The central question in world affairs today can be encapsulated in a parody of an old pacifist slogan: Can America make war while loving peace? The fact is that American power — including the presumption in special circumstances of its coercive application — provides the indispensable basis for global stability. The only real alternative to it is global anarchy.
The fundamental truth of the foregoing proposition — however offensive it may be to those who resent the prevailing international reality — can be easily tested. Just consider the likely of a Congressional vote mandating the prompt withdrawal of all U.S. forces from South Korea, the Persian Gulf, and Europe. Inevitably and almost immediately, a massive outbreak of violence around the world would follow. No similar scenario can even be envisioned in regard to any other existing power. Like it or not, America is — and will probably remain for a generation or so — the linchpin (spil. svh) of global stability.
This reality places a premium on America’s capacity to use its current preponderance of power responsibly and strategically (while it still lasts) to promote the gradual sharing of global responsibilities with willing regional powers, preferably ones that share America’s democratic vocation. The effective pursuit of this task, however, requires an America that has the ability both to employ skillful diplomacy and to impose — if necessary — decisive dominance. And because America is a democracy, that ability must be sustained by the political culture from which America’s international conduct is derived.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/17026
Ik citeer Brzezinski omdat hij samen met de neoconservatief Robert Kagan gezien wordt als de geestelijke vader van de huidige geopolitiek van de Amerikaanse Deep State, die het buitenland-beleid van Amerikaanse presidenten bepaalt. Deze elite van schatrijke families, hoge bureaucraten en haar voetvolk, de pers en de politiek, meent daadwerkelijk dat de ‘Amerikaanse macht’ de ‘onmisbare basis voor wereldwijde stabiliteit’ blijft, een harmonisch evenwicht waarbij de rijkste 1 procent van de wereldbevolking de helft bezit van alle rijkdommen, terwijl 12 procent van de wereldbevolking ongeveer 85 procent van alle rijkdom op aarde bezit. Gezien de grote onrechtvaardigheid moet vanzelfsprekend de Amerikaanse ‘stabiliteit' met grof en massaal geweld in stand worden gehouden in een wereld van schaarste waarmee 88 procent van de ruim 7,5 miljard aardbewoners dagelijks wordt geconfronteerd. En ‘of u het leuk vindt of niet, Amerika is — en zal dit waarschijnlijk voor een generatie of zo — de spil blijven van’ deze, volgens Brzezinski ‘wereldwijde stabiliteit,’ waarin ‘World's Richest 1 Percent Own Twice as Much as Bottom 90 Percent,’ aldus berichtte op 22 januari 2020 Oxfam International, een ‘global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice,’ die na uitgebreid onderzoek ontdekte dat ‘The more than twenty-one hundred billionaires globally own more of the world's wealth than the 4.6 billion people at the bottom of the global wealth pyramid…’
Kortom, de taal van Brzezinski verhult meer dan zij onthult; zijn woorden vormen een leugen, hetgeen de essentie van propaganda is. Feit is namelijk dat:
global wealth inequality is worsening, in part because billionaire portfolios have enjoyed an average annual return of 7.4 percent over the last ten years — helped by low taxes and a 31 percent increase in dividends to shareholders — even as the average wage in G7 countries rose only 3 percent. Evidence of ‘a flawed and sexist economic system’ is everywhere, the report's authors write. Indeed, Oxfam estimates that the richest twenty-two men in the world hold more wealth than all the women in Africa; that, globally, men possess 50 percent more in wealth than women; and that women and girls account for 12.5 billion hours a day of unpaid care work — contributing at least $10.8 trillion a year to the global economy.
Nu duidelijk is wat Brzezinski bedoelt met zijn ‘wereldwijde stabiliteit’ blijft ook zijn volgende bewering interessant om te analyseren. Met dezelfde schaamteloze stelligheid stelt hij dat:
Deze realiteit een premie verschaft aan Amerika’s capaciteit zijn huidige machtsoverwicht verantwoordelijk en strategisch te gebruiken om de wereldwijde verantwoordelijkheden geleidelijk aan te bevorderen met welwillende regionale machten, bij voorkeur degenen die Amerika’s democratische roeping delen.
Een ander feit:
The United States engaged in forty-six military interventions from 1948–1991, from 1992–2017 that number increased fourfold to 188… U.S. military interventions since WWII have only rarely achieved their intended political objectives. That is, the United States has lost more than won; and when it has ‘won,’ it has generally won at a cost far in excess of what would have been considered reasonable prior to the intervention.
This leads to an important puzzle: if U.S. military interventions are failing more often, what accounts for the dramatic increase in their use since 1991?
