Russian tanks, Russian artillery, Russian air defense systems and Russian combat troops enter Ukraine across a completely wide-open border with Russia in the previous two days.” (Washington Post, November 13)
• “Ukraine accuses Russia of sending more soldiers and weapons to help rebels prepare for a new offensive. The Kremlin has repeatedly denied aiding the separatists.” (Reuters, November 16)

Since the February US-backed coup in Ukraine, the State Department has made one accusation after another about Russian military actions in Eastern Ukraine without presenting any kind of satellite imagery or other visual or documentary evidence; or they present something that’s very unclear and wholly inconclusive, such as unmarked vehicles, or unsourced reports, or citing “social media”; what we’re left with is often no more than just an accusation. The Ukrainian government has matched them.

On top of all this we should keep in mind that if Moscow decided to invade Ukraine they’d certainly provide air cover for their ground forces. There has been no mention of air cover.

This is all reminiscent of the numerous stories in the past three years of “Syrian planes bombing defenseless citizens”. Have you ever seen a photo or video of a Syrian government plane dropping bombs? Or of the bombs exploding? When the source of the story is mentioned, it’s almost invariably the rebels who are fighting against the Syrian government. Then there’s the “chemical weapon” attacks by the same evil Assad government. When a photo or video has accompanied the story I’ve never once seen grieving loved ones or media present; not one person can be seen wearing a gas mask. Is it only children killed or suffering? No rebels?

And then there’s the July 17 shootdown of Malaysia Flight MH17, over eastern Ukraine, taking 298 lives, which Washington would love to pin on Russia or the pro-Russian rebels. The US government – and therefore the US media, the EU, and NATO – want us all to believe it was the rebels and/or Russia behind it. The world is still waiting for any evidence. Or even a motivation. Anything at all. President Obama is not waiting. In a talk on November 15 in Australia, he spoke of “opposing Russia’s aggression against Ukraine – which is a threat to the world, as we saw in the appalling shoot-down of MH17”. Based on my reading, I’d guess that it was the Ukranian government behind the shootdown, mistaking it for Putin’s plane that reportedly was in the area.

Can it be said with certainty that all the above accusations were lies? No, but the burden of proof is on the accusers, and the world is still waiting. The accusers would like to create the impression that there are two sides to each question without actually having to supply one of them.

The United States punishing Cuba

For years American political leaders and media were fond of labeling Cuba an “international pariah”. We haven’t heard that for a very long time. Perhaps one reason is the annual vote in the United Nations General Assembly on the resolution which reads: “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”. This is how the vote has gone (not including abstentions):

Year	Votes (Yes-No)	No Votes
1992	59-2	US, Israel
1993	88-4	US, Israel, Albania, Paraguay
1994	101-2	US, Israel
1995	117-3	US, Israel, Uzbekistan
1996	138-3	US, Israel, Uzbekistan
1997	143-3	US, Israel, Uzbekistan
1998	157-2	US, Israel
1999	155-2	US, Israel
2000	167-3	US, Israel, Marshall Islands
2001	167-3	US, Israel, Marshall Islands
2002	173-3	US, Israel, Marshall Islands
2003	179-3	US, Israel, Marshall Islands
2004	179-4	US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau
2005	182-4	US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau
2006	183-4	US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau
2007	184-4	US, Israel, Marshall Islands, Palau
2008	185-3	US, Israel, Palau
2009	187-3	US, Israel, Palau
2010	187-2	US, Israel
2011	186-2	US, Israel
2012	188-3	US, Israel, Palau
2013	188-2	US, Israel
2014	188-2	US, Israel

This year Washington’s policy may be subject to even more criticism than usual due to the widespread recognition of Cuba’s response to the Ebola outbreak in Africa.

Each fall the UN vote is a welcome reminder that the world has not completely lost its senses and that the American empire does not completely control the opinion of other governments.

Speaking before the General Assembly before last year’s vote, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez declared: “The economic damages accumulated after half a century as a result of the implementation of the blockade amount to $1.126 trillion.” He added that the blockade “has been further tightened under President Obama’s administration”, some 30 US and foreign entities being hit with $2.446 billion in fines due to their interaction with Cuba.

However, the American envoy, Ronald Godard, in an appeal to other countries to oppose the resolution, said:

The international community … cannot in good conscience ignore the ease and frequency with which the Cuban regime silences critics, disrupts peaceful assembly, impedes independent journalism and, despite positive reforms, continues to prevent some Cubans from leaving or returning to the island. The Cuban government continues its tactics of politically motivated detentions, harassment and police violence against Cuban citizens. 

