In a harbinger of what - for various reasons - may be coming to the US, Venezuela's brand new "all-powerful" constituent assembly is set to pass a bill that will jail anyone who expresses "hate or intolerance" for up to 25 years, a measure which the local opposition - and everyone else - is certain will be used by Maduro's regime to silence and punish all dissent. "The question is whether this is the peace he's looking for: creating a law that gives him and his obedient supreme court judiciary powers to lock up dissidents for 25 years," Tamara Taraciuk, head Venezuela researcher for Human Rights Watch, told Reuters in a Wednesday telephone interview. To be sure, less extreme versions of this proposal have cropped up across the developed world, where while "hate or intolerance" - as defined by some arbitrary but very powerful authority - will result if not in jail time, then certainly in loss of freedom of speech or worse. As for Venezuela, the "the proposal includes incredibly vague language that would allow them to jail anyone for almost anything," she added, a blueprint for how crackdown against dissent in "developed" countries may materialize. It gets worse: straight out of "1984", Venezuela's assembly is scheduled later on Wednesday to empanel a "Truth Commission" headed by Maduro loyalist and former Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez, to prosecute those responsible for violent anti-government protests. Over the past month, in his attempt to copycat Turkey's president Erdogan and seize supreme power, President Nicolas Maduro installed a 545-member assembly stacked with Socialist Party allies earlier this month, who provide him with a greenlight to do virtually anything. The president defends the new legislative superbody as Venezuela's only hope for peace and prosperity. Separately, local rights group Penal Forum estimated that Maduro's government was holding 676 political prisoners as of Wednesday, a number that could rise once a crackdown against hate crimes - however the ruling regime defines these - becomes law. For now the definition is simple: no disagreement with Maduro: "Anyone who goes out into the streets to express intolerance and hatred will be captured and will be tried and punished with sentences of 15, 20, 25 years of jail," Maduro recently told the assembly, drawing a standing ovation. Meanwhile the assembly has wasted no time in usurping power. Just days after firing Venezuela's top prosecutor Luisa Ortega, the assembly on Tuesday ordered that cases of protesters detained this year be held in civilian rather than military courts. The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists said in a report on Wednesday that Ortega's dismissal "removes one of the last remaining institutional checks on executive authority." As for Ortega, she is likely going to prison too: the country's new chief prosecutor, Maduro's former "human rights ombudsman" Tarek Saab, on Wednesday outlined corruption accusations against his predecessor Ortega, her husband and members of her team of prosecutors. She is unlikely to find any support in the current regime: the opposition, in control of the traditional congress, boycotted the election of the assembly, meaning that all candidates for the new body were Maduro allies.
Last week we reported on the Saudi regime's brutal crackdown against its own citizens in the largely Shia town of Awamiya in the country's East. We described the weeks long siege and official Saudi policy of 'relocation' of Shia residents as in truth a targeted cleansing of religious minorities, considered by the Wahhabi Sunni state authorities as heretics and apostates: Activists describe it as a concealed sectarian-based cleansing of the Shia population, which has been historically persecuted by the Sunni Wahhabi state. Regional news outlets have published footage which they say reveals active sectarian anti-Shia cleansing on the part of Saudi forces currently underway. Saudi state media has now confirmed completion of its campaign to drive all pockets of Shia resistance out of Awamiya and is currently maintaining a heavy troop presence in the town. It is unclear how many local Shia militants were engaged in the fighting, but it appears the military brought its full weight to bear against the contested Almosara neighborhood which forms Awamiya's walled 'old city' section. As we reported, the Saudi military utilized: ...air power, heavy artillery, RPGs, snipers and armored assault vehicles in the area. Earlier this year the Saudi regime announced plans to demolish the neighborhood and hand it over to private developers in a kind of Saudi version of "eminent domain"; however, the presence of Shia militants hiding amidst its narrow roads and concealed alleyways appears the be the real motive for razing the district. While Saudi Arabia is framing its actions in terms of necessary counter-terrorism police action, other regional media outlets and local activists now report over 500 homes flattened in Almosara by military bombardment and subsequent bulldozers that entered the town, with estimates of 8,000 families having fled the area. Evacuation notices were also issued to Shia residents in the area by the Albarahim private property developer, and stamped by the government's National Joint Counterterrorism Command (NJCC), which was formed in 2003. Meanwhile, The Independent (UK) reported the death of a three-year-old boy who was shot by Saudi forces as his family merely drove their car near a protest earlier this summer. The boy succumbed to his wounds while in a local intensive care unit on Wednesday. Al-Mayadeen: 500 homes destroyed & 8000 families displaced after Saudi forces destroy Al-Msawwara neighborhood in #alawamiyah in #Qatif #KSA pic.twitter.com/usiu2cztXU — Walid (@walid970721) August 10, 2017 So it appears there is a two-fold motive for the Saudi state's aggressive military takeover: forcibly change the Shia demographic - a form of religiously motivated genocide, while at the same time claiming the area is needed for "property development" in a land grab that is sure to enrich developers close to the Saudi royal family. None of this, however, is taking place in secret or completely hidden from public view - video footage of armor enclosed government bulldozers operating in Almosara leveling what appears to be an entire city block amidst gunfire has spread widely on the internet, which we featured in our initial report of the siege. Saudi soldiers further appear to be uploading photos and videos of themselves celebrating their entry into and current occupation of the town. Some footage, which was quickly picked up in Arabic media, shows Saudi elite troops desecrating a Shia mosque while repeating sectarian slogans commonly used among ISIS terrorists. In one of the videos, a Saudi soldier enters the historic Al-Fotya mosque in Awamiya, sacred to Shias, while declaring, “These are the Shia’s Hussainiyat, the Rafidi’s (rejectionists), the sons of dogs, thank you Allah, thank you Allah...The monster forces.” Rejectionist is a derogatory term for Shia Muslims favored by Wahhabis. It is the most common slur bused by ISIS when referencing Shias. The Washington D.C. based Institute For Gulf Affairs has translated the brief video: A 2009 Human Rights Watch report acknowledged that Shias "face systematic discrimination in religion, education, justice, and employment" in Saudi Arabia. This is especially true in the military and government ministries. Saudi special forces, which have reportedly spearheaded the military assault on Awamiya, are put through Wahhabi religious instruction and ban all Shia from their ranks. Photos out of Awamiya also being widely circulated show Saudi special forces ("SSF" - which is