Category Archives: UK

Tony Blair and the Self-Exalting Mindset of the West: in Two Paragraphs

By Glenn Greenwald
July 8, 2015
The Intercept

 

Featured photo - Tony Blair and the Self-Exalting Mindset of the West: in Two ParagraphsTony Blair today took a little time off from serving the world’s despots in order to exploit the 10th anniversary of the July 7 London train bombing. He did so by casting blame on “radical Islam” for the world’s violence while exempting himself, pronouncing:

This is a global problem … we’re not going to allow anyone to excuse themselves by saying that the slaughter of totally innocent people is somehow a response to any decision by any government.

The proposition Blair just decreed invalid — “the slaughter of totally innocent people is somehow a response to any decision by any government” — is exactly the rationale that he himself repeatedly invoked, and to this day still invokes, to justify the invasion and destruction of Iraq, as in this example from December 2009:

Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public. . . . “If you had known then that there were no WMDs, would you still have gone on?” Blair was asked. He replied: “I would still have thought it right to remove him [Saddam Hussein]”. . . . He explained it was “the notion of him as a threat to the region” because Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people.

“Excusing the slaughter of totally innocent people” — whether in Fallujah or Gaza or Yemen — is a staple of Western elite discourse to justify the militarism of the U.S., the U.K. and their most special allies. It only suddenly becomes inexcusable when carried out by Muslims against the West. It is a stunning testament to Western self-delusion that one of the prime architects and salesmen of the most destructive political crime of this generation — the invasion of Iraq — can stand up with a straight face and to applause and declare: “we’re not going to allow anyone to excuse themselves by saying that the slaughter of totally innocent people is somehow a response to any decision by any government.”

There will undoubtedly be all sorts of self-loving jingoists in the West, along with those whose overriding political priority is the demonization of Islam, who will find this comparison invalid and even obscene. After all, their own governments’ violence, aggression and slaughter of innocents is kind-hearted, civilized and justified, whereas the violence, aggression and slaughter of innocents by Muslims is savage and barbaric. But that’s precisely the point.

While the leading lights of the West love to celebrate themselves as beacons of civilized, progressive rationality, their overriding mentality is just the crassest and most primitive form of tribalism: when Our Side does it, it is right, and when Their Side does it, it is wrong. No matter the esoteric finery in which it drapes itself, that is the primitive, banal formulation that lies at the heart of the vast, vast majority of foreign policy discourse in the West. So often, those who fancy themselves brave warriors for rationality and advancement by demonizing Islam are just rank tribalists whose own national, religious and cultural loyalties are served by doing so.

One last point while we’re on this topic: the notion that radical Muslims commit violence in response to violence by the West is often characterized as an attempt to deny that they possess agency or autonomy. That claim is just bizarre, the opposite of the truth. Those who deny that Muslims act with agency are, in fact, those who try to claim that they are manipulated by religious dogma into committing violence without any rationale or purpose. To point out that there’s an actual, rational causal relationship between their violence and the West’s — to acknowledge that they choose violence as a calculated course of action they believe to be justified just as the West does — is not a denial of their agency, but rather an affirmation of it.

This causal relationship is the point that Tony Blair and his like-minded comrades are, above all else, most desperate to deny. Blair thus expressly denies that the July 7 bombing in London was largely motivated by his war in Iraq even though his own government’s secret report reached exactly that conclusion; a Pentagon-commissioned report years ago acknowledged the same causal motive for “terrorism” generally. They’re desperate to deny this causation because to recognize it is necessarily to acknowledge that their professed moral superiority is the ultimate delusion, that they in fact are the embodiment of what they love to hear themselves condemning.

It’s always comforting to believe that one’s own tribe is morally superior yet perpetually victimized, so it’s an easy sell. But as Blair’s remarkably self-unaware comments today illustrate, this mentality centrally depends upon a steadfast commitment to blinding oneself to one’s own actions and failings. Nobody is more resolute in that commitment than Tony Blair.

Photo: Ron Edmonds/AP

Vaccines and Autism: Epidemic Accelerates as Cases in Young Vaccinated Children Explode Unabated

By Ethan A. Huff
June 26, 2015
Natural News

 

5The UK is facing an unprecedented number of new autism cases, according to new research. Figures in Scotland, which are among the most comprehensive available in the British isles, reveal that the autism rate among students at Scottish schools is up 1,360% percent since 1998, with no perceivable end in sight.

This amounts to a one-in-68 children rate of autism, which the London School of Economics projects is costing taxpayers around $54 billion annually. This is up from about $2 billion in 2001, demonstrating the immense toll this harrowing disease is costing the public.

But even these figures may be too low, warns Age of Autism, as they disguise the actual number of autism cases among older students, while focusing more on autism rates among younger students. The actual present rate of autism in the UK, reports John Stone, is probably much closer to one in 30 students, based on data supplied by the Scottish government.

The immense growth rate of autism in Scotland over the past 16 years is highlighted by the following:

Year | Total number of pupils | Number of pupils with an ASD

1998 | 758,414 | 820
1999 | 755,081 | 959
2000 | 751,243 | 1,245
2001 | 745,063 | 1,515
2002 | 738,597 | 2,204
2003 | 732,122 | 2,663
2004 | 723,554 | 3,090
2005 | 713,240 | 3,484
2006 | 702,737 | 2,443
2007 | 692,215 | 3,919
2008 | 681,573 | 4,900
2009 | 676,740 | 5,254
2010 | 673,133 | 6,506
2011 | 670,511 | 7,801
2012 | 671,218 | 8,650
2013 | 673,530 | 9,946

Aside from an anomalous reduction in ASD cases between 2005 and 2006, you can clearly see that the autism rate in Scotland has simply exploded, much like it has in the U.S. and other Western nations over the past several decades.

One would think that health authorities and lawmakers would take note of this and start addressing some of the elephants in the room, including the ever-expanding vaccination schedule. But instead, they remain silent as the financial burden of treating these damaged children escalates into financial territory so unsustainable that government health systems now face total collapse.

US to spend a total of $7 trillion just to treat every person who currently has autism

The same study that procured these figures for the UK found that the situation is far worse in the U.S. Between the costs associated with treating both children and adults with ASD — more than 3.5 million Americans, both young and old, have been diagnosed with ASD — taxpayers and insurance companies spend huge amounts to treat autistic individuals with or without intellectual disability.

