Tuesday, February 18, 2020

Corridor wars

"Explaining Syria" (Giraldi).  Jeffrey isn't delusional.  It's shekels.  Knowing what we know about Washington, it is also possible probable almost certain he is being blackmailed.

You could make the case that our current awful slates of politicians in the West - it is striking, as you'd think just by chance there might be a few decent ones, but there are not! - is directly connected with the Khazar bribing and blackmailing campaign, as only the most degenerate people are now allowed to be politicians.  To qualify, you have to be bad enough to be bribed/blackmailed.  Anybody else either isn't allowed in, or flees from politics in disgust at the rest of them.

Why Beardboy just can't order the RCMP to start killing injuns, as Conservatives, and Albertans (but I repeat myself), would like:  tweet (Dr. Jennifer Robson):
"There’s been a lot of opinion flying about on whether the PM/Min. PSEP could/should order the RCMP to remove #Wetsuwenten protesters & supporters. I just stumbled across a paper by @UofT Kent Roach & found it really helpful : https://attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/policy_part/meetings/pdf/Roach.pdf… 1/n"
"Why Coastal GasLink says it rejected a pipeline route endorsed by Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs"(Kurjata).  They refused to choose the acceptable route as it would have cost more, and endangered white people - aka 'urban areas' - rather than natives!  It has reached self-parody levels of Clarification.

We tend to forget that the RCMP is basically a paramilitary force, one that more recently has taken up police work, which earned its fame from 'managing' natives (which they were slightly better at than their American counterparts - unlike the Americans, they tended to chat before starting the shooting - but that is a very low standard to meet).

"Pipeline or a Pipe Dream: Israel, Turkey Hydrocarbon Conflict is Brewing in the Mediterranean" (Baroud).  "Gas Wars in the Mediterranean" (Whitney).  Turkey's 'corridor' blocks the Khazar khorridor, so the combined blackmailed/bribed political stooges of the West are going to be ordered to gang up on Turkey.  It wasn't that long ago that all the talk was about the Israelis building a pipeline up the coast of Lebanon to Turkey.

"Why Food Systems Are Breaking Down Across The World" (Todhunter).

"How Washington “Liberates” Free Countries" (Vltchek). "The US’s Inalienable Right to Violence" (Shupak).