Even opmerkelijk is het volgende:
If we look at the distribution of the 392 U.S. military interventions since 1800 reported by the Congressional Research Service in October 2017 by fifty-year increments, the data show a dramatic increase: from 1800–1849 there were thirty-nine interventions; forty-seven from 1850–1899; sixty-nine from 1900–1949; 111 from 1950–1999; and 126 from 2000–2017 — a period of only seventeen years as compared to fifty years in the other periods.
As these data reveal, the rate of intervention across time is not monotonic, but jumps during the two world war periods (1917–18), as well as the Cold War (1948–91). One implication being that the world wars forced the United States into a permanently international posture, and at the same time, as a consequence, resulted in the conscious development of reach: the raw and almost unique capacity among peer competitors to rapidly move armed forces across the globe and support them during sustained offensive operations.
If we further refine the data to compare Cold War and post–Cold War intervention rates, something truly striking emerges: while the United States engaged in forty-six military interventions from 1948–1991, from 1992–2017 that number increased fourfold to 188.
These statistics introduce two important puzzles. First, why would military interventions rise at the same time success in military interventions has been declining? Second, why would military interventions increase after the Cold War, when both an ideological rationale for interventions (say, to rescue peoples in danger of falling into a Soviet, and by extension, authoritarian, orbit) and a material existential threat to U.S. national security (no more dominoes, a reduced threat of deliberate thermonuclear war) had declined? In other words, if the United States only intervenes with armed force when its vital interests are at stake, why intervene more often when there are arguably fewer vital interests at stake? The answer is that Washington too often intervenes militarily when it should not — and U.S. security and prosperity have both suffered as a result,
aldus Monica Duffy Toft, Professor of International Politics and Director, Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School of Government, Tufts University.
Eén van de redenen waarom de VS steeds meer oorlogen voert is de macht van wat president Eisenhower in 1961 het ‘militair-industrieel complex’ betitelde dat op dit moment meer dan de helft van het federale budget opslokt, dat het Congres kan toewijzen. Dit astronomisch hoog bedrag dat jaarlijks in een bodemloze put verdwijnt -- ten koste van onderwijs, volksgezondheid, kunsten en wetenschappen, volkshuisvesting, sociale uitkeringen, etcetera -- noodzaakt tegelijkertijd het creëren van een buitenlandse vijand, en de voortdurende oorlogsvoering waaraan Washington en Wall Street verslaafd zijn. Het legitimeert bovendien de geheime CIA-interventies in Oekraïne, waardoor de inval van Rusland werd uitgelokt. De Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist Douglas Valentine schrijft met betrekking tot de ‘CIA’s role in Ukraine and in infiltrating the media’ in zijn boek The CIA As Organized Crime. How Illegal Operations Corrupt America And The World (2017) ondermeer over het Centre of United Actions, waarin ongeveer 40 NGO’s zijn gebundeld:
What I do know is that billionaires like Omidyar and George Soros and the Rockefellers — to say nothing of USAID and NED — aren’t funding political action out of the goodness of their hearts. They’re doing it to advance their interests. That’s why an organization like Centre UA is created: to advance the interests of its financial backers. To me it looks like a CIA-facilitated mechanism to create a crisis in Ukraine and exploit it. The 40 NGOs it coordinates are perfectly placed to provide cover for covert CIA political action.
The Centre UA does, in fact, coordinate politicians and journalists with experts on international affairs and public relations. It says so on its website. All these people are involved in managing information… It will have occurred to the political and psywar experts in the CIA’s digital Dark Army that they could easily garner public support for their color revolutions by creating websites that unite and direct people; that they could manipulate potential rebels using the same, albeit updated motivational indoctrination methods…
The Centre UA’s public relations experts certainly guide pro-American candidates in Kiev the same way American PR people manipulated Boris Yeltsin in Moscow. As is well known, Yeltsin gave away the store after he became President of the Russian Federation. In the same way the CIA promoted Yeltsin, Centre UA journalists certainly make sure that pro-American politicians get favorable press. They spin the facts… The Centre UA’s stated purpose was to pull Ukraine out of the Russian orbit and deliver it to Western corporations. And that’s what happened, along with the obligatory political payoffs. Indeed, a few short years after Centre UA was established, Vice President Joe Biden’s son joined the board of directors of the largest Ukraine gas producer Burisma Holdings. Hunter Biden heads Burisma’s legal department and liaises with international organizations.
The book Flashpoint in Ukraine provides ample evidence that the Obama regime and its privateering corporate partners overthrew the pro-Russian Ukraine government and installed a government packed with neo-Nazis and American elites. They did this for their own enrichment, and yet the US media never made it an issue. It’s business as usual. The average Ukrainian citizen doesn’t benefit; just the ‘super-predator’ American elite who organized the coup. It’s amazing to behold.
