RUSSOPHOBIC MADNESS AFFECTS THE USA

RUSSOPHOBIC MADNESS AFFECTS THE USA
By Manuel E. Yepe

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.

Jack F. Matlock Jr., U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, called on his country’s citizens to end the Russian-phobic madness that dominates Congress and many of the media in North America in a recent article in several U.S. media outlets.

He cites as a blatant example of this, the New York Times’ leading editorial of February 17 entitled “Stop letting the Russians get away with it, Mr. Trump”, in which the newspaper’s editors repudiate Russia for interfering in the US elections and call for greater sanctions against it in order to protect American democracy’.

“It had never occurred to me that our political system, no doubt dysfunctional, was so weak, underdeveloped and sick that with inept actions on the Internet it could be damaged,” says Matlock. But the New York Times isn’t the only one accused. Most other U.S. print and electronic media have followed suit. “Increasingly, both in Congress and in the media, Russian interference in the 2016 elections has been accepted as a fact.

Among the Russian actions that have upset the American establishment and are now presented as events that have contributed from Russia to Trump’s rise is the creation by the Russian government of a
sophisticated television service (Russia Today or RT) that provides entertainment, information and propaganda to foreign audiences, including that of the United States. The magnitude of its viewers may be several times smaller than that of the big U.S. media, but it has undoubtedly weakened the monopoly on news that the Western media have had and has had a huge reception everywhere, not excluding the United States.

Russian leaders, like most other countries in the world, thought Clinton would be elected, but some senior Russian officials expressed a preference for Trump’s candidacy after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared Hitler to President Putin and urged more active U.S. military intervention abroad, contrasting with Donald Trump, who then spoke out in favor of cooperation with Russia rather than treating it as an enemy, Matlock says.

No one seems to have made even a superficial study of the effect of Russian actions on the vote. There is no evidence that Russian activities have had a tangible impact on the election result, says Matlock.

But the most important fact, obscured by anti-Russian hysteria, is that it was the Americans who elected Trump under the terms set out in the Constitution; the Americans created the Electoral College, which allows a candidate with fewer popular votes to become president, and it is they who manipulate constituencies in favor of a particular political party when it suits the system.

The Supreme Court issued the infamous decision allowing for corporate funding of candidates for political office. The Americans created a Senate that is anything but democratic because it gives
disproportionate representation to states with relatively small populations. It was US senators who established undemocratic procedures that allow minorities to block legislation or confirm appointments.

For Matlock, just because the Americans themselves chose their electoral system does not mean that Trump’s choice is good for the country. In his opinion, the 2016 presidential and legislative elections represented an imminent danger to the nation. They have created potential disasters that will severely test the checks and balances built into the Constitution. This is especially true today when both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republican Party, which in turn represents fewer voters than the opposition party.

Matlock claims he did not vote for Trump, but he believes that the allegation that Russian actions interfered with the elections, or damaged the quality of democracy in the country, is ridiculous, pathetic and shameful. “And I should add dangerous because making an enemy of Russia, the other nuclear superpower, is closer to political madness than anything else I can think of.

The former U.S. ambassador concludes his article by calling on his countrymen to desist from the current Russo-phobic madness and to encourage Presidents Trump and Putin to re-establish cooperation on nuclear security, non-proliferation, nuclear material control and nuclear arms reduction, issues that are of vital interest to both the United States and Russia.

June 25, 2018.

Advertisements

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND CHILD ABUSE IN THE US

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND CHILD ABUSE IN THE US
By Manuel E. Yepe
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
https://englishmanuelyepe.wordpress.com/