“The cost of supporting an individual with an ASD and intellectual disability during his or her lifespan was $2.4 million in the United States and £1.5 million (US $2.2 million) in the United Kingdom,” reports the study. “The cost of supporting an individual with an ASD without intellectual disability was $1.4 million in the United States and £0.92 million (US $1.4 million) in the United Kingdom.”

“The largest cost components for children were special education services and parental productivity loss. During adulthood, residential care or supportive living accommodation and individual productivity loss contributed the highest costs. Medical costs were much higher for adults than for children.”

This translates into a total cost of $7 trillion to treat every person with autism in the U.S. over the course of his or her lifetime. And this is just at the current autism rate — over the next several decades, as many as one in two children are expected to have autism, which portends a complete collapse of the healthcare system.

Be sure to check out Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researcher Dr. Stephanie Seneff’s groundbreaking research into glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. She found that this prolific chemical damages gut bacteria and blocks the uptake of vital nutrients, triggering autism and other serious health conditions:
ANH-USA.org.

Sources:

http://www.ageofautism.com

https://autismsciencefoundation.files.wordpress.com[PDF]

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.globalresearch.ca

http://www.anh-usa.org

Britain Using PsyOps Domestically to Encourage “Conformity”

By Derrick Broze
June 26, 2015
The Anti-Media, June 24, 2015

 

ObeyCameronAccording to newly released documents published byThe Intercept, a special unit with the British spy agency is involved in psychological operations, or PsyOps, and propaganda campaigns against groups it labels “extremist.”

The documents are the latest from the trove released by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The new documents show that the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) operates an elite unit known as the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG). First revealed last year, JTRIG is known for using sexual “honey traps” to discredit targets, using denial-of-service attacks to shut down Internet chat rooms, and generally pushing propaganda on social media.

Despite official claims that JTRIG is focused on international targets in Iran or Afghanistan, the latest information reveals that the unit was focusing on domestic activity within the U.K.—activity typically monitored by local police or domestic law enforcement agencies.

The Intercept reports:

An August 2009 JTRIG memo entitled ‘Operational Highlights’ boasts of ‘GCHQ’s first serious crime effects operation’ against a website that was identifying police informants and members of a witness protection program. Another operation investigated an Internet forum allegedly ‘used to facilitate and execute online fraud.’ The document also describes GCHQ advice provided ‘to assist the UK negotiating team on climate change.’

Particularly revealing is a fascinating 42-page document from 2011 detailing JTRIG’s activities. It provides the most comprehensive and sweeping insight to date into the scope of this unit’s extreme methods. Entitled ‘Behavioral Science Support for JTRIG’s Effects and Online HUMINT [Human Intelligence] Operations,’ it describes the types of targets on which the unit focuses, the psychological and behavioral research it commissions and exploits, and its future organizational aspirations. It is authored by a psychologist, Mandeep K. Dhami.

The documents (Behavioural Science Support for JTRIG’S Effects and Online HUMINT Operations,U.K. Ministry Stakeholder Relationships Spreadsheets) outline tactics employed by the agency, including ways to manipulate public opinion, understand human thinking and behavior, and encourage conformity.

According to the documents, JTRIG “currently collaborates with other agencies,” including the Metropolitan police, the Security Service (MI5), the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), the Border Agency, Revenue and Customs (HMRC), and the National Public Order and Intelligence Unit (NPOIU). One of JTRIG’s objectives includes “monitoring ‘domestic extremist groups such as the English Defence League by conducting online HUMINT’; ‘denying, deterring or dissuading’ criminals and ‘hacktivists’; and ‘deterring, disrupting or degrading online consumerism of stolen data or child porn.”

One of the reports from 2011 outlines JTRIG’s tactics, including uploading YouTube videos containing “persuasive communications,” starting Facebook groups and Twitter accounts, and creating fake online personalities and supporters “to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt.”

JTRIG also relies on an understanding of psychology which is “critical” to operations. The unit used social media campaigns to encourage and foster “obedience” and “conformity”. Section 3.6 Obedience, says compliance can be achieved by “engendering liking (attractiveness); instilling a sense of scarcity or secrecy; getting compliance to a small request at first.”

Essentially, the U.K. government is using an elite unit of spies to launch psychological operations on “extremists” by creating fake accounts and videos to promote conformity and obedience. However, the practice is not exclusive to the U.K.. PsyOps are used by nations around the world.

The 2002 edition of the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines psychological operations as

integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own.

Since that time, PsyOp has fallen out of favor and the term is now officially known as Military Information Support Operations, or MISO. It is defined as

Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals in a manner favorable to the originator’s objectives.

The United States military was famously caught using psychological operations in 2011, when Rolling Stone reported that “the U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in ‘psychological operations’ to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war.”

Indeed, the operations seem crucial to the mission of the United States government (and totalitarian governments around the globe, for that matter). According to the leaked U.S. Special Forces counterinsurgency manual:

PSYOP [Psychological Operations] are essential to the success of PRC [Population & Resources Control]. For maximum effectiveness, a strong psychological operations effort is directed toward the families of the insurgents and their popular support base. The PSYOP aspect of the PRC program tries to make the imposition of control more palatable to the people by relating the necessity of controls to their safety and well-being. PSYOP efforts also try to create a favorable national or local government image and counter the effects of the insurgent propaganda effort.

Without a doubt, the U.S. government continues to label its own population “extremist” and is focusing its propaganda efforts domestically. The U.S. Special Forces Counterinsurgency Manual—as well as the new Snowden documents—should be required reading for all revolutionaries seeking to understand the tactics of the U.S. government. Only by educating ourselves can we hope to form a united, empowered front against government tyranny.

Derrick Broze writes for theAntiMedia.org, where this article first appeared. Tune in! Anti-Media Radioairs Monday through Friday @ 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. Help us fix our typos:edits@theantimedia.org.

Terror Trial Collapses: Suspect Accused of Supporting Syria Fighting Groups Backed by British Intelligence MI6

By Stuart J. Hooper
June 7, 2015
21st Century Wire

 

SyriaRaidThis may very well be the biggest news story of the year so far, yet hardly anyone is talking about it.

A terror trial taking aim at a Swedish national named Bherlin Gildo, has suddenly collapsed at the Old Bailey British court.

The suspect’s defence argued that British intelligence service MI6 was supporting the same groups that the suspect was supposedly fighting for, including the not-so-moderate ‘Free Syrian Army’ by providing them with both weapons and “non-lethal aid.”

 Watch a video of this report here:

The Guardian reports that Gildo was accused of attending a terrorist training camp and receiving weapons training between 31 August 2012 and 1 March 2013 as well as possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist.

On the 8th March 2013 The Guardian published an article stating that the West was training rebel fighters in Jordan to fight against the Assad regime in Syria, which was even cited by the defence team.

What an embarrassment it would have been to have this come out during a trial, where hard evidence would have been presented truly exposing the British operation for all to see.

old bailey No terror exposé here! (Jimmy Harris)

Henry Blaxland QC for the defence of Gildo stated that “if it is the case that HM government was actively involved in supporting armed resistance to the Assad regime at a time when the defendant was present in Syria and himself participating in such resistance it would be unconscionable to allow the prosecution to continue”. He even went as far to say that the continuation of the trial would be an ‘affront to justice‘.

Gildo’s personal attorney Gareth Peirce said: “Given that there is a reasonable basis for believing that the British were themselves involved in the supply of arms, if that’s so, it would be an utter hypocrisy to prosecute someone who has been involved in the armed resistance”.

iraq1
So are these fighters friends or foes of the British government? (Photo)

Despite being ‘photographed standing over dead bodies with his finger pointing to the sky’, the British government did not feel comfortable pursuing a trial against Gildo and the case subsequently collapsed. Along with citations from The Guardian, the defence team also cited theNew York Times and London Review of Books, all of which must then be rooted in factual reality or the British government, with its near endless legal resources, would have had no problem challenging the claims.

Despite some claims that climate change caused the conflict in Syria (seriously), this tangible, Western support for rebel fighters is far more likely the true cause. The British, however, are not alone in providing this support, as numerous reports now document both American and Israelisupport and coordination with these terrorist groups.

How would the wider public react to the knowledge, backed by hard and irrefutable evidence, that their government has been responsible for the support and rise of terrorist groups like ISIS? We are likely never to know the answer to that question, as long as these trials continue to collapse.

In a world of hegemonic international relations, those on top continue to quite literally get away with murder: .

The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain’s security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.

His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.

Bherlin Gildo, 37, who was arrested last October on his way from Copenhagen to Manila, was accused of attending a terrorist training camp and receiving weapons training between 31 August 2012 and 1 March 2013 as well as possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist… (The Guardian, emphasis added)

Follow me here: http://twitter.com/StuartJHooper

UK Conservatives plan to scrap Human Rights Act

By Jean Shaoul
May 22, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

The incoming Conservative government is to replace the 1998 Human Rights Act with a British “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.” It will curtail the power of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Britain, which has overturned a number of decisions in the British courts, including deportation orders and the refusal to grant some prisoners the right to vote in elections.

In effect, the Conservatives will reduce the ECHR to no more than an advisory body. Should the ECHR not accept Parliament’s veto of its rulings, the government would withdraw from the Council of Europe, the human rights watchdog that is not related to any European Union (EU) institution. All Europe’s 48 countries, except Belarus—a military dictatorship—have signed up to the Council of Europe and made the Human Rights Convention part of their constitutional and domestic laws.

The new measures will erode the right to life, to privacy, to a fair trial, to protest and to freedom from torture and discrimination. It will enable the government to deport more people and defy ECHR’s requirements. In relation to foreign policy, the repeal of the act means that UK armed forces could act with impunity, as they would no longer be subject to human rights legislation. Even the right-wing Economist magazine, which speaks for British finance capital and demands a more assertive British foreign policy, lamented the “poor signal” it will send “about Britain’s commitment to international law.”

The new legislation, expected to be included in the Queen’s Speech next week, will be introduced by Justice Minister Michael Gove, who supports the reintroduction of the death penalty, under the guise of “restoring national sovereignty,” and “bringing decision making back to Britain.” In so doing, the government, by falsely implying that the ECHR is part of the EU, is also using it to whip up a nationalist and xenophobic campaign.

The act incorporates the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic British law, thereby enabling someone with a complaint under human rights law to get justice from British courts without having to go to the European Court. It requires all public bodies, including central and local government, the police, the National Health Service, prisons and other services to abide by these human rights, and extends to outsourced public services such as care homes.

The Convention includes the right to life, not to be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment, not to be held as a slave, to liberty and security of the person, to a fair trial, not to be retrospectively convicted for a crime, to a private and family life, to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to freedom of expression, to freedom of assembly and association, to marriage, to an effective remedy, not to be discriminated against, to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property and the right to an education.

Breaking the link between British law and the ECHR threatens a constitutional crisis in relation to the devolved regions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The Good Friday Agreement that brought to an end the conflict in Northern Ireland specifically requires the incorporation of the European Convention into the laws governing the region.

In addition, the Scottish National Party government in Edinburgh says that the repeal of the act requires its permission, which it would refuse, since Parliament in London cannot legislate on issues relating to the devolved regions without their consent.

Britain’s Human Rights Act was introduced by the Blair Labour government in 1998 and came into force in 2000. Its antecedents are in the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, drawn up after World War II in response to the horrendous crimes carried out by the Nazis. The Convention, based in part at least on the principles enshrined in the Magna Carta, drew upon the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It was one of a number of mechanisms, along with the Marshall Plan, during the Cold War against the Stalinist Soviet Union that served to rehabilitate capitalist rule—under conditions where it had been widely discredited—and show it was compatible with democracy and civil liberties, particularly those of Europe’s millions of displaced peoples and refugees.

However, while British lawyers played a major role in drawing up the Convention, and the UK was one of the first states to ratify it in 1953, it only signed up to the court’s jurisdiction in 1966, some seven years after its establishment. It took more than four decades for the British government to incorporate the Convention into British law.

This was forced upon the Labour Party, after numerous defendants during the Thatcher years won high-profile legal actions in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. These cases highlighted their failure to receive any justice in British courts.

The incoming 1997 Labour government introduced the Human Rights Act, incorporating the European Convention into British domestic law, along with the Freedom of Information Act. This was in order to present itself as a progressive force that would overturn 18 years of reactionary policies carried out by successive Conservative governments and pursue an “ethical foreign policy,” while continuing with the same economic policies.

A major consideration in adopting the act was it would enable defendants to seek redress in British courts without going to Strasbourg. From this perspective, the act was largely successful. There have been approximately 10 critical judgments against the UK a year, compared to hundreds by local judges.