Biden’s smash and grab operation occurred in 2014. In 2016, another super-predator, Natalie Jaresko, took control of Datagroup, the company that controls Ukraine’s telecom market. Jaresko at one time held a top job at the State Department coordinating the trade and commerce agencies that dealt with the former Soviet Union, including the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Check her out on Wikipedia. She’s a part of the global elite: the IMF/World Bank/European Bank for Reconstruction and Development network. In the Clinton Administration she served as Chief of the Economics Section of the US Embassy in Ukraine, and helped paved the way for the coup d’état that occurred there 20 years later. These coups take years to organize. Many more are planned.
Jaresko acquired Ukrainian citizenship on the same day as her appointment as Minister of Finance of Ukraine in 2014. Next she squeezed her competitor, the owner of Datagroup, out of business using the kind of foreign currency loan debt scam favored by Mafia hoods and economic hitmen. That’s how freewheeling capitalists work: they overload targeted nations and business people with debt and then clean them out. Again, not a word of protest from the mainstream media: it’s ‘free trade’ in action.
The CIA plays a central role in these schemes, doing the illegal but plausibly deniable things that require high tech espionage and underworld assets — reaching into police files or using private investigators to get dirt on people, then setting them up and blackmailing them. These kinds of subversion operations can’t be done publicly by the likes of Biden or Jaresko or their PR people. Foreign shakedowns have to be done secretly through the criminal underworld, and that’s where the CIA comes into play.
Other times the media plays the central role. In the US, for example, people win elections through negative campaigning. The Democratic Party hires investigators to get dirt on Republican candidates. Republicans do the same thing. The truth doesn’t matter because events are happening instantaneously. Hyperbole becomes fact before anyone can respond. Senator Elizabeth Warren reportedly claimed to be part Native American in her application to Harvard, and once she started campaigning for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump called her ‘Pocahontas’ every chance he got. There are all sorts of ways, within the eternal present of spectacular domination, of influencing events through manufactured scandals and misrepresentations without it being illegal or secret. It just requires celebrity status, a Twitter account, and the attention of the networks of information control.
As Guy Debord said long before the internet in his book Comments on The Society of the Spectacle, ‘One aspect of the disappearance of all objective historical knowledge can be seen in the way that individual reputations have become malleable and alterable at will by those who control all information: information which is gathered and also — an entirely different matter — information which is broadcast. Their ability to falsify is thus unlimited.’
Anyone can be smeared, and apart from the unknown Protected Few in the CIA and National Security Establishment, there’s no defense. Overseas, the CIA is perpetually collecting information on adversaries like Vladimir Putin and passing it along to the Western media, which rejoices in spinning it a million different ways.
What is less well known is the CIA is engaged in tipping the balance in the domestic as well as international contests. That’s why it’s secret, and why all the privateers protect it. They share the same business ideology. CIA officers, PR people, journalists, politicians, and academics who get paid to give ‘expert’ testimony on Fox or MSNBC, are knowingly manipulating social and political movements here in the US, just like they do for the Ukrainian opposition or the Venezuelan opposition.
The CIA sets up Twitter accounts and Facebook pages and social websites to move people into mass organizations to achieve its secret ends. In May 2016 Twitter ‘cut off U.S. intelligence agencies from a service that sifts through the entire output of Twitter’s social media postings.’ The guilty party was the CIA’s Open Source Enterprise, which contracted with a private contractor, Dataminr, through the CIA’s ubiquitous venture capital fund In-Q-Tel, to spy on American citizens. Such super-secret ‘intelligence’ operations are frequently used as cover for highly illegal ‘offensive counterintelligence’ operations.
Belangrijk bij het beoordelen van Valentine’s betrouwbaarheid en geloofwaardigheid is dat hij één van de zeer weinige onderzoeksjournalisten is die door oud CIA-directeur William Colby bij ‘veel hooggeplaatste CIA-functionarissen’ werd geïntroduceerd en dat dit hem ‘access [gave] from the inside.’ Dit in tegenstelling tot mijn mainstream collega’s van de polderpers die weliswaar allerlei meningen verkopen, maar over weinig tot geen feiten beschikken. Daarom nogmaals Douglas Valentine:
Democracy is corrupted when your government prevents you from knowing what the CIA is doing. That kind of secrecy is the antithesis of democracy. If the public doesn’t know what’s going on, then it has no control over its fate. Americans have given up so much control, so much freedom… The CIA isn’t conducting secret, illegal actions around the world to bring class, gender and racial harmony to America, or encourage Palestinians and Jews to hold hands and sing Pepsi commercials together. The CIA is doing this on behalf of the Clintons and Bushes. They do it for Omidyar and Bill Gates and George Soros and the people who rule us… Phil Agee called the CIA (de eerste CIA-klokkenluider die over de CIA-misdaden een boek schreef. svh) ‘Capitalism’s Invisible Army.’ The CIA isn’t doing illegal things so the minimum wage will go up, or so that bankers will be more careful about selling mortgages to people who can’t afford them. They’re working with the bankers. They want Ukrainians putting their money in a Morgan Stanley brokerage firm in Kiev. They want to suck the life out of Ukrainians. That is what the CIA is there for, and they are very careful and cautious about whom they recruit to achieve that goal… the first thing they want is property, and the best way to drive prices down is to start a war. People are fleeing war zones in Iraq, Libya and Syria. As soon as that happens, prices go down and corporate privateers like Omidyar (miljardair. svh), Biden and Jaresko go swooping in.
