Your browser does not support the HTML5 canvas tag.
Εγχειρίδιο χειρισμού κρίσεων λόγω πολιτικών ΔΝΤ από τη CIA! / Already confirmed: Civil liberties under attack! / Greece's creditors gone completely insane! / How the global financial mafia sucked Greece's blood / ECB's economic hitmen / Η Μέρκελ επιβεβαιώνει τα σχέδια των γραφειοφασιστών! /Greece: the low-noise collapse of an entire country/ How the neoliberal establishment tricked the masses again, this time in France / Ενώ η Γερμανία προετοιμάζεται για τα χειρότερα, η Ελλάδα επιμένει στο ευρώ! / Ένας παγκόσμιος "proxy" πόλεμος κατά της ελευθερίας έχει ξεκινήσει! / In reality, McCarthyism never ended in America / Ο επικεφαλής του "σκιώδους συμβουλίου" της ΕΚΤ επιβεβαιώνει ότι η ευρωζώνη είναι μια χρηματοπιστωτική δικτατορία! /With a rising Jeremy Corbyn and a declining Angela Merkel, Brexit has been upgraded to play a much more critical role / Δημοψήφισμα για Grexit: η τελευταία ευκαιρία να σωθεί η Ελλάδα και η τιμή της Αριστεράς / Populism as the new cliche of the elites to stigmatize anyone not aligned with the establishment / Δεν γίνεται έτσι "σύντροφοι" ... / Panama Papers: When mainstream information wears the anti-establishment mask / The Secret Bank Bailout / The head of the ECB “shadow council” confirms that eurozone is a financial dictatorship! / A documentary by Paul Mason about the financial coup in Greece / The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century / First cracks to the establishment by the American people / Clinton emails - The race of the Western neo-colonialist vultures over the Libyan corpse / Επιχείρηση Panama Papers: Το κατεστημένο θέλει το μονοπώλιο και στις διαρροές; / Operation "looting of Greece" reaches final stage / Varoufakis describes how Merkel sacrificed Greece to save the Franco-German banks / France officialy enters the neo-Feudal era! / The US establishment just gave its greatest performance so far ... / A significant revelation by WikiLeaks that the media almost ignored / It's official: the US is funding Middle-East jihadists! / Οι αδίστακτοι νεο-αποικιοκράτες του 21ου αιώνα / How to handle political unrest caused by IMF policies! / Πώς το νεοφιλελεύθερο κατεστημένο ξεγέλασε τις μάζες, αυτή τη φορά στη Γαλλία / Οι Γάλλοι νεοαποικιοκράτες επιστρέφουν στην Ελλάδα υπό 'ιδανικές' συνθήκες / Μεγαλώνει ο πανικός της Γουόλ Στριτ μπροστά στην προοπτική των κρυπτονομισμάτων

22 January, 2018

‘Executed’ North Koreans return to life!

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is famous in Western media for executing people that fall out of his favor – though some seem to have found the knack of returning from the dead.

Reports regularly surface on Kim’s latest means of execution, ranging from the relatively mundane firing squad to the theatrical, or even cartoonish – such as feeding foes to packs of starving dogs or roasting them with flame-throwers.

North Korean pop star Hyon Song-wol was spotted alive and well on TV in 2014, despite reportedly being executed by firing squad in a purge of singers, musicians and dancers, a year before.

The performer was allegedly killed along with 11 other people, including members of her group, the Moranbong Band, the head of Unhasu Orchestra, and several dancers from the Wangjaesan Light Music Band.

The 12 victims had allegedly been accused of, among other offenses, recording themselves having sex and selling the footage. Hyon Song-wol, with whom Kim was reportedly romantically entwined, most recently publicly resurfaced on Saturday to inspect Olympic venues in South Korea ahead of the Winter Games.

Back in 2016, N. Korean army chief Ri Yong Gil was reportedly executed for “factionalism, misuse of authority, and corruption.” As with a lot of information emanating from the isolated country, this turned out to false.

South Korean intelligence officials seemed to take his removal as head of the army as confirmation of his execution. The only problem was that a couple of months later Ri Yong Gil apparently returned from the dead, with an array of new senior-level positions, when he attended the Workers’ Party Congress in May that year.