"Plain of Jars University" (Dinh):
"The horrors of war are often drowned out by heroic propaganda or rendered much less bloody through dry historical accounts, penned by academics, but there’s a slim book, Voices from the Plain of Jars, that allows suffering civilians to recount their terror filled existence under constant American bombs.
Edited by Frederic R. Branfman, it has a foreword (in the second edition) by Alfred W. McCoy, who notes, “Since there is no other book written by the villagers of Indochina, these ‘voices’ can, in a sense, speak for the countless Vietnamese and Cambodians who also suffered under the U.S. bombing. Not only does the 2.1 million tons of bombs dropped on Laos from 1965 to 1973 rank among the largest air wars of the twentieth century, exceeded only by the 2.7 million tons dropped on Cambodia, but it also was a precursor for the way wars would be fought in the twenty-first century and beyond […] this book recovers an obscure yet significant moment in military history and documents an air war so intense that it became a testing ground for a new form of global force projection.” The CIA’s Secret War in Laos reverberates into everyone’s life, in short, as long as the American Empire is extant."
"An interview with Lula. Part One" (important because we never get any insider reports of political shenanigans from honest, decent people; my emphasis in red; we start with the actual origins of Obama's Iran deal and the fact that, pre-Bolsonaro, Brazil was becoming a major diplomatic player, rather than the joke it is now):
"First of all it is important to look at that moment when Brazil, together with Turkey, made a deal with Iran on uranium enrichment. It was a different historic moment from that which Brazil is in today. Brazil was more respected in the World. Brazil was almost an international protagonist because we had removed the FTAA [Free Trade Agreement of the Americas] from the debate and had strengthened MercoSul. We had created UnaSul, which was the union of the countries of South America. We had created the BRICS, we had created IBAS, we had created a union between Africa and South America, we had created a union between countries in the Middle East and South America, we had created CELAC which was the only international encounter which included Cuba but did not include the United States and Canada. We had created the BRICS bank, and the Bank of the South here in South America. Brazil was transforming into a protagonist and it was a strong candidate to become part of the UN Security Council. We believed that Brazil should have joined it, along with India, Germany and Japan. What we did not factor in was Japan’s contentious relationship with China – it was very contentious and very strong. China, which was so favorable to the expansion of the UN Security Council, did not support our idea. But we had support from Russia, France and the UK. Bush seemed very favorable to the idea at first. Obama was less supportive. When we proposed to negotiate with Ahmadinejad, it was historically important because we were in the United States at the time. We were in a G20 meeting in Princeton. I had spoken with Ahmadinejad in the hotel but at this point I did not have a friendly relationship with him. So I arrived in the meeting and I asked Obama if he had spoken with Ahmadinejad and he said no. I asked Angela Merkel and she said no. I asked Gordon Brown and he said no. I spoke with Sarkozy and he said no. The fact was that nobody had spoken with Ahmadinejad. I thought, ‘how do these people want to make a deal without a conversation’? Because international politics is really outsourced, especially in Europe. There are employees who do the negotiations and this makes it hard. I remember that Hilary Clinton worked hard against my idea to go to Iran. She even called the Emir of Qatar and asked him to convince me not to go. When I arrived in Moscow and met with Medvedev, I found out Obama had called and asked him to help convince me not to go, because I would be tricked.
Michael: Why were they so concerned?
Lula: Obama didn’t want me to go to Iran, but he had written a letter saying that if Ahmadinejad agreed with such and such terms, he would be happy with it. So it was with this letter that I traveled to Iran. We got there and after two days of very tough talks I told Ahmadinejad that I would not return to Brazil without his signature. He said, “can’t it just be an oral agreement?”
I said, “It’s not enough, because nobody believes in you over there. They say that Iranians are liars and they don’t honor agreements. So I’ll only leave with something in writing.”
So he accepted our agreement. I was surprised because I imagined that Obama would be happy with the deal but he increased the sanctions against Iran. Then we discovered that Hilary Clinton didn’t know about the letter that Obama had sent me. She got angry when Celso Amorim and I told her about the letter. So I had no option but to publish Obama’s letter so people could see that we hadn’t done anything crazy. The deal that we brokered was more precise than that which was later signed by Europe and the United States. So it was a very disagreeable situation and my impression was that the rich countries – influenced by the thinking of the US State Department – did not accept a new protagonist in the area. In their minds Brazil was not big enough to get involved in an issue of that scale. It was easy for me to speak with Ahmadinejad because I told him that the only thing I wanted from them is what we have in Brazil. I wanted him to have the same rights as Brazil. Brazil’s constitution supports the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons but allows the enrichment of uranium for peaceful purposes – for the production of medicine and things like that. So, he and the President of Iran’s Congress agreed. I flew from Iran to Madrid for an EU meeting thinking that everyone would be happy because I had managed to broker a deal which they were unable to pull off and when I got there everyone was against it. Everyone was acting like Brazil had gotten into something that nobody had invited it to do – that Brazil was a personna non grata on the international political stage. It was unpleasant. I think as long as there are only conversations between the Israeli government and the US government we will not have peace in the Middle East, because they are responsible for the conflicts. If you don’t put all the people who are involved at the table and listen to everyone, you will not make a deal. Every once in a while they give a Noble Prize to some American or Israeli authority and peace, which is what the people really want, never arrives."