Furthermore, Section 2 of the act only requires UK judges to “take into account”, not follow Strasbourg’s rulings. In other words, the Human Rights Act did not change the right of the British courts to interpret rulings by the ECHR.

Even this was too much for the Blair government. Within a few years, it pledged a “radical overhaul of Britain’s controversial human rights legislation,” following a High Court ruling in 2006 that the government was guilty of an “abuse of power” in its efforts to deport nine Afghans. In a desperate attempt to flee the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, they had hijacked a Boeing 727 in 2000 and forced it to fly to Britain in order to seek asylum.

The Conservative government is proposing to get rid of the Human Rights Act on the basis of an amalgam of lies, falsifications and non-sequiturs about its operations, pointing to the key reason for its abolition. It aims to dispense with all the democratic norms that restrict the ability of the ruling class to wage war on the working class at home and abroad in pursuit of its financial and geostrategic interests.

The act is to go the same way as other key elements of international law over which successive governments in the last 15 years have ridden roughshod.

In addition to waging an illegal war alongside the US against Iraq, governments, both Labour and Conservative-Liberal Democrat, have introduced a raft of anti-democratic legislation that contravene human rights legislation—including attacks on the right to silence, to trial by jury and the right of assembly. In the name of combating terror, the Labour government passed the Prevention of Terrorism Act abrogating the right to free speech, habeas corpus—protection from unlawful detention—and the presumption of innocence upon which all legal and democratic principles have hitherto rested.

The government’s intention to repeal the Human Rights Act is a warning to the working class. The ruling class is breaking with democratic forms of rule. Like its counterparts elsewhere, Britain’s ruling elite is responding to the growth of social antagonisms with a militarist foreign policy, for which it has no popular mandate, and a wholesale assault on democratic rights.

Neo-Nazi Kamikaze Trained by NATO in Ukraine

By Konrad Stachnio
May 10, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

7DA57E31-8C48-4C77-BE7D-24FBFE2480AB_mw1024_n_sSome time ago I wrote that since the Comrades from volunteer battalions in Ukraine suffered from a shortage of weapons, they began to produce their own weapons in cottage factories and workshops. There is even an instructive movie about this on the internet. However at this point they do not have to do that because weapons will be sponsored by European taxpayers as the IMF has sent 1 billion dollars to Ukraine.

The U.S. also announced its plan to spend $ 19 million to train The National Guard of Ukraine.The money for this comes from the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) requested by the Obama administration in the fiscal 2015 budget to provide training and gear for the armed forces of American allies worldwide.

In fact, I must agree that the currently created Ukrainian Army may be one of the best in Europe, according to what Ukraine’sChief of General Staff – Viktor Muzhenko said.

Now we can see a significant increase in the level of professionalism of the Ukrainian Army. Now we can say without any exaggeration that the Armed Forces of Ukraine become one of the strongest armies in Europe.

Hardly any European army has on board such extremists like those from the Right Sector, the Misanthropic Division and the Azov Battalion – who enjoy the fact that they could die at the front for the great Ukraine.

We can all look at the genocide of Palestinians at the hands of the Jews and feel for the parents’ pain at having a child blown to bits by a missile or chemical attack but personally I would never give aid nor visit in relief efforts to the Palestinian people.

Does this make me cold hearted?

No, it’s simply not of my racial interest to do so.

Building the wall on the border with Russia is the task (from the Kiev’s point of view) of the closer alignment of the country to the EU and NATO. Probably it is that kind of ‘democracy’ as in case of Israel’s policy in relation to ‘bricked up’ Palestinians. In terms of bricking up and genocide, Ukrainian Comrades will scarcely leave us no illusions, which was reflected in the quote a few lines above.

Perhaps walling off the residents of Donbass has something to do with the idea of a Ukrainian MP, Anton Gerashchenko, the adviser to the Minister of Internal Affairs, who urged the US to strike Donbass from the Black Sea. Such location and isolation could help carry out genocide (which the Misanthropic Division mentions in relation to the fencing off Palestinians) all the so-called terrorists in Donbas who have nowhere to run from the bombs would quickly incorporate those ‘European values’.

It is quite possible that fencing off Donbass also has something to do with the new ‘pro-European’ projects of Poroshenko. The text of the bill submitted by the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, was published on the website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The draft law provides for the introduction of compulsory labor for the working age population (point 2), allows for the forced expropriation (point 3), prohibits assemblies (Section 4) and the activities of political parties as well as gaining control over the media.

The chief of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) also keeps us informed about the fact that Ukrainians have a long and proven European tradition.

Valentyn NALYVAICHENKO, SBU doesn’t have to invent anything new – it is important to implement the traditions and methods of the work of the Security Service of OUN-UPA in the 1930’s-1950’s.

Given the above-mentioned, after the isolation of Donbass to efficiently introduce ‘European values’, the Ukrainian side can also start firing white phosphorus in the direction of the walled off Donbas, the prohibited weapon the US and the Israeli army are equipped with. It would probably help execute genocide of which we read on the Misanthropic Division site.

The fact that young Ukrainian extremists subordinate to Yarosh dream to move to Kiev is not kept secret.

We have among us radicals who are already shouting ‘let’s do it now!’ – especially the youth, which has taken a breath of this spirit of freedom, and now they are ready, at a moment’s notice, to take the parliament, the presidential administration, to kick everyone out of there, said Dmytro Yarosh

This dream may come true with a sufficient number of well-trained and keen Comrades. It is worth noting that in according to a journalist Thomas Eipeldauera the Misanthropic Division is a subgroup of the Social-National Assembly, the Right Sector wing. This formation is currently dealing with the co-ordination of European volunteers in the Azov Battalion. There are dozens of fascists from all over Europe. The fighters are recruited mainly from Croatia and France, but also from Italy, Sweden and Germany.

The Misanthropic Division ideology is partially taken from National Socialism, some of its elements come from Germanic Mythology. Among them there is a widespread cult of death and murder.

From the site of the MD,

As National Socialists we consider pacifism as a disease of the spirit, part of a dying people and cowardly individuals.

As Travis Bickle, in the movie Taxi Driver said, we desire that “one day a rain sweep and clean all the scum off the streets.” We want to be part of that rain.