The Trump administration is holding 1,500 teens and pre-teens between the ages of 10 and 17 in captivity. Some were captured and separated from their parents along the Mexican border.
This was reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, stating that they were being held in an old abandoned Walmart that was renovated with classrooms, recreation centers and medical examination rooms to house children in federal custody. Children are allowed two hours of free time each day, including one hour of physical exercise and one hour of free time. There are two separate learning shifts due to the high number of children in the institution.
In the old 250,000 square foot supermarket (just over 23,000 square meters) 313 bedrooms were adapted, with no interior ceilings or doors, where children are forced to lie on their beds all the time. Although according to reports from the newspaper, they are being well fed, many of the young people consulted by the media testified that “the food was terrible and everyone was complaining about it”.
It is assumed that most of the teenage children entered the United States alone, but it can be ensured that the younger children were forcibly separated from their parents at the border under the new Trump zero tolerance policy for immigration. It requires a referral to the criminal justice of anyone caught illegally crossing the border for, a decision that has resulted in the separation of a large number of children from their families.
“If you cross the border illegally, even if you do it for the first time, we’re going to prosecute you,” Jeff Sessions told the
Association of State Criminal Investigation Agencies in May. “If you are dealing with a child, we will prosecute you, and that child will probably be separated from you, as required by law. If you don’t want your child to be separated, then don’t take him or her illegally to the other side of the border.
“We’re trying to do the best we can to take care of these children. Our ultimate goal is to reunite the children with their families,” he said. “We are not a detention center. … What we operate are childcare shelters. There’s an extremely big difference.
According to federal officials, in the two weeks following U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement of the separation policy, 638 adults accompanied by 658 children were prosecuted.
It has not been explained whether other centers like these are operating in other parts of the country to imprison children in detention camps> It is known that Jeff Sessions ordered all federal prosecutors to bring criminal charges against all women detained for crossing the border illegally.
According to the Associated Press, which analyzed the Department of Homeland Security’s records, 1,995 children were separated between April 19 and May 31 of the year in question because of the new strong immigration policies.
Politically cornered by the widespread outrage that caused the forced removal of thousands of parents and children, Trump signed an executive order on June 21 to put an end to this course of action, which he had previously described as inevitable.
But as those comparisons continued, other signals to the Trump government from international organizations also emerged.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed deep concern about the “cruel practice” of separating children from their parents by force.
“The idea that any state should try to deter parents from migrating by inflicting such abuse on children is inconceivable,” the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein, said at a session of the Council he heads.
Amnesty International’s director for the Americas, Erika
Guevara-Rosas, said that “these acts meet the definitions of torture under U.S. and international law” because of the mental harm they cause to families for coercive purposes.
Trump responded to the allegations with a peculiar defense of his government’s policy, suggesting that adult migrants arrested at the border could be murderers and thieves. He also accused the Democratic opposition of being obstructionist and being primarily responsible for the separation of families in the United States.
June 28, 2018.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND CHILD ABUSE IN THE US

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND CHILD ABUSE IN THE US
By Manuel E. Yepe
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
https://englishmanuelyepe.wordpress.com/

The Trump administration is holding 1,500 teens and pre-teens between the ages of 10 and 17 in captivity. Some were captured and separated from their parents along the Mexican border.
This was reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, stating that they were being held in an old abandoned Walmart that was renovated with classrooms, recreation centers and medical examination rooms to house children in federal custody. Children are allowed two hours of free time each day, including one hour of physical exercise and one hour of free time. There are two separate learning shifts due to the high number of children in the institution.
In the old 250,000 square foot supermarket (just over 23,000 square meters) 313 bedrooms were adapted, with no interior ceilings or doors, where children are forced to lie on their beds all the time. Although according to reports from the newspaper, they are being well fed, many of the young people consulted by the media testified that “the food was terrible and everyone was complaining about it”.
It is assumed that most of the teenage children entered the United States alone, but it can be ensured that the younger children were forcibly separated from their parents at the border under the new Trump zero tolerance policy for immigration. It requires a referral to the criminal justice of anyone caught illegally crossing the border for, a decision that has resulted in the separation of a large number of children from their families.
“If you cross the border illegally, even if you do it for the first time, we’re going to prosecute you,” Jeff Sessions told the
Association of State Criminal Investigation Agencies in May. “If you are dealing with a child, we will prosecute you, and that child will probably be separated from you, as required by law. If you don’t want your child to be separated, then don’t take him or her illegally to the other side of the border.
“We’re trying to do the best we can to take care of these children. Our ultimate goal is to reunite the children with their families,” he said. “We are not a detention center. … What we operate are childcare shelters. There’s an extremely big difference.
According to federal officials, in the two weeks following U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement of the separation policy, 638 adults accompanied by 658 children were prosecuted.
It has not been explained whether other centers like these are operating in other parts of the country to imprison children in detention camps> It is known that Jeff Sessions ordered all federal prosecutors to bring criminal charges against all women detained for crossing the border illegally.
According to the Associated Press, which analyzed the Department of Homeland Security’s records, 1,995 children were separated between April 19 and May 31 of the year in question because of the new strong immigration policies.
Politically cornered by the widespread outrage that caused the forced removal of thousands of parents and children, Trump signed an executive order on June 21 to put an end to this course of action, which he had previously described as inevitable.
But as those comparisons continued, other signals to the Trump government from international organizations also emerged.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed deep concern about the “cruel practice” of separating children from their parents by force.
“The idea that any state should try to deter parents from migrating by inflicting such abuse on children is inconceivable,” the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, ZeidRa’ad Al Hussein, said at a session of the Council he heads.
Amnesty International’s director for the Americas, Erika
Guevara-Rosas, said that “these acts meet the definitions of torture under U.S. and international law” because of the mental harm they cause to families for coercive purposes.
Trump responded to the allegations with a peculiar defense of his government’s policy, suggesting that adult migrants arrested at the border could be murderers and thieves. He also accused the Democratic opposition of being obstructionist and being primarily responsible for the separation of families in the United States.
June 28, 2018.