More:

Ντράγκι: Ο υπηρέτης δυο αφεντάδων στο «εδώλιο» του Συνηγόρου του Πολίτη της ΕΕ

Γιώργος Βασσάλος

Το καλοκαίρι, σας είχαμε ενημερώσει για το άνοιγμα της έρευνας της Ευρωπαίας Συνηγόρου του Πολίτη πάνω στη συμμετοχή του Μάριο Ντράγκι, προέδρου της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας, στην «Ομάδα των 30», ένα λόμπι που αποτελείται από εκπροσώπους κεντρικών αλλά και ιδιωτικών τραπεζών, όπως JP Morgan, η UBS και η πρώην εργοδότρια του Ντράγκι (όπως και νυν του Μπαρόζο) Goldman Sachs.

To Νοέμβρη η ΕΚΤ είχει απαντήσει στις ερωτήσεις της «ευρωπαίας διαμεσολαβήτριας» Emily O’Reilly, με τη γνωστή αλαζονεία που τη χαρακτηρίζει. Στην ερώτηση ποιος επιλέγει τα μέλη της «Ομάδας των 30» απάντησε απλά «το ΔΣ της», του οποίου όμως το μοναδικό γνωστό μέλος είναι το πρόεδρος της τράπεζας JP Morgan, ενώ για τη δημοσίευση των πρακτικών των συναντήσεων παρέπεμψε τη Συνήγορο του Πολίτη O’Reilly στην ίδια την «Ομάδα των 30».

Χθες, η O’Reilly έδωσε δίκιο στo «Παρατηρητήριο της Ευρώπης των Πολυεθνικών» (CEO) που είχε ζητήσει την εν λόγω έρευνα και αποφάνθηκε ότι η συμμετοχή του Ντράγκι παραβιάζει τους υπάρχοντες κανόνες της ΕΚΤ και ως εκ τούτου πρέπει να παραιτηθεί και να μείνει εκτός της Ομάδας για όσο διαρκεί η θητεία του. Είπε επίσης ότι συμμετοχή του υποσκάπτει αναίτια τη δημόσια εμπιστοσύνη στην ανεξαρτησία της ΕΚΤ.

Η Ομάδα των 30 προωθεί ανοιχτά το είδος των ρυθμίσεων που υποστηρίζουν οι εκπρόσωποι των μεγαλύτερων χρηματοπιστωτικών εταιρειών και μιλά σχεδόν πάντα δια στόματος των ιδιωτικών τραπεζιτών που την αποτελούν. Tα τελευταία χρόνια, όλο και περισσότερα στελέχη της ΕΚΤ συμμετέχουν στις ομάδες εργασίας της Ομάδας των 30 και μιλούν στα συνέδρια της.

Η Συνήγορος του πολίτη σημείωσε και κάτι ακόμα: ότι « είναι σημαντικό να επιδεικνύεται ο ξεκάθαρος διαχωρισμός της ΕΚΤ ως εποπτικής αρχής, από τη χρηματοπιστωτική βιομηχανία την οποία εποπτεύει».

Σε πρόσφατο άρθρο αναφερθήκαμε σε ένα ακόμα στοιχείο που επιδεικνύει το ακριβώς αντίθετο: στο γεγονός ότι το 98% των 517 μελών των 22 συμβουλευτικών ομάδων της ΕΚΤ είναι λομπίστες του ιδιωτικού χρηματοπιστωτικού τομέα.

Μετά από τις αποκαλύψεις αυτές (και πάλι από την οργάνωση CEO), η ΕΚΤ αποφάσισε να δημοσιεύσει για πρώτη φορά ανοιχτό κάλεσμα εκδηλώσεων ενδιαφέροντος για συμμετοχή σε μια συμβουλευτική ομάδα. Σε αυτό ωστόσο διευκρινίζεται ότι «απευθύνεται κυρίως σε χρηματοπιστωτικά ιδρύματα που θα αποτελέσουν τα μέλη της ομάδας εργασίας με δικαίωμα ψήφου και που αναμένεται να ηγηθούν της διαδικασίας μεταρρύθμισης» ενώ «οι υπόλοιπες μη τραπεζικές οργανώσεις είναι ευπρόσδεκτες να συμμετέχουν στις υπο-ομάδες του»!

Η ΕΚΤ οφείλει τώρα να απαντήσει στη «Διαμεσολαβήτρια» μέχρι τον Απρίλη για το αν ο Ντράκγι θα μείνει ή θα φύγει από Ομάδα των 30, όπως οφείλει να απαντήσει και σε ερώτηση 40 ευρωβουλευτών για το αν θα αλλάξει τη σύνθεση των δικών της συμβουλευτικών ομάδων.