MD is the only structure that has its elements in war scenarios, namely in Ukraine, where tens of MD members defend the right of Ukrainian folk to fight for the building of a nationalist social state.

According to Thomas Eipeldauer “Misanthropic Division is a subgroup of the Social-National Assembly, the Right Sector wing.

The dream of the Aryan Ukraine for many of these lunatics may come true judging by what Ukrainian billboards call for “Open the magic world of the national-liberation war for yourself!”

In this magic world of the national-liberation the US military training that was carried out on April, 20th is surely of some help. This date seems not to be coincidental – I mean Adolf Hitler’s birthday. Judging by whom Americans will be training, the date is very adequate.

Now, we (the Volunteer Corps) are training under the NATO standards (here means the standards of military exercises). The lack of bureaucracy gives us maximum mobility. We are not perfect, but still much more efficient than the regular army. We would have already outnumbered the Armed Forces, if only we had sufficient quantities of weapons (laughs). I know many commanders and servicemen, who would immediately join our cause, if we could provide them with weapons.

We hired instructors from all over the place. Our army did not fight, while theirs did –in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and so on. Our fighters are well provided, as far as helmets, body armor, and so on. We get support from volunteer organizations. If we become dependent on state tenders, it will ruin the whole model. Said Jarosh

In this context, the question of any ceasefire in Ukraine is a joke. The issue is now of a different kind: whether the same scenario of the ‘democratic process’ lead by the neo-Nazi extremists now will be played on the Northern Front i.e.Latvia.

Judging by the statements of the Chairman of Stratford, George Friedman, or those of Dr. Brzezinski and the transports of the U.S. troops heading for the Baltic countries, mainly to Latvia, this should be taken into account that the Northern Front may soon be activated.

Konrad Stachnio is an independent Poland based journalist, he hosted a number of radio and TV programs for the Polish edition of Prison Planet, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Britain’s Elections: The Real Lessons of the Tory Victory

By Jonathan Cook
Global Research, May 09, 2015
Jonathan Cook’s Blog

 

Voting in Britain for war. Take your pickThere’s much that could be said about the Conservative party’s victory today in Britain’s election. Not least David Cameron has emerged stronger: he now has a small but absolute majority in parliament, compared to his last government, in which he had to share power, a little of it anyway, with his minor coalition partners, the Lib Dems.

According to the rules of the British system, he has won a supposed mandate to carry out all his party’s policies, even though the Tories gained the support of slightly less than 25% of the total electorate, and little more than a third of those who actually voted. That in itself should be enough to discredit the idea that Britain is a democracy in any meaningful sense.

But I want to focus on two issues that this particular election highlighted. Although this refers to the British election, the lessons apply equally to US elections.

The first is a debate that gripped some on the far left after Russell Brand interviewed Labour leader Ed Miliband and subsequently gave Miliband his backing. This was quite a surprise – and disappointment – given that Brand had shaken up British politics over the previous 18 months by arguing that the whole political system was inherently flawed and undemocratic. He had called on people not to vote as a way to show that the system had no popular legitimacy, and invest their energies instead in a different kind of grassroots politics. Britain’s two main parties, Brand and others argued, represented the interests of the big corporations that now dominate Britain and much of the globe.

The labels of Conservative and Labour are the misleading vestiges of a time when there was some sort of class politics in Britain: the Tories representing the unalloyed interests of the capitalist class, and Labour the interests of organised labour. But the  Tories under Margaret Thatcher long ago destroyed the power of the trade unions. Labour became a shell of its former self, its finances and ability to organise workers crumbled as the corporations entrenched their power, assisted by the Tories.

Under a power-hungry Tony Blair, Labour allowed itself to be captured by those same corporations, famously illustrated by his Faustian pact with media tycoon Rupert Murdoch. Labour sold what was left of its soul, becoming a Tory-lite party, and winning the support of Murdoch and his media empire as a result.

Brand seemed to understand this, arguing that what we needed was to turn our back on sham elections every five years between two parties representing the interests of the 1%. Instead the people needed to foment a non-violent political revolution, and take back power. How did voting for Miliband, a man who had largely adopted the Blair credo, make sense in the light of Brand’s earlier claims?

Brand justified his change of mind using a familiar argument. He admitted Miliband was far from perfect but was still the preferable choice because he was prepared to listen to the people, unlike Cameron’s Conservatives. He was the “lesser evil” choice.

The problem with his logic – aside from its faith-based component – was that the same argument could have been used about any recent British election. It was an excuse to avoid engaging in real politics.

Supporters of Tony Blair, even after he committed the supreme war crime by invading Iraq, could have argued quite convincingly that the Tories too would have invaded Iraq – plus they would have done worse things at home, inflicting greater damage on the health and education systems. Thus, on the lesser-evil argument, it was legitimate to vote for the war criminal Blair. A man like Blair could destroy another nation, cause suffering on a scale unimaginable to most of us, and yet still claim the moral high ground because the alternative would be even worse.

The faulty logic of the lesser-evil argument is apparent the moment we consider the Blair case. If there is no political cost for committing the ultimate war crime, because the other guys are worse, what real leverage can the electorate ever have on the political system. The “left” vote will always gravitate to the slightly less nasty party of capital. No change is really possible. In fact, over time the political centre of gravity is likely to shift – as has in fact happened – ever more to the right, as the corporations accrete ever greater power.

Further, where does Brand’s logic take us now that Miliband has lost. If we were supposed to have faith that Miliband would have listened had he achieved power, then why not extend that faith to his successor? If we are satisfied by the lesser-evil argument, why not wait till the next election to see if we can get another slightly less nasty candidate into Downing Street? We can defer the choice to demand real change indefinitely.

The second point is that the programme of extreme austerity at the heart of Cameron’s manifesto has been fully discredited by most economists over the past few years. Not only does it penalise the overwhelming majority of the population by redistributing wealth away from the working and middles classes to the financial elite, but it also inflicts great damage on the long term health of the economy. In other words, British voters look like supreme masochists. They voted to seriously harm their own, and their country’s, interests. Are Britons collectively insane?

Of course, not. So how can we explain their insane choice this week? The answer is staring us in the face. In fact, Blair showed us what was required to win a British election. A party hoping to win power needed first to seduce the corporations, and their media divisions. Without most of the media on your side, no party stands a chance of winning because the media subtly controls the narrative of the election: what count as “the issues”, how the leaders and their platforms are presented, what and who is considered credible.