RUSSOPHOBIC MADNESS AFFECTS THE USA

RUSSOPHOBIC MADNESS AFFECTS THE USA
By Manuel E. Yepe

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.

Jack F. Matlock Jr., U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, called on his country’s citizens to end the Russian-phobic madness that dominates Congress and many of the media in North America in a recent article in several U.S. media outlets.

He cites as a blatant example of this, the New York Times’ leading editorial of February 17 entitled “Stop letting the Russians get away with it, Mr. Trump”, in which the newspaper’s editors repudiate Russia for interfering in the US elections and call for greater sanctions against it in order to protect American democracy’.

“It had never occurred to me that our political system, no doubt dysfunctional, was so weak, underdeveloped and sick that with inept actions on the Internet it could be damaged,” says Matlock. But the New York Times isn’t the only one accused. Most other U.S. print and electronic media have followed suit. “Increasingly, both in Congress and in the media, Russian interference in the 2016 elections has been accepted as a fact.

Among the Russian actions that have upset the American establishment and are now presented as events that have contributed from Russia to Trump’s rise is the creation by the Russian government of a
sophisticated television service (Russia Today or RT) that provides entertainment, information and propaganda to foreign audiences, including that of the United States. The magnitude of its viewers may be several times smaller than that of the big U.S. media, but it has undoubtedly weakened the monopoly on news that the Western media have had and has had a huge reception everywhere, not excluding the United States.

Russian leaders, like most other countries in the world, thought Clinton would be elected, but some senior Russian officials expressed a preference for Trump’s candidacy after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton compared Hitler to President Putin and urged more active U.S. military intervention abroad, contrasting with Donald Trump, who then spoke out in favor of cooperation with Russia rather than treating it as an enemy, Matlock says.

No one seems to have made even a superficial study of the effect of Russian actions on the vote. There is no evidence that Russian activities have had a tangible impact on the election result, says Matlock.

But the most important fact, obscured by anti-Russian hysteria, is that it was the Americans who elected Trump under the terms set out in the Constitution; the Americans created the Electoral College, which allows a candidate with fewer popular votes to become president, and it is they who manipulate constituencies in favor of a particular political party when it suits the system.

The Supreme Court issued the infamous decision allowing for corporate funding of candidates for political office. The Americans created a Senate that is anything but democratic because it gives
disproportionate representation to states with relatively small populations. It was US senators who established undemocratic procedures that allow minorities to block legislation or confirm appointments.

For Matlock, just because the Americans themselves chose their electoral system does not mean that Trump’s choice is good for the country. In his opinion, the 2016 presidential and legislative elections represented an imminent danger to the nation. They have created potential disasters that will severely test the checks and balances built into the Constitution. This is especially true today when both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republican Party, which in turn represents fewer voters than the opposition party.

Matlock claims he did not vote for Trump, but he believes that the allegation that Russian actions interfered with the elections, or damaged the quality of democracy in the country, is ridiculous, pathetic and shameful. “And I should add dangerous because making an enemy of Russia, the other nuclear superpower, is closer to political madness than anything else I can think of.