Η συμμόρφωση με τις υποδείξεις της «Διαμεσολαβήτριας» δεν είναι υποχρεωτική. Όπως δεν ήταν υποχρεωμένη η ΕΚΤ να δώσει στο Ευρωπαϊκό Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο τα στοιχεία που της ζητούσε για το πώς χειρίστηκε τις ανα-κεφαλαιοποιήσεις και διασώσεις τραπεζών στην Ευρώπη, όπως δεν είναι υποχρεωμένη να απαντήσει ποιος κανόνας την εξουσιοδοτούσε να κόψει τη ρευστότητα στην Ελλάδα το 2015, κι όπως δεν είναι υποχρεωμένη να σέβεται το γερμανικό εργατικό δίκαιο για τους ίδιους τους εργαζομένους της στη Φραγκφούρτη, μεγάλο μέρος των οποίων είναι στα πρόθυρα του burn out.

Η ΕΚΤ, έχει όμως και στο παρελθόν αναγκαστεί να προβεί σε αλλαγές μετά από εξωτερικές πιέσεις. Οι επίμονες ερωτήσεις, πχ., οργανώσεων πολιτών και ευρωβουλευτών την ανάγκασαν να δημοσιεύσει τα ονόματα των εταιρειών που επωφελούνται από το πρόγραμμα της αγοράς εταιριών ομολόγων. Έτσι μάθαμε ότι η ΕΚΤ δανείζει μηνιαίως δεκάδες δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ απευθείας σε τράπεζες και πολυεθνικές όπως οι Bayer, Siemens και Shell.

Γενικότερα, είναι όλο και δυσκολότερο να κουκουλωθεί ο ρόλος της ΕΚΤ σαν ένα όργανο εντελώς ανεξέλεγκτο από τους πολίτες, που ελέγχεται όμως με πολύ συγκεκριμένους μηχανισμούς από τους τραπεζίτες και επιβάλει σε όλους τους Ευρωπαίους την πολιτική που οι τραπεζίτες επιθυμούν.

Το πραγματικό ερώτημα είναι ως πότε οι πολίτες θα ανέχονται, η κεντρική αυτή τράπεζα που δημιουργήθηκε για τα μάτια του Ευρώ, να κυβερνά τις ζωές τους.

Πηγή, σύνδεσμοι:

21 January, 2018

WikiLeaks under attack

The Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) was set to break ties with WikiLeaks amidst concerns among the foundation’s board, which includes such well-known figures as Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, Laura Poitras, John Cusack and Glenn Greenwald, among others. The news was confirmed less than a month later when the nonprofit’s board officially voted to stop accepting U.S. donations for WikiLeaks, which had been blacklisted for years by Visa, MasterCard and PayPal after publishing leaked U.S. government documents provided by Chelsea Manning. WikiLeaks took to Twitter to suggest that something more nefarious was behind the board’s decision to cut ties. Once the news became public, WikiLeaks and its associated accounts linked the FPF’s decision to the fact that many of its members now work for organizations financed by eBay billionaire and PayPal co-founder Pierre Omidyar. In addition, the FPF itself has received large sums of money from Omidyar and his various businesses and foundations. Pierre Omidyar, prior to the founding of The Intercept, was known not for any commitment to journalism or free speech but rather for his connections to the U.S. government and his role in the financial blockade of WikiLeaks that began in 2010. Sibel Edmonds, FBI whistleblower and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, told MintPress News that the FPF has a reputation for being a “very, very partisan organization and populated with ideologues.” She further asserted that the “number one reason” for the FPF’s decision was directly related to Wikileaks’ releases in 2016, namely the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails.

Part 2 - Voting WikiLeaks off the investigative island

Though Timm’s explanation seemed benign enough, WikiLeaks took to Twitter to suggest that something more nefarious was behind the board’s decision to cut ties. Once the news became public, WikiLeaks and its associated accounts linked the FPF’s decision to the fact that many of its members now work for organizations financed by eBay billionaire and PayPal owner Pierre Omidyar. In addition, the FPF itself has received large sums of money from Omidyar and his various businesses and foundations.

WikiLeaks, in recent tweets, has suggested that Omidyar’s influence was responsible not only for the FPF’s decision but also for the unusual attacks that some FPF members have launched against WikiLeaks, particularly Assange, in recent months. The most outspoken of these members has been FPF director Micah Lee, who is employed by the Omidyar-owned publication, The Intercept.

In February of last year, Lee called Assange a “rapist, liar & ally to fascists” in a tweet — despite the fact that Assange was never charged with rape, his alleged accusers have also claimed that Assange had not sexually assaulted them, and there is abundant evidence suggesting that the rape investigation was a means of ensnaring Assange to ensure his extradition to the United States. Based on Lee’s other tweets, the “ally to fascists” charge ostensibly refers to Lee’s belief that Wikileaks’ publications of emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta was done explicitly, with Assange’s blessing, to aid the Trump campaign.