and (note that the 'science' of economics can't even comprehend this kind of talk):
". . . this intellectual theory here in Brazil that my government was successful because of the boom in agribusiness and that this is why things worked out. Think about the following: from 1950 to 1980, Brazil was one of the fastest growing economies in the World. On average, Brazil grew 7% per year from 1950-1980 – that’s 30 years of economic growth. Why weren’t any policies for income redistribution implemented? Why weren’t there any social inclusion policies? Why didn’t the growth of the Brazilian economy cause the people to grow together with it? Do you know why, Brian? Because the miracle of our government was not the commodities boom – it was the boom of social inclusion.
I was absolutely certain that the poor would not be a problem. The poor would be the solution in the sense that we could include them in the federal budget and guarantee that, if they had access to jobs and salaries, their income and credit would cause them to become consumers. There has never been, on the face of the earth – even to those people who think it’s flat – and in the history of humanity, a moment in which any economy grew without a strong internal demand or a strong external demand. We managed to increase the external demand and the internal demand. Brazil’s international trade increased from $117 Billion to $465 billion. Brazil’s internal credit, available from public and private banks, rose from R$360 billion to R$2.7 Trillion by 2010. We also generated 22 million formal sector jobs, with labor cards signed, with the right to vacation and retirement pensions, and we raised the minimum salary by 74%. So, the poorest 20% of the population’s income grew faster than that of the wealthiest 20%. It was the first time in our history that this happened, and Brazil was the only country in the World where the poor had proportionately higher income gains than the rich during the entire Lehman Brothers crisis. So the commodities boom was not the miracle. It was the miracle of the inclusion of the poor. It was the miracle of the social policies.
and (he's some kind of lunatic!):
"If you take $1 billion and give it to a rich man, he’ll deposit it in a bank account and use it for speculation. But if you take this $1 billion and divide it among 1 million people, giving each one $100, you will see that this dollar will start to work. It will circulate and make the markets work. People will buy food, they’ll buy shoes and socks and the economy will work. This was the PT’s miracle. This is why there is so much hatred of the PT."
"An interview with Lula. Part Two" (the CIA; lawfare):
"Brian Mier: When TeleSur’s Nacho Lemus interviewed you recently you said that you believe that foreign powers were involved in the June 2013 protests in Brazil. Immediately afterwards you were attacked by Brazilians from the vanguard left who accused you of reducing what had happened to a mere intervention by the CIA. I know that the PT historically takes a Gramscian view of the integral state – it is not just the government, it’s things like the corporations too. Could you explain exactly what you meant when you said there was external interference in 2013?
Lula: This question is important because it enables me to clearly explain what I said during the other interview. I did not say that the CIA started the movement. The movement started in the protests by people who were fighting for the right to collective transportation in several Brazilian state capitals and this was a legitimate social movement. But after it started, after the black blocs appeared and started breaking a few things, the movement was taken over. It wasn’t the transportation movement that put 1 million people from the middle class onto the streets protesting against the government, against the World Cup and against just about everything that was happening in Brazil. Globo TV had never interrupted it’s telenovelas before to broadcast a protest against busfare hikes or any workers protest – never. Suddenly TV GloboSBTBandeirantes and Record were all inviting people to the streets at 7 AM, Noon, 3PM. They were inviting people as if they were advertising a party. The protest marches were broadcast on live TV, which is something that had never happened before in the history of Brazil. So if it is true that it started here in São Paulo as a movement to fight for a 20 cent bus fare reduction, this struggle was taken over and held up by other interests. Today things are clearer to me then they were back then but I don’t think we will find out exactly who was behind all of it very quickly.
I remember the Arab Spring. I remember the downfall of Mubarak. Mubarak really had to go down. He was a dictator who was in power for so many years. But then the people elected Morsi. And how long did it take to take out Morsi? And who is there now? If it is true that the people were fighting for democracy, what are they doing now with 3 generals running Egypt, with no more protests and no more marches? The same thing happened in Turkey. Erdogan called us up in 2013 and said “this isn’t a movement trying to improve a public square – they want to overthrow the government. So be careful in Brazil.”
Therefore, I have plenty of reasons to be suspicious about what happened here in Brazil, first of all because no labor unions were protesting against the government. We didn’t know what this movement was. It appeared to be against nearly everything and favorable to one segment of society. It seemed like it was anti-PT, anti Dilma, anti-World Cup and anti-Olympics, so I wrote an article for the New York Times in which I said “the people who have gotten used to eating sirloin want filet mignon”. This is what I thought at the time, but today I think there was a lot more to it than this. It was not just economic, it was political. So I have a lot of mistrust about what happened here, what happened recently in Ecuador, what happened in Argentina and what happened in Bolivia. What was the logic behind what they did to me in Operation Lava Jato? Any lawyer who looks at case can see the lies that are being told and the con they are pulling on me. This lawfare attack, which was uncovered by my lawyers, is one of the most commentated subject in legal circles around the World today. It is a more modern and efficient way to destroy a democracy and end the popular representation of the vote. This is what they did here. This is what they did in Bolivia and they tried to do it with Rafael Correa in Ecuador. So I have a deep mistrust about this legalization of world politics."