The former U.S. ambassador concludes his article by calling on his countrymen to desist from the current Russo-phobic madness and to encourage Presidents Trump and Putin to re-establish cooperation on nuclear security, non-proliferation, nuclear material control and nuclear arms reduction, issues that are of vital interest to both the United States and Russia.

June 25, 2018.

CHE GUEVARA IN EUROPE A HALF CENTURY LATER

CHE GUEVARA IN EUROPE A HALF CENTURY LATER
By Manuel E. Yepe
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.

Who could separate Che’s image and ideas from the 1968 student explosion, known as the “French May”, which led to a strike of 9 million workers in France, the largest in the history of the workers’ movement, and spread to many other countries in the industrialized world?

The most repeated among the slogans and writings on the walls identified with the student movement that sought to revolutionize French society at the time was Che’s recommendation, synthesized in the phrase “Let’s be realistic: let’s do the impossible”.

The photographic image of Che, with his hair scrambled under his black beret adorned with a star, became famous in the demonstrations against imperialism and the authoritarian and repressive capitalist order, which crowded the streets of Paris, Berlin, Rome and other European cities 50 years ago.

The student protests that took place in many of the great cities of the planet against the U.S. war against Vietnam – which in March 1968 added to its crimes the atrocious My Lai massacre – echoed another of Che’s slogans, that of “creating two, three… many Vietnams”, proclaimed two years earlier from the place where he was already fighting outside Cuba.

For a good part of the intelligentsia and students of the European left, Cuba was an unorthodox, creative and original alternative to the bureaucratic “real socialism” of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact neighbors.

“For an intellectual, it is totally impossible not to be pro-Cuban,” said French intellectual Jean-Paul Sartre in an interview. “Fidel started from opposition to Batista and, through the very
radicalization of his action, soon discovered that behind Batista was the strength of the army and behind him, the North American power. The logic of radicalization is relentless….” Sartre proclaimed: “Castroism has nothing to give us, except the example of its radicalization.

In January 1968, in front of hundreds of European intellectuals attending the Havana Cultural Congress, Fidel Castro harshly criticized the stagnation of revolutionary ideas in the socialist camp.

“Because there can be nothing more anti-Marxist than dogma, there can be nothing more anti-Marxist than the petrification of ideas. And there are ideas that are even wielded in the name of Marxism that look like real fossils. Marxism needs to develop, to come out of its stalemate, to interpret today’s realities with an objective and scientific sense, to behave as a revolutionary force and not as a pseudo-revolutionary church.

Upon their return to Europe, the intellectuals sent out vibrant testimony of their experiences in Cuba. They had a strong impact on the European leftist youth and extolled the revolutionary advances in Cuba, its cultural pluralism and the emphasis on moral stimuli to the detriment of material incentives, to create the “new man” Che Guevara dreamed.

Anyone can assume that the critical pronouncements so often made by Che Guevara about the need to overcome the immobility of
Marxism-Leninism in the USSR and other countries of “real socialism” were not well-received in those nations. It could not have been pleasant in the official circles of the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe for Che to say in Algeria, at the Second Afro-Asian Seminar, that

“The socialist countries have a moral duty to liquidate their tacit complicity with the exploiting countries of the West and to set aside the supposed principle of reciprocal benefits in trade, because they force the underdeveloped countries to sell with the prices that the law of the value and the international relations of unequal exchange impose on the backward countries.”

In his closing speech to the Havana Cultural Congress in January 1968, before some of the intellectuals who would lead the events of May four months later, Fidel Castro said, in homage to his faithful companion in the struggle:

“Who were the ones who raised their name in Europe, who raised and exalted their example, who were the ones who mobilized, painted signs and organized events all over Europe? It was honest and sensitive men and women who had the attitude to assimilate, to understand, to admire, to do justice; to those who wonder why Che Guevara died, to those who are incapable of understanding, and who will never understand, why he died, nor will they ever be able to die as he died, nor be revolutionaries like him.”

June 18, 2018.