Lee has also claimed that Assange is a “Putin fanboy” who doesn’t care “about government transparency if the government in question is Russia,” even though WikiLeaks has published information damaging to the Russian government while Putin was president. Lee also intimated that Assange may have a direct relationship to the Kremlin, an outlandish claim for which there is no basis.

Lee, in other tweets, has also perpetuated the “Russiagate” conspiracy in attempts to link Assange to Trump to Putin.

This same conspiracy theory, which has produced no concrete evidence to support its claims after more than a year, was initiated by top government officials such as the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA director Michael Morell, among others.

Other members of FPF as well as some other Intercept writers have echoed these claims as well, attacking Assange for allegedly siding with Trump over Clinton in the 2016 election even though Assange never declared support for Trump. Ironically, many of these same journalists have themselves proven to be very partisan in their writings and on social media, undermining the claim of Lee and others that the FPF is “non-partisan.”

Sibel Edmonds, FBI whistleblower and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, told MintPress News that the FPF has a reputation for being a “very, very partisan organization and populated with ideologues.” She further asserted that the “number one reason” for the FPF’s decision was directly related to Wikileaks’ releases in 2016, namely the DNC leaks and the Podesta emails.

Edmonds added: “Assange violated their criteria and this is basically their pay-back. All of the individuals [on the FPF] are known to be ideologues, are into this game of divide and conquer. Their role is to represent the left and Julian Assange challenged this. Before the election, many of the members of this organization supported Assange. It’s important to ask why this changed over night.

Despite the slander and demonstrably false claims, other FPF members who have historically defended WikiLeaks and Assange were silent regarding Lee’s accusations, including Glenn Greenwald, Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden. Though FPF members have denied that Omidyar’s influence has had a role in these attacks, as well as in the board’s decision to cut ties with WikiLeaks, a closer examination of Omidyar and his ties to the U.S. political establishment — as well as his apparent influence on some of the FPF’s most prominent members — gives credibility to WikiLeaks’ concerns.

Source, links:


[1]

Read also:

Tired of US “aid” (exploitation), Africa and Global South look to China

How much can Raytheon, Mastercard, Nokia, Monsanto and the like be trusted to invest in long-term outcomes in the global South? When you see the actors behind U.S. ‘aid and development’ in Africa, is it any wonder that African leaders would look for any other partner to work with?

by Jim Carey

Part 2 - U.S. investment and aid: philanthropy is business

In order to better understand how U.S. aid and investment in infrastructure work in Africa, it’s best to look at the Western corporations that function as “philanthropy contractors.” One of these U.S.-based philanthropic giants that dominate aid and development in Africa is the well-known Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

One prime example of how U.S. aid organizations operate in Africa is a Gates Foundation initiative that was launched in Nairobi, Kenya, where the foundation created a series of “financial inclusion labs” in a partnership with Mastercard. The Mastercard project, launched in 2014, was a part of the Gates Foundation’s “Financial Services for the Poor” program, meant to provide more access to “digital payment options” for people in the global South.

Publicly, what this project did was provide electronic payment services to citizens of Nairobi because payment-processing giant Mastercard just felt bad they didn’t have them.

In reality, what the project did was secure the market of Nairobi and the users of the Mastercard system as customers for the corporation, without Mastercard actually having to risk any of its own money. Mastercard even confirmed that this was their reasoning in a press release issued at the time, which said the grant from the Gates Foundation gave Mastercard access to “new markets that may otherwise be commercially unviable” by paying all of their costs to enter the market.

The Gates Foundation uses its influence to aid other corporate partners to secure contracts in Africa too. One such company that Bill Gates is a personal cheerleader for is agriculture giant Monsanto, which the Gates Foundation portrays as a key partner in ending world hunger. Monsanto has a reputation for using the vulnerability of countries in need of agricultural aid to its own advantage to crush local production networks, as it attempted to do in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, which eventually led to protests by farmers, with some even burning Monsanto seeds.

These kinds of protests surrounding Monsanto’s effects on local economies have also played out in Africa — one example being Kenya, where GMO imports were banned in order to protect Kenyan agriculture. When the government tried to reintroduce GMO food, all sectors of Kenyan society took to the streets to voice their opposition. Since implementing this ban, Kenya has faced pressure from none other than the Gates Foundation, which is spending its time, money and political capital on behalf of Monsanto to reverse the ban on GMO imports.