So there you have it. That is why Cuba must be punished. One can only guess what Mr. Godard would respond if told that more than 7,000 people were arrested in the United States during the Occupy Movement’s first 8 months of protest in 2011-12 ; that many of them were physically abused by the police; and that their encampments were violently destroyed.

Does Mr. Godard have access to any news media? Hardly a day passes in America without a police officer shooting to death an unarmed person.

As to “independent journalism” – What would happen if Cuba announced that from now on anyone in the country could own any kind of media? How long would it be before CIA money – secret and unlimited CIA money financing all kinds of fronts in Cuba – would own or control most of the media worth owning or controlling?

The real reason for Washington’s eternal hostility toward Cuba has not changed since the revolution in 1959 – The fear of a good example of an alternative to the capitalist model; a fear that has been validated repeatedly over the years as many Third World countries have expressed their adulation of Cuba.

How the embargo began: On April 6, 1960, Lester D. Mallory, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, wrote in an internal memorandum: “The majority of Cubans support Castro … The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship. … every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba.” Mallory proposed “a line of action which … makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” 

Later that year, the Eisenhower administration instituted its suffocating embargo against its everlasting enemy.

The United States judging and punishing the rest of the world

In addition to Cuba, Washington currently is imposing economic and other sanctions against Burma, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, China, North Korea, South Korea, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey, Germany, Malaysia, South Africa, Mexico, South Sudan, Sudan, Russia, Syria, Venezuela, India, and Zimbabwe. These are sanctions mainly against governments, but also against some private enterprises; there are also many other sanctions against individuals not included here.

Imbued with a sense of America’s moral superiority and “exceptionalism”, each year the State Department judges the world, issuing reports evaluating the behavior of all other nations, often accompanied by sanctions of one kind or another. There are different reports rating how each lesser nation has performed in the previous year in areas such as religious freedom, human rights, the war on drugs, trafficking in persons, and sponsors of terrorism. The criteria used in these reports are often political. Cuba, for example, is always listed as a sponsor of terrorism whereas anti-Castro exile groups in Florida, which have committed literally hundreds of terrorist acts over the years, are not listed as terrorist groups or supporters of such.

Cuba, which has been on the sponsor-of-terrorism list longer (since 1982) than any other country, is one of the most glaring anomalies. The most recent State Department report on this matter, in 2012, states that there is “no indication that the Cuban government provided weapons or paramilitary training to terrorist groups.” There are, however, some retirees of Spain’s Basque terrorist group ETA (which appears on the verge of disbanding) in Cuba, but the report notes that the Cuban government evidently is trying to distance itself from them by denying them services such as travel documents. Some members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) have been allowed into Cuba, but that was because Cuba was hosting peace talks between the FARC and the Colombian government, which the report notes.

The US sanctions mechanism is so effective and formidable that it strikes fear (of huge fines) into the hearts of banks and other private-sector organizations that might otherwise consider dealing with a listed state.

Some selected thoughts on American elections and democracy

In politics, as on the sickbed, people toss from one side to the other, thinking they will be more comfortable.

– Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)