Miliband’s failure was that, unlike Blair, he looked a little half-hearted about his desire to be the 1%’s mouthpiece in parliament and Downing Street. Maybe what seduced Brand about Miliband was the sliver of humanity that was still just visible below the surface of the corporate employee the Labour party had groomed their leader to become.

The revolution that we need in Britain and the US has to start with a disengagement from the mainstream media’s representation of events. We have to discard their narratives. Even more important than an overhauled electoral system, one that fairly reflects the electorate’s preferences, we need a grassroots media that is free of the control of fabulously wealthy proprietors and major corporations, that does not depend on the massive subsidies of corporations (in the form of advertising), and that does not rely, like the BBC, on funding from government. We need independent journalists, and we need to demand a new funding model for the media. And we need to do all this while the mainstream media entirely control the narrative about what a free media is.

It is a huge challenge – and one that reflects the extent of our own ideological confinement. Just like the political parties, we have been captured by the 1%. We cannot imagine a different world, a different economic system, a different media landscape, because our intellectual horizons have been so totally restricted by the media conglomerates that control our newspapers, our TV and radio stations, the films we watch, the video games we play, the music we listen to. We are so imaginatively confined we cannot even see the narrow walls within which our minds are allowed to wander.

As long as the media represent the span of interests of the 1% – from the psychopathic Murdoch empire to the capitalism with a little heart of the Guardian Media Group – our politicians will range from the Blue Tories of the Conservative party to the Red Tories of the Labour party. And we will remain enslaved.

Britain’s super-rich have doubled their wealth since 2009

By Robert Stevens
April 30, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

Capitalism1The annual Sunday Times Rich List reveals that the UK has more billionaires per head of population than any other country. There are now a record 117 billionaires among the country’s top 1,000 richest people.

The total wealth of just the billionaires on the list is a staggering £325.131 billion. Within the space of a year, the top 1,000, as a whole, have increased their total wealth by 5.4 percent to a record £547.126 billion. Last year, the figure stood at 104 billionaires and £519 billion—one third of the country’s GDP.

The Rich List, first published in 1989, but in its 18th year in its current form, is always an underestimation of the wealth of the super-rich as it includes land, property, assets, and significant shares but excludes cash in bank accounts.

This year’s list reveals the extent to which the global financial elite ensured that the world’s population has been forced to bear the entire burden of the 2008 financial crash. In the years since, the super-rich in the UK have more than doubled their wealth, which stood at £258 billion in 2009 (an increase of 112 percent). The number of billionaires has grown by 12 percent in the last year, by 172 percent since 2009, and, as the Sunday Times notes, they “are far wealthier than many of them dared to hope seven years ago”.

The list, writes the Times, “confirms that Britain is more attractive to the global super-rich than any country except America. There are so many billionaires based here now, they outnumber those in mainland China, whose economy is four times larger than ours.”

It notes, “Mainland China is home to 115 sterling billionaires, who are collectively worth £24bn less.”

It continues, “Although the United States has the highest overall number of sterling billionaires of any country at 384, Britain’s smaller population means it boasts more per head than any other country in the G20 group of the world’s biggest economies—one billionaire for every 547,000 Britons, compared with one for every 833,000 Americans. London, where most of Britain’s billionaires are based, has more than any other city—80—who enjoy a collective wealth of £258bn. The capital’s nearest European rival, Paris, has just 21.”

The Times ’ front page article on the Rich List began “Recession? What recession? Britain’s super-rich have powered through the economic crisis and are now more than twice as rich as they were in 2009 when the economy was on the rocks…”

In the same period workers, pensioners and young people have suffered the impact of brutal austerity, with tens of billions of pounds slashed from public spending. In comparison, the income of the super-rich only fell once during that period (in 2009 when it fell by 37 percent to £258 billion) and their wealth is now growing at a record rate. The Sunday Times notes, “The rise has been greatest in the past 12 months. You need £100m to get on the list this year. That is £45m more than in 2009 and £15m more than last year…”

Vast amounts of the wealth accumulated by the super-rich are the product of speculation and outright criminality, with London being one of the world’s leading centres of financial swindling. The Sunday Times notes, “Most of the billionaires based in London are from abroad, but choose to live or base their businesses in the capital. London is a magnet for the super-rich because of its low taxes (for now)… The rise in the wealth of the top 1,000 is so sharp this year thanks to booming stock markets. Both the FTSE 100 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average have hit record highs in the past 12 months.”

The rapid emergence of this layer is illustrated by the fact that the queen, who was listed as the richest individual in 1989, is now not even among the top 300. The Times notes that although her wealth increased by £10 million this year to £340 million, she represents “old money.”

The richest individual on the list is the Ukrainian-born and Harvard-trained Len Blavatnik, who has investments in industry, music, and media, and is worth £13.17 billion, up £3.17 billion on 2014. Among the firms Blavatnik has investments in is LyondellBasell, one of the oil refinery companies with which workers in the United States were recently involved in a bitter struggle.

In the case of individuals such as Blavatnik, who made his initial fortune by participating in the pillage of the nationalised state assets of the Soviet Union following its dissolution in 1991, the adage of Balzac that “behind every great fortune there is a great crime” was never more apt.

A Forbes article last year noted, “In the history of Wall Street there haven’t been too many moneymaking machines quite like LyondellBasell, which has seen its shares return 500 percent since it emerged from bankruptcy four years ago. And that’s been especially lucrative for Blavatnik, 57, who cobbled the company together, saw it fail and plunge into bankruptcy court, and then doubled down on the same assets, personally investing another $2.37 billion in LyondellBasell the second time around. His investment is now worth more than $10 billion, generating $8 billion in mostly unrealized personal profits.”

The World Socialist Web Site noted, “These vast sums have been made through the brutal exploitation of oil workers facilitated by the [United Steel Workers] and other unions in the global industry.”

Another oligarch, placed at number four on the list, is the Uzbekistan-born Alisher Usmanov, who owns a stake of almost 30 percent in the leading London Premier League team, Arsenal FC. Usmanov is worth £9.8 billion, even though the value of his mining and other interests fell by £850 million over the past year, partly because of the West’s sanctions against Russia and collapse of the rouble.

So rich is this miniscule layer of parasites that servicing their whims is a lucrative industry in itself. The Daily Telegraph commented on Ten Group, “which has two million high-net-worth members worldwide” and “has spent around £36.5m of its clients’ money in the past 12 months.”