THE US WILL HAVE TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS

THE US WILL HAVE TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS
By Manuel E. Yepe
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution in late July 2008 apologizing to African Americans for the years of slavery they have suffered. This was the recognition by the U.S. of the injustice and inhumanity of the slave system and “Jim Crow”, as the period of intense racial discrimination between 1865, when slavery was officially abolished and the 1960s, was known.
At that time, the US political establishment was forced to take action against nefarious racial discrimination though, in some states more and in others less; it kept black citizens legally segregated from white people and limited their civil liberties, even denying them the right to vote. This legal segregation was more inhumane and violent in the southern states than in the northern United States.
The name “Jim Crow” applied to that shameful period in American history belonged to a comedian and singer named Rice, who composed and performed the song “Jump, Jim Crow” in 1828, about a black servant who danced while brushing his master’s horse. It is not clear why the term “Jim Crow” began to be used to refer to any entity that practiced racial segregation: “Jim Crow laws”, “Jim Crow schools”, “Jim Crow buses”, etc.
There were workplaces, universities, taxis, trains, buses, boats, canteens, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, health services, water fountains, prisons, nursing homes, barbershops, public parks, sports fields, circuses, fairs, theatres, cinemas, concert or party halls, libraries, beaches, swimming pools, waiting rooms, telephone booths, workshops, lifts, brothels, lines, entrances to and exits from buildings. Everything could be ascribed to this form of US form of apartheid.
Segregation applied to marriage, professions, neighborhoods, churches and cemeteries. In some cities Jim Crow martial law was imposed and blacks could not go out on the street after a certain time of night. In the Jim Crow courts, whites swore with one hand on a Bible and blacks swore on a different copy of it.
Black people were excluded from most trade unions. They were not admitted to Jim Crow sororities, clubs and societies. Board games and sports involving physical contact between blacks and whites, including combat games such as boxing, were prohibited unless the opponent was a foreigner.
Add to this ignominious situation the violence with which the Ku Klux Klan, the members of the John Birch Society, the White Citizens’ Council and other elements of the American extreme-right were acting. It was a real white terrorist system!
In the face of such outrage, the struggle of Black Americans for their civil rights became increasingly intense. It generated such great personalities as Malcolm X and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., as well as hundreds of martyrs, remembered or anonymous, from Black Power organizations and others who, in the 1960s, gave birth to a situation that seemed to be a precursor to a revolution.
Although the fear of reprisals by the empire and its control of the media limited the international denunciation of these abuses and global solidarity, the triumph of the revolution in Cuba, the rise of anti-imperialism and the ideas of social justice in Latin America encouraged the just domestic struggle of Black people.
This coincided with the need for the recruitment of black soldiers for the asymmetrical imperialist war against Vietnam and all this forced the establishment to bury the Jim Crow.
For the sake of national security, the empire made major reformist “concessions” in race relations in a country where the law was white, white policemen, white judges, white mayors. And on film and TV screens, actors and actresses were white, and blacks were always represented in submissive and complacent attitudes.
Prior to this request for an apology from the House of
Representatives, the other branch of Congress, the Senate, passed another resolution in April 2008 apologizing for “the many cases of violence, abuse and neglect” suffered by Native Americans. The Senate also apologized in 1993 for the “illegal overthrow” of the Kingdom of Hawaii a hundred years earlier.
Yet humanity is still waiting for the U.S. to apologize and compensate so many nations on every continent whose democratic existence the U.S. has assaulted since it became an imperialist power in the early 20th century. And to do so with the promise to never again to intervene in the internal affairs of other nations, as well as to respect the human rights of their own citizens of other ethnicities and ways of thinking.
May 17, 2018.

THE DARK HISTORY OF THE KOCH BROTHERS

THE DARK HISTORY OF THE KOCH BROTHERS
By Manuel E. Yepe
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.

In 2010, when Mike Pompeo arrived in Congress in 2010, he was called “the Koch Congressman” because of the amount of the Koch Brothers’ industrial conglomerate’s contribution to his election campaign. Now, when he was approved by Congress as Secretary of State, several media outlets considered that the Koch Brothers finally got their own Secretary of State.
When talking to anyone from the US active in any party about some measure or projection of domestic or foreign policy in his or her country, it is inevitable to mention the influence that “the Koch brothers” have, or might have on it in one way or another.
Following his confirmation as the new Secretary of State, most of the US media have identified Mike Pompeo as “the Koch’s own Secretary of State” or “the Koch brothers’ man in the State Department”.
But outside the U.S. borders, brothers David and Charles Koch are not so well known.
Although they are not among the nation’s leading authorities, there are fundamental reasons for this. Together, they make up the third largest fortune in the country (only Bill Gates and Warren Buffet outnumber them). The two brothers have an annual turnover of more than $100 billion. Their industrial conglomerate is the second largest in the country, behind only the Cargill group. In 2010, it was named the 10th most polluting industrial conglomerate in the United States by the Massachusetts´ Political Economic Research Institute.
Their influence on politics can be calculated by the fact that they have injected around $200 million into the most ultraconservative causes in the last decade and this hardly transcends the media. The Big Brothers, as they are popularly known, deny their direct link to the Tea Party. They seek to remain invisible from their
headquarters in Wichita, Kansas, deep in the heart of the United States. From there, the Kochs have extended the oil empire inherited from their father, Fred, by devising ways of influencing American politics without being noticed too much, through a network of small groups and foundations they have created.
Although not proclaimed a success of its own, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, created by David Koch in 2004 was the real organizer of the Tea Party revolt. One of its phantasmagorical projects, United Patients Now, organized more than 300 “popular” protests against the Obamacare health reform and another 80 to boycott its climate protection laws.
The real forerunner of the Koch Brothers phenomenon was his father, Fred Koch, who half a century ago warned of the risks of “a communist president.” He was also a critic of the New Deal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and denounced “the infiltration of communists” into the Democratic and Republican parties. His children inherited, in addition to their fortune, his libertarian creed.
Charles, 74, was always very discreet regarding politics. David, 70, made an unfortunate foray into politics in 1980, competing with Ronald Reagan, whom he saw as a danger. David ran as a vice presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party having Ed Clark as the nominated presidential candidate. Among his “libertarian” electoral promises were the suppression of the FBI and the CIA, the elimination of Social Security and Minimum Wages, full deregulation and a drastic reduction in taxes. The government would be reduced to “protecting individual rights”. They got 1% of the vote.
Four years later, as Reagan took over part of his ideology; David Koch officially became a Republican and dragged his brother down the same path.
The youngest of the Kochs suffered a second enlightenment in the 1990s, when he miraculously survived a plane crash. He reinvented himself as a philanthropist for the American Ballet Theater and created the group Citizens for a Sound Economy to continue to defend his multi-million dollar privileges from the shadows.
He then created Americans for Prosperity (AFP), defined as an organization of “grassroots leaders for limited government and the free market.” He could not openly support candidates, but he invested $45 million to support conservative causes in the November 2, 2016 elections.
According to New Yorker journalist Jane Mayer, on the first
anniversary of Obama’s presidency, billionaire David Koch stealthily took the lead in the “people’s revolution” by announcing that “When we created Americans for Prosperity (AFP), we had in mind a mass movement, state-by-state, with hundreds of thousands of Americans fighting for the economic freedoms that made this nation the most prosperous in history….

May 15, 2018.

Putin Unmasks Anti-Russia Manipulation

Putin Unmasks Anti-Russia Manipulation
By Manuel E. Yepe

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.

What would Russia have gained from the murder of former Russian spy Sergei Skripel and his daughter Yulia? This is the question asked by Argentine-Canadian international information analyst Alberto Rabilotta. He praises the equanimity and impeccable realism that Russian President Vladimir Putin has demonstrated to show the falsity of the accusations without aggravating tensions that are the goal of the United States and its allies in this and similar conflicts.

The poisoning of the former Russian spy and his daughter in Britain on 4 March occurred when the fable of “Russiagate”, with which Putin allegedly manipulated the US elections in the name of Trump’s victory, was beginning to fall apart.

Anyone who knows about the behavior of the rulers and intelligence services of London and Washington, throughout history, and especially in recent times, knows that there is very good reason to believe that what happened to Skripal and his daughter happened when British Channel 4 journalists were about to reveal that the manipulation of the election in the United States and the Brexit referendum in Great Britain had been the work of the British company Cambridge Analytica (CA), which has offices in London, New York and Washington and which used data from Facebook.

Cambridge Analytica is an “offshoot” of the Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), a company that has manipulated elections in numerous countries – including some in Latin America. This necessarily implies that it had strong links in the political world related to Washington and their structures of government and intelligence. Further proof of this is the fact that one of its main shareholders is the American billionaire Robert Mercer who has financed, among other reactionary campaigns, including that of a number of Republicans, including Donald Trump.