• 2012 presidential election:
  223,389,800 eligible to vote
  128,449,140 actually voted
  Obama got 65,443,674 votes
  Obama was thus supported by 29.3% of eligible voters
• There are 100 million adults in the United States who do not vote. This is a very large base from which an independent party can draw millions of new votes.
• If God had wanted more of us to vote in elections, he would give us better candidates.
• “The people can have anything they want. The trouble is, they do not want anything. At least they vote that way on election day.” – Eugene Debs, American socialist leader (1855-1926)
• “If persons over 60 are the only American age group voting at rates that begin to approximate European voting, it’s because they’re the only Americans who live in a welfare state – Medicare, Social Security, and earlier, GI loans, FHA loans.” – John Powers
• “The American political system is essentially a contract between the Republican and Democratic parties, enforced by federal and state two-party laws, all designed to guarantee the survival of both no matter how many people despise or ignore them.” – Richard Reeves (1936- )
• The American electoral system, once the object of much national and international pride, has slid inexorably from “one person, one vote”, to “one dollar, one vote”.
• Noam Chomsky: “It is important to bear in mind that political campaigns are designed by the same people who sell toothpaste and cars. Their professional concern in their regular vocation is not to provide information. Their goal, rather, is deceit.”
• If the Electoral College is such a good system, why don’t we have it for local and state elections?
• “All the props of a democracy remain intact - elections, legislatures, media - but they predominantly function at the service of the oligarchy.” – Richard Wolff
• The RepDem Party holds elections as if they were auctions; indeed, an outright auction for the presidency would be more efficient. To make the auction more interesting we need a second party, which must at a minimum be granted two privileges: getting on the ballot in all 50 states and taking part in television debates.
• The US does in fact have two parties: the Ins and the Outs … the evil of two lessers.
• Alexander Cockburn: “There was a time once when ‘lesser of two evils’ actually meant something momentous, like the choice between starving to death on a lifeboat, or eating the first mate.”
• Cornel West has suggested that it’s become difficult to even imagine what a free and democratic society, without great concentrations of corporate power, would look like, or how it would operate.
• The United States now resembles a police state punctuated by elections.
• How many voters does it take to change a light bulb? None. Because voters can’t change anything.
• H.L. Mencken (1880-1956): “As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
• “All elections are distractions. Nothing conceals tyranny better than elections.” – Joel Hirschhorn
• In 1941, one of the country’s more acerbic editors, a priest named Edward Dowling, commented: “The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it.”
• “Elections are a necessary, but certainly not a sufficient, condition for democracy. Political participation is not just a casting of votes. It is a way of life.” – UN Human Development Report, 1993
• “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain!” I reply, “You have it backwards. If you DO vote, you can’t complain. You asked for it, and they’re going to give it to you, good and hard.”
• “How to get people to vote against their interests and to really think against their interests is very clever. It’s the cleverest ruling class that I have ever come across in history. It’s been 200 years at it. It’s superb.” – Gore Vidal
• We can’t use our democracy/our vote to change the way the economy functions. This is very anti-democratic.
• What does a majority vote mean other than that the sales campaign was successful?
• Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius: “The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject.”
• We do have representative government. The question is: Who does our government represent?
• “On the day after the 2002 election I watched a crawl on the bottom of the CNN news screen. It said, ‘Proprietary software may make inspection of electronic voting systems impossible.’ It was the final and absolute coronation of corporate rights over democracy; of money over truth.” – Mike Ruppert, RIP
• “It’s not that voting is useless or stupid; rather, it’s the exaggeration of the power of voting that has drained the meaning from American politics.” – Michael Ventura
• After going through the recent national, state and local elections, I am now convinced that taxation without representation would have been a much better system.
• “Ever since the Constitution was illegally foisted on the American people we have lived in a blatant plutocracy. The Constitution was drafted in secret by a self-appointed elite committee, and it was designed to bring three kinds of power under control: Royalty, the Church, and the People. All were to be subjugated to the interests of a wealthy elite. That’s what republics were all about. And that’s how they have functioned ever since.” – Richard K. Moore
• “As demonstrated in Russia and numerous other countries, when faced with a choice between democracy without capitalism or capitalism without democracy, Western elites unhesitatingly embrace the latter.” – Michael Parenti
• “The fact that a supposedly sophisticated electorate had been stampeded by the cynical propaganda of the day threw serious doubt on the validity of the assumptions underlying parliamentary democracy as a whole.” – British Superspy for the Soviets Kim Philby (1912-1988), explaining his reasons for becoming a Communist instead of turning to the Labour Party
• US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856-1941): “We may have democracy in this country, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”
• “We don’t need to run America like a business or like the military. We need to run America like a democracy.” – Jill Stein, Green Party presidential candidate 2012

Notes

1. Democracy Now!, October 30, 2013 
2. Huffingfton Post, May 3, 2012 
3. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume VI, Cuba(1991), p.885 (online here) 
4. For the complete detailed list, see U.S. Department of State, Nonproliferation Sanctions
5. U.S. Department of State, “Country Reports on Terrorism 2012, Chapter 3: State Sponsors of Terrorism,” May 20, 2013

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40275.htm

Left: A GI holding the rest of a vietnamese corpse, Right: Vietnamese citizen burned with Orange agent.

Het resultaat van wat opiniemaker Henk Hofland van De Groene Amsterdammer 'het vredestichtende Westen' betitelt, terwijl Geert Mak zwijgt over deze misdaden van 'Het land' dat in zijn ogen decennialang als ordebewaker en politieagent – om maar te zwijgen van alle hulp die het uitdeelde.'