Reading the media’s commentary, one is left with the distinct impression that they consider the existence of this fetid, anti-social layer to be so entrenched and “normal” that it is barely worth discussing anymore. The BBC’s article on the list totalled just 270 words.

In its front-page article, the Sunday Times itself refers to a “wealth gap” that “has become a chasm.” But the gap it refers to is the disparity between the number of billionaires in the “capital and the rest of the country”! It commented that “there are only 37 billionaires based outside London and their collective wealth is £67bn—£191bn less than the London total of £258bn.”

The grotesque levels of wealth recorded in the Rich List speak to the enormous gulf between the super-rich and everyone else. But that is no longer considered a subject of journalistic comment.

UK general election reveals crisis of capitalist rule

By Chris Marsden
April 27, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

The campaign for Britain’s May 7 general election has brought into sharp relief the fragility and instability of the country’s political system. The crisis engulfing the UK—Europe’s second largest economy, the world’s third largest share market and a key political and military ally of US imperialism—has major implications for political developments worldwide.

With just 10 days to go, no one can even begin to predict the election’s outcome.

The ruling Conservatives are polling slightly ahead or on par with Labour, but without sufficient votes to form a government. The Liberal Democrats face electoral meltdown as punishment for their role as partners in the Tory-led coalition. Labour has been unable to benefit substantially from massive anti-Tory sentiment due to its own lurch further to the right, meaning it too must look to some form of coalition.

Business wants the Tories in office as a proven vehicle for continued austerity. However, it fears that, given Prime Minister David Cameron’s promise of a 2017 in/out referendum on European Union membership, the Tories’ possible reliance on the UK Independence Party will result in a drawn-out “Brexit.” This is now considered by many in Europe as a more fundamental threat to the stability of the continent than the worsening crisis in Greece.

At the same time, the possibility of Labour Party leader Ed Miliband having to rely on the support of the Scottish National Party (SNP), predicted to wipe out Labour in Scotland, raises the spectre of a renewed push for Scottish independence and the break-up of the UK.

No combination of parties in government is excluded, including a government of national unity involving the Tories and Labour. Leading academics have warned that a possible second election is “extremely likely” and assessed the chance of a new coalition lasting five years to be “miniscule.”

The common theme of political commentary is the likelihood of a descent into prolonged political uncertainty and crisis.

One prominent commentator, Anatole Kaletsky, writes, “In the years ahead, Britain will likely be Europe’s most politically unpredictable country.”

The Economist speaks of “the great fracturing,” worrying that “if the parliamentary system comes to be seen as both unfair and ineffectual, then it is in for a crisis of legitimacy.”

There are dire warnings of companies relocating and investors withdrawing money from the UK. The banking giant HSBC is considering moving its headquarters from London over fears of an exit from the EU. Investment firm Nutmeg has cut its holdings of blue chip British shares by two thirds, noting that US investors sold $58 billion of British shares prior to last September’s Scottish referendum and has since bought back only half of what was unloaded.

No bourgeois commentator can honestly address the underlying reasons for the crisis of rule now emerging in the UK.

As with the conservative New Democracy and social democratic PASOK in Greece, the Popular Party and Socialist Party in Spain, and the Gaullist Union for a Popular Movement and Socialist Party in France, the traditional mechanisms through which the bourgeoisie has governed have been eviscerated due to their imposition of savage austerity measures.

This is an election dominated by one issue above all others—the ever-widening social chasm between a thin layer of the super-rich and the broad mass of working people, who comprise the vast majority of the population.

This week, the Sunday Times noted that Britain’s super-rich are now more than twice as rich as they were in 2009. The wealthiest 1,000 people based in Britain are collectively worth £547 billion. There are now 117 sterling billionaires based in Britain, more per head of population than in any other country.

This obscene wealth is being gouged out of the working class.

The Tories are pledged to tens of billions of pounds in new cuts, including £12 billion in welfare. Labour has promised a “Budget Responsibility Lock” committing it to cut the deficit every year.

The SNP, Plaid Cymru (Party of Wales) and Green Party pose as anti-austerity alternatives, seeking to exploit popular opposition to the Tories and Labour. However, none of these capitalist parties offers anything more than a somewhat slower pace in the implementation of austerity measures.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies found the SNP’s budgetary policies to be “essentially the same” as Labour’s. All of these parties have made clear that the votes they receive will be handed to Labour in a “progressive alliance”—in reality, an “austerity alliance”—should the Tories be unable to form a government.

The nationalist SNP and Plaid Cymru and their allies among the pseudo-left groups play the essential role of dividing the working class in the face of the common enemy and tying workers to one or another section of the bourgeoisie.

The public declarations of the major parties are worthless lies designed to conceal what is being planned. The calculations they make for public consumption are based on continued economic growth at a time when a fresh plunge into crisis for the British, European and world economy is inevitable.

Looming over the election is the turn to militarism and war.

There is a conspiracy of silence over this danger. Meanwhile, against a background of massive naval exercises off Scotland, air war games over South Wales involving 13,000 NATO troops, and the repeated scrambling of fighter jets and ships to escort Russian vessels out of UK waters, the Tories and Labour are competing to demonstrate which party will be the firmer ally of the United States in the escalating conflict with Russia and China.

The election campaign began with the despatch of British military advisors and trainers to Ukraine and Syria. Either country could become the flashpoint for a broader war.

The SNP and Plaid Cymru pose as opponents of the Trident nuclear submarine programme while making clear their loyalty to NATO. They and the Greens speak of developing Britain’s conventional armed forces.

The Socialist Equality Party is standing Katie Rhodes in Glasgow Central and David O’Sullivan in Holborn & St. Pancras in London. We advance an independent political perspective to mobilise the working class in the fight for a workers’ government pledged to socialist policies as part of the struggle for a United Socialist States of Europe and a world socialist federation.

Our election campaign has been conducted as an integral component of a worldwide political offensive to establish the International Committee of the Fourth International as the “international centre of revolutionary opposition to the resurgence of imperialist violence and militarism,” as called for in the ICFI statement of July 3 2014.

It is focused on building support for meetings in Glasgow and London and online attendance of the International May Day Rally on May 3, based on the slogans: “Down with capitalism and imperialism! Unite the working class internationally against war, dictatorship and poverty! For peace, for equality, for socialism!”