"I saw Trump complain the other day that Iran has won over Iraq now, that the majority of them are Shia and now they like Iran. But it was the US that started the war.  I met with Bush around the time when the US started the war, in 2003. Later I met with Clinton in Davos and he said, “Bush is going to do some research. If he sees it will help him in the elections he’s going to attack Iraq.”"
"I had a good and respectful relationship with Tony Blair and I had a good relationship with Gordon Brown. Those were the two governments with which I had contact. Tony Blair’s role in the decision to join the war in Iraq was unfortunate. He knows this. He is regularly accosted on the streets of London because of the war in Iraq. He knew there were no chemical weapons in Iraq. Do you know why we also knew about this? Because the Secretary who took care of the UN’s department of nuclear weapons was Brazilian. It was Ambassador Bustani. He was the Secretary who dealt with chemical weapons. And he wore himself out saying, “they don’t have them”. The Americans ordered Fernando Henrique Cardoso to remove Bustani because of this. So they appointed someone from Japan who said they did have them. How long has it been since they invaded Iraq? Where are the chemical weapons? The only chemical weapons they had there were Saddam Hussein himself, who lied to his people the whole time and Bush, who lied to the World the whole time."
"But the truth is that Evo Morales and I were always odd men out. Imagine Evo, an Indian coca farmer, as President of Bolivia. I met Gonzalo, the Bolivian President. who I believe resigned in 2003, and he didn’t even speak Spanish. He wanted to explain something to me in English because he had problems speaking Spanish and he was President of Bolivia. Evo Morales was a real President. He implemented social inclusion policies, reduced inflation, generated jobs and increased Bolivia’s foreign reserves, which are now larger than the value of the GDP. Now the elites have deposed him."
"I have not had the pleasure of ever meeting Sanders. I know about him from the press and through people who have met him and I know about him from the things he’s said in solidarity with me. He spoke with a comrade from PT, Fernando Haddad, and my impression of him is as high as can be. The impression I have from his last campaign is that, although he was unable to win the democratic primary, he had a very exciting campaign for the youth with a good discourse which, by US standards, was very leftist. For 20 years, whenever I visited the US I tried to see if I could find leftist in an American bar and I never met one. So when someone like Sanders comes up it’s extraordinary news. It is hopefull to know that you have someone in the Senate of a certain age – I think he is as old as me – who is strong willed. I think this is important because a country that has an economy the size of the US could really improve the quality of life for its people if it stopped worrying so much about wars and spending so much money on the armed forces and espionage. It could use some of this money to improve the quality of life of the poor people in the US who also don’t live well, who have health problems. I dream that if Sanders can win these elections we can dream, even though we know that an American President has an entire, powerful war machine behind him which can complicate democratic actions. I think that you can only govern well if you have made up your mind about what you want to govern for, who you want to govern for and what side you are on. There are sides we have to take during our time on planet Earth. The fact is that the rich do not need the State but they gain power from it. They often perform the role of the State itself. I have always said that if anyone wants to learn how to govern they should look at how mothers raise their children. If a mother has 10 children she will love them all equally but if there is one who is debilitated and weaker, that is the one who will get the second piece of meat. That is the one who will get a second bottle. That is the one who she will put on her lap to help fall asleep. This is the role of the State. This is governing for the people who need the State. Who needs the State? It is the working poor and people who want jobs. I am very sad now because I was proud when our social inclusion policies caused Brazil to exit the World Hunger Map. I am very proud that the UN had recognized that Brazil no longer needed to be on the map. Today Brazil has returned to the Hunger Map. There is a neighborhood in Pernambuco called Brasilia Teimosa where we got rid of the wooden stilt shacks and paved a nice road and the beach became beautiful. Stilt shacks have started popping up there again. And the number of people who sleep on the streets in this country has…. I never used see children begging on the streets of Brazil anymore. Now the children are back on the streets begging and living under the bridges. This doesn’t make sense in a rich country like Brazil. People say I am a radical. I am not a radical. I learned how to be more human in jail. I reflect more. I look at my 70 years of life and realize that I have to fight more and I have to argue more. You cannot accept the idea that the Brazilian elites don’t accept the economic growth of the poor. They don’t accept that the poor can have the right to healthcare, education, water, school- everything that can feed them. They don’t accept that the poor have these things. So I am not radical. I have a lot more political consciousness now. And for this reason I want to fight a lot more. “Oh, but Lula wants to come back,” they say. “Lula got out of jail angry and now he wants to polarize things.” I really want to polarize. I want to hold deep ideological debates. I want the people to know that there is no teaching anywhere that says a person has to go three days without food. There is no teaching that says that a person is supposed to wake up in the morning and not have a cup of milk or a piece of bread to give to their child. In a rich country like this one? So this is why it looks like I am more angry. It looks like I am a radical but I am not. I am a man who likes to talk and likes to negotiate. I learned how to do politics by negotiating. But I don’t want to be fooled again and I want to help the Brazilian people raise their heads up. A guy who is working for Uber has to know that he deserves something better than Uber. A man who is delivering Pizza by bicycle has to know that he deserves something better. Citizens who are sleeping on the sidewalk have to know that they don’t have to sleep on the sidewalk – the State has a responsibility to them. If not, what is the State for?"
blog comments powered by Disqus