On March 19, TV Channel 4 in Great Britain broadcast a report on CA made with recordings -some of them secretly made- between the end of 2017 and January 2018, in which executives and collaborators of CA exposed the type of manipulation that this firm used in the Brexit referendum in Great Britain and in the United States elections that gave the victory to Donald Trump. On the basis of these, major propaganda campaigns were carried out to show that these events had been manipulated by Moscow.

Interestingly, before Channel 4 broadcast its report, CA founder and director Alexander Nix resigned. This shows he knew what was about to be revealed and what their consequences for the firm and its owners would be. Rabilotta notes that on December 15, 2017, the Wall Street Journal had written that Robert Mueller, special advisor to the Justice Department, had asked CA to submit documents from its investigation “on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.” From this it’s evident that even then the U.S. intelligence services were aware of CA’s role in that electoral process.

Moreover, The Times of Israel revealed that CA worked with Israeli companies and that, in addition to using Facebook data, it carried out classic blackmail operations with honey traps, which are Ukrainian prostitutes who specialize in recording situations that encourage blackmail, using former British and Israeli spies.

With the information available and beginning to emerge, it is clear that this entire operation, as well as those who participated in it and those who benefited from it, were known to the US intelligence services and their allies well before 19 March, the date when British Channel 4 broadcast its report. Thus, long before March 19 and the fateful March 4 – the poisoning of Skripel and his daughter – the key figures in London and Washington knew that Russiagate at the Capitol in Washington was destined to collapse permanently and disastrously. Not only that, but that the political and diplomatic cost of that campaign against Russia, forged from the beginning by millionaires, politicians and companies from the United States and Great Britain, would have to be borne, Rabilotta reiterates.

With the information available and beginning to come to light, it is clear that this whole operation, as well as those who participated in it and benefited from it, were known to the US intelligence services and their allies, long before March 19, when British Channel 4 broadcast its report.

Mr Rabilotta recalls that, on March 1, President Putin announced Russia’s progress on strategic arms and Syria launched an offensive to liberate strategic areas near Damascus controlled by financed and armed terrorist forces financed and armed by imperialism and its allies, who were preparing an operation using chemical weapons that would be blamed on the Syrian government to justify military intervention by the US and its allies.

May 7, 2018.

FAKE NEWS AS WASHINGTON’S WEAPONS

FAKE NEWS AS WASHINGTON’S WEAPONS
By Manuel E. Yepe
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.

Let no one think that using falsehoods as a pivot for the projection and execution of U.S. foreign policy is an innovation or a novel contribution by Donald Trump. This has been a tradition in
Washington’s foreign policy since the explosion of the Spanish battleship Maine in 1898 in Havana, which led to the U.S. declaring war on the Spanishmonarchy and whose aftermath was the rise of U.S. imperialism.
In 1997, the release of the feature film WAG THE DOG, a free adaptation of Larry Beinhart’s novel “American Hero”, starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro and directed by Barry Levinson, was very successful in the United States.
The film is about a spin doctor and a film producer who are inventing a war to distract voters’ attention from a sex scandal that would hamper the re-election of the President of the United States. The film was released a month before the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the subsequent bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory by the Clinton administration and generated numerous comparisons of reality with the film.
On tape, the President is caught falling in love with a young minor in the Oval Office two months before the election. The spin doctor decides to draw the public’s attention with a fictitious war against Albania in order to draw its media attention to this conflict by diverting it from the White House.
The deception initially takes effect by moving the election statistics in favor of the President. But then this clashes with the interests of the CIA, which favors the opposition candidate. All this then is complicated by a succession of dirt and perversions typical of American politics.
Fake news has become a “fourth generation” weapon. Inserted into the new information technology scenarios, it surpasses them widely in scope and validity, given that the scenario in which it is poured exponentially surpasses the level of dissemination of content through the computer media of social networks, where the false becomes true. An example of recent false news used as weapons of war has been the case of acoustic attacks against U.S. embassy officials in Cuba. This fake news was denied in many ways, including by an investigation conducted at the University of Michigan by researcher Kevin Fu. He determined that the alleged attacks “were caused by interference between two ultrasound sources very close to those affected: one, a listening and spying device; the other, an ultrasonic blocker of the device. In other words, it was the very espionage activities that the Americans carried out inside their embassy that caused the acoustic attacks that affected their own diplomatic officials.
A large number of previous verifications had confirmed the fallacy, but the aim of this fake news was not to rectify something, but to provoke tension and break ties between Washington and Havana in line with the political objectives of the Trump regime.
Another recent case was that of the poisoning in England of the Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. The Russian government was automatically accused, allegedly the only producer of a chemical known as Novichok, which – it became known – is not only produced by Russian laboratories, but can be produced in several British laboratories. This showd that the treacherous accusation sought to discredit the Kremlin.
Worse still, there has been the alleged chemical attack by Syria on the city of Douma, recently liberated by the Syrian Arab Army from occupation by terrorist forces supported by the United States. A team of journalists from the U.S.-based One America News Network
(OAN)-which is a purely conservative source of guidance and audience and supports Donald Trump-visited Douma. They publicly stated that it had found no evidence of the chemical attack which allegedly took place on April 7, making a mockery of its President.
The self-esteem of the US superpower’s foreign policy must be in a very bad way when it has to resort over and over again to falsehoods and manipulations to try to keep the idea of the invincibility of the US empire in the collective imagination.
May 3, 2018.