The SEP’s campaign will prove to be an important step in the development of a new revolutionary leadership in the UK and the building of the ICFI as the world party of socialist revolution.

Ukraine a Vector for GMO Poison’s Spread Through EU

By Ulson Gunnar
April 17, 2015
New Eastern Outlook

 

Ukraine-agricultureWhen the Washington Post chooses to pen an insulting, condescending editorial targeting entire nations speaking up against Western impropriety, one can just as well assume the precise opposite of whatever narrative the Post is trying to push forward is true.

Regarding American biotech companies and their attempts to infest the planet with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and in particular their attempts to corrupt the whole of Europe with their unwanted poison through a backdoor (Ukraine), has prompted Russia to speak up for their Eastern European neighbor. Up until the armed coup in 2013-2014, also known as the “Euromaidan,” Ukraine had adamantly rejected GMOs.

With an obedient client regime now installed in Kiev, a series of political, economic and military decisions have been made that have more or less extinguished Ukraine as a sovereign nation state. Along with its extinguished sovereignty comes a complete lack of desire for self-preservation, and so, sowing one’s fields with genetically tainted, unsafe, literal poison goes from being adamantly avoided, to being openly embraced.

This brings us back to the Washington Post and a recent editorial it has published. Titled, “Russia says Western investment in Ukraine’s farms is a plot to take over the world,” it first attempts to make Russia’s accusations that Monsanto is now moving in on Ukraine with plans to institute GMOs nationwide sound unfounded. That is until the Post itself admits that is precisely what Monsanto is doing. The pieces claims:

Ukraine has long tried to sell itself to Europe as the once-and-future breadbasket of the continent, promising that Western investment is the key to making its under-exploited black earth bloom. 

But official Russia would like you to know that all this agricultural development talk is really just a secret plot to help companies like Monsanto take over the world.

Then the Post openly admits:

Genetically-modified cultivation was long banned in Ukraine – as was the sale of farmland.

Then admits:

But the association agreement signed between the European Union and Ukraine last year may have created new space for the potential introduction of genetically-modified crops in Ukraine. 

Finally, the Post mentions Monsanto:

Monsanto – perhaps the most recognizable corporate name in genetically modified products – did express interest in investing in Ukraine last year. (It’s worth noting that the company operates in Russia as well, though not with GMOs, just as it has operated in Ukraine.)

Since Monsanto already operates in Ukraine, what else would it be investing in additionally that it hasn’t had the opportunity to before besides GMOs? Ukraine would serve as the perfect victim to host Monsanto and other biotech corporations’ GMO-infected products in the heart of Europe.

With the EU itself relaxing some of its regulations regarding GMOs, likely without the consent of a population increasingly conscious of the risks and actively seeking organic alternatives, biotech conglomerates hope to make GMO products spread from what will be the completely unregulated fields of Ukraine, into Europe and to become as ubiquitous and unavoidable as they are in America.

Elsewhere around the world, big-agriculture has attempted to use other backdoors to bring their products into regions they are wholly rejected, including Asia where “Golden Rice” has been proposed as the answer to fighting “vitamin A deficiency,” even  when simply planting some carrots would accomplish this goal more easily, cheaper and without the threat of tainting Asia’s rice crops with a strain consumers would reject out of hand.

In other instances, conquering Western interests, like in Afghanistan, have used “aid” as a backdoor to bring big-agriculture and GMOs into the region.

So by the Post’s own admission and by simply looking at what Monsanto and its counterparts have done all over the world already, they themselves couldn’t agree more with the Russian Federation regarding Monsanto’s obvious intentions in Ukraine and for the rest of Europe.

The Post, like many papers across America and Europe, has long-served the interests of the monied elite, with biotech and big-agriculture counted prominently among them. The Post and others will spin and obfuscate Monsanto’s intentions until it is too late to overturn the genetic corruption their crops will inflict on the once well-protected, sovereign fields of Ukraine.

Like many other things in Ukraine, the so-called “Euromaiden” that was allegedly spurred for freedom and self-determination has clearly stripped Ukraine of both its freedom and its ability to determine what is best for itself. From a military set upon its own people, to an economy looted by foreign interests, to a government directed literally by foreigners who chair it, to now fields to be sown with genetically altered poison, the ruination of Ukraine is nearly complete and a lasting testament to what the West truly means when it says “democratization.”

No One Will Buy GMO-Tainted Crops 

Included in Russia’s comments regarding the impending despoilment of Ukraine’s agricultural industry by Monsanto and others, the Post would report:

Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev told a meeting of his counterparts in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on Tuesday that the West plans to grown “genetically modified crops” in Ukraine. And it’s a fool’s errand too, he suggested, because, “to put it mildly, Europe will not approve of such products.”

The Post, in its role as associate lobbyist for big-agriculture, attempts to downplay this fact. However, reported elsewhere, even within the Western media itself, are reports that the agricultural powerhouse that is the United States is now importing organic corn because consumers refuse to eat tainted GMO products grown within the States.

Bloomberg in its report “U.S. Forced to Import Corn as Shoppers Demand Organic Food” would claim:

A growing demand for organics, and the near-total reliance by U.S. farmers on genetically modified corn and soybeans, is driving a surge in imports from other nations where crops largely are free of bioengineering. 

Imports such as corn from Romania and soybeans from India are booming, according to an analysis of U.S. trade data released Wednesday by the Organic Trade Association and Pennsylvania State University.

The humiliation of a nation historically self-reliant agriculturally having to import something as basic as corn because everything grown domestically is poisoned is a lesson any Ukrainian seeking to preserve what is left of not only their dignity, but their sense of self-preservation should take note of. Even as the “miracle” of GMO evaporates amid an increasingly astute market in the United States, US corporations are buying off Ukraine’s infinitely servile regime to place Ukraine’s neck into the same noose.

However, in a way the Post is right. Russia is crazy to think Monsanto is taking over the world. The corporation, despite untold of billions pumped into lobbying, propaganda, bribes and other forms of mass persuasion, is failing miserably to convince people to ingest their poison, even in the nation their headquarters is located in. However, Russia shedding light on what Monsanto is trying to do in Ukraine, against the obvious best interests of Ukraine itself, is yet another illustration of how the “Euromaiden” putsch had nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with Washington and Wall Street hijacking yet another nation and its resources out from under its own people under the guise of “democracy.”

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.