The Gates Foundation even practices this form of philanthropic blackmail at home in the U.S. The prime example of this was the Foundation’s championing of “Common Core” programs in schools. Common Core, which continues to be highly unpopular among U.S. parents, is an initiative pushed by the Gates Foundation, with pressure applied through the policy that the charity would not provide money to schools that didn’t implement their approved curriculum.

Clearly, these practices aren’t limited strictly to the Gates Foundation, Mastercard, Monsanto, or any other single U.S. corporation. Another example that was highlighted last year during the U.S. presidential election was the Clinton Foundation, its donors, and its contract recipients in reconstruction and aid projects.

It is in this framework that one can see that the U.S. philanthropy industry doesn’t necessarily act as an altruistic charity but rather as a source of corporate subsidies disguised as altruism.

These foundations partner with everyone, from defense contractors to foreign despots — convenient and seemingly indiscriminate couplings that should make anyone question their motives and how well the corporations responsible for many of the world’s problems can really be trusted to solve them.

How much can Raytheon, Mastercard, Nokia, Monsanto and the like be trusted to invest in long-term outcomes in the global South? When you see the actors behind U.S. ‘aid and development’ in Africa, is it any wonder that African leaders would look for any other partner to work with?

It just so happens that Africa has found a much more reliable partner that is rising to the rank of a global superpower.

Source, links:


[1]

20 January, 2018

Obama officials admit support of Saudi-led war was a mistake, Trump extends support to the Saudis

Non-stop hypocrisy by the Western media and Washington's hawks


Situation in Yemen is out of control. The continuous blockade of humanitarian aid by the brutal Saudi regime leads to one of the worst humanitarian crises for decades.

Bettina Luescher of the World Food Programme (WFP), reported that it's obviously clear that Yemen is in the grips of the world's biggest hunger crisis. It is really the biggest crisis that we have in the moment anywhere in the world. People who are severely food insecure, approximately 8.4 million. Acutely malnourished children, six months to five years, around 1.8 million. Acutely malnourished pregnant or nursing women, around 1.1 million. This is a nightmare that is happening right now.

The enormous hypocrisy of the Western mainstream media is outrageous. They continuously demonize the Venezuelan government, avoiding to record the right-wing opposition atrocities and the fact that Venezuela has been suffered from a fierce economic war launched by the US. They speak about a humanitarian crisis there, despite that, according to a recent UN inspection, there is no 'humanitarian crisis' in the country.

Yet, they avoid, as much as they can, to refer to the humanitarian disaster in Yemen, caused by the brutal Saudi regime and its allies - that is the US and other authoritarian states of the region. We have to assume that this happens also because the US and the UK are the biggest arms sellers to Saudi Arabia.

So, naturally, the enormous hypocrisy of the US officials is equally outrageous.

As Aaron Maté of the Real News points out, recently, Obama administration officials expressed some regret for what they helped start back in March 2015. Samantha Power, the former US Ambassador to the UN is among those to come out and say "We made a mistake in supporting the Saudi-led war."

Shireen Al-Adeimi, born in Yemen and lived in the United States for 10 years, states:

It's a very hypocritical stance, because these numbers were just as dire when Obama was under control. Maybe we didn't hear about them as much, but people were dying. People were dying of cholera, of violence, and the Saudis were committing air strike after air strike after air strike. Human rights organizations were calling for a halt to US support right from the beginning. It's a bit hypocritical for Obama administrators to now finally say, "Oh, okay, now that this is a Trump war on Yemen, now we're against it."

But nonetheless, we need lawmakers in the Senate and in the House, lawmakers such as Chris Murphy, who have been calling adamantly for US to stop its support of Saudi Arabia military. That's the best hope that we, as Yemenis, have.

The US Army recently just posted on their Twitter page the extent of their support to the Saudi military and it's really astonishing. This includes training, not only refueling airplanes midair, but also repairing those aircrafts and vehicles when they've been damaged in the war, updating them, providing the soldiers with basic training all the way to very sophisticated training.

The US is very heavily involved in the war on Yemen by helping the Saudis. Without them, the Saudis aren't going to be able to continue to wage this war much longer.

Of course, we know, then, there are also weapon shipments that are ongoing and have increased under Trump's administration. The Saudis are very much reliant on US support and that's what needs to stop if we want to see an end to this war.



Real progressives like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard, should join forces immediately with voices like Murphy to end, as soon as possible, any US aid to the Saudi regime and open the road to the UN to provide direct humanitarian aid to the people of Yemen.