FAKE NEWS AS WASHINGTON’S WEAPONS

FAKE NEWS AS WASHINGTON’S WEAPONS
By Manuel E. Yepe
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.

Let no one think that using falsehoods as a pivot for the projection and execution of U.S. foreign policy is an innovation or a novel contribution by Donald Trump. This has been a tradition in
Washington’s foreign policy since the explosion of the Spanish battleship Maine in 1898 in Havana, which led to the U.S. declaring war on the Spanishmonarchy and whose aftermath was the rise of U.S. imperialism.
In 1997, the release of the feature film WAG THE DOG, a free adaptation of Larry Beinhart’s novel “American Hero”, starring Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro and directed by Barry Levinson, was very successful in the United States.
The film is about a spin doctor and a film producer who are inventing a war to distract voters’ attention from a sex scandal that would hamper the re-election of the President of the United States. The film was released a month before the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the subsequent bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory by the Clinton administration and generated numerous comparisons of reality with the film.
On tape, the President is caught falling in love with a young minor in the Oval Office two months before the election. The spin doctor decides to draw the public’s attention with a fictitious war against Albania in order to draw its media attention to this conflict by diverting it from the White House.
The deception initially takes effect by moving the election statistics in favor of the President. But then this clashes with the interests of the CIA, which favors the opposition candidate. All this then is complicated by a succession of dirt and perversions typical of American politics.
Fake news has become a “fourth generation” weapon. Inserted into the new information technology scenarios, it surpasses them widely in scope and validity, given that the scenario in which it is poured exponentially surpasses the level of dissemination of content through the computer media of social networks, where the false becomes true. An example of recent false news used as weapons of war has been the case of acoustic attacks against U.S. embassy officials in Cuba. This fake news was denied in many ways, including by an investigation conducted at the University of Michigan by researcher Kevin Fu. He determined that the alleged attacks “were caused by interference between two ultrasound sources very close to those affected: one, a listening and spying device; the other, an ultrasonic blocker of the device. In other words, it was the very espionage activities that the Americans carried out inside their embassy that caused the acoustic attacks that affected their own diplomatic officials.
A large number of previous verifications had confirmed the fallacy, but the aim of this fake news was not to rectify something, but to provoke tension and break ties between Washington and Havana in line with the political objectives of the Trump regime.
Another recent case was that of the poisoning in England of the Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. The Russian government was automatically accused, allegedly the only producer of a chemical known as Novichok, which – it became known – is not only produced by Russian laboratories, but can be produced in several British laboratories. This showd that the treacherous accusation sought to discredit the Kremlin.
Worse still, there has been the alleged chemical attack by Syria on the city of Douma, recently liberated by the Syrian Arab Army from occupation by terrorist forces supported by the United States. A team of journalists from the U.S.-based One America News Network
(OAN)-which is a purely conservative source of guidance and audience and supports Donald Trump-visited Douma. They publicly stated that it had found no evidence of the chemical attack which allegedly took place on April 7, making a mockery of its President.
The self-esteem of the US superpower’s foreign policy must be in a very bad way when it has to resort over and over again to falsehoods and manipulations to try to keep the idea of the invincibility of the US empire in the collective imagination.
May 3, 2018.