Dit verklaart tevens het feit dat toen Oekraïne rond 2014 de kant koos van Rusland er plotseling in Kiev een staatsgreep plaatsvond waarvan de neo-nazi-stoottroepen door de CIA en instructeurs van het Amerikaanse leger waren opgeleid, net zoals dit al decennialang het geval is in ondermeer Zuid- en Midden Amerika, in de Filippijnen en Thailand, in Afrika. Om de Amerikaanse interventies zo soepel mogelijk te laten verlopen bezit Washington meer dan 800 militaire bases in de wereld. Dat het ook in Oekraine niet om democratie en mensenrechten gaat, blijkt uit het feit dat het regime in Kiev acht jaar lang oorlog voerde tegen Russische burgers in de Donbass regio waarbij naar schatting 14.000 mensen werden vermoord, lang voordat de Russische inval was begonnen, en dat president Zelensky oppositiepartijen en kritische media heeft verboden. Valentine:
The history of the US intelligence operations in Ukraine is educational. OSS officers in World War Two released Stepan Bandera from prison in 1944. Bandera was a Nazi collaborator whose militia slaughtered Poles, Jews and communist workers on the eastern front. The US recruited Bandera so he could fight the advancing Soviet Union. Nothing has changed. Just over ten years ago the CIA initiated its ‘Orange Revolution’ for the same purpose — to thwart the Russians. It was one of the first color revolutions and it involved the same people the CIA employed in its coup in 2014… All of this is illegal, but this is what the CIA does all around the world. It’s been doing it in the Ukraine for generations. It has the grandchildren of Nazis on its payroll, an incredible infrastructure of neo-Nazi secret agents who’ve been battling against Russia for seventy years.
The Russians know their names, where they live, where the CIA has its safe houses. But the American public has no clue. They think the crisis began today because of the way the news is presented. The journalists, their editors, the industry owners, the publishers don’t want you to know about all the illegal activities the CIA is involved in on their behalf. So the owners of The New York Times and the Washington Post hire editors who will direct reporters in such a way that they never report on what the CIA is doing… Journalism in the US is a traditional cover for CIA officers. And when the owners of the media aren’t covering for the CIA, they’re selling commercial time slots to the multi-national corporations that in turn are selling you commodities made in sweatshops in foreign nation that have been subverted by the CIA. You could almost say there’s no such thing as factual reporting. It’s as valuable as most of the over-priced commodities people buy to elevate their status. Everything is twisted and delivered in nine second sound bites, so you’ll buy something, not know something, or forget about something… The problem, in my opinion, is not that the CIA infiltrated journalism, but rather that the CIA is promoting the business of journalism — which is actually the advertising branch of capitalism. They’re working together.
I’m sixty-six; when I started writing back in the early 1980s, it could take a month to get in touch with someone to learn a particular fact. Things are faster now. But CIA is faster now too. It created a new Digital Directorate so it can more perfectly control internet information. The control of scientific and technological information is as important as the control of words — the intellectual information that is written down or broadcast. Control of scientific information is a means of controlling our ideas and assumptions about things. Just as the CIA is at the forefront of propaganda on the Internet, its science and technology division is at the forefront of shaping the industries than run the world.
The CIA is at the forefront of drone and weapons technology – any kind of technological advancements that only serve and enrich the ruling class. The CIA is at the forefront of that research and development, and that goes for the Internet, too.
Back in the mid-1990s I took a class in the hypertext language. And to my surprise, we were taught that all information was routed through super processors in Langley. Putin recently said that the Internet was a CIA special project and he was right. I remember when the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency came out with ARPANET, which started helping us to access information in college libraries back in the early 1990s. It was all done under the Department of Defense, which was fronting for the CIA.
So our Internet capabilities are a new freedom, but at the same time we enjoy this freedom by the leave of the CIA. If they wanted to, they could shut it down in a minute. They control it and they monitor every aspect of it. If we actually were doing something that threatened them, they would know about it in a nanosecond and our activities would be stopped. But we’re just mosquitos.
Dit is de werkelijkheid van de Amerikaanse Deep State. Tegen deze achtergrond dienen de activiteiten van de huidige ‘hofjoden’ worden verklaard en beoordeeld. Meer de volgende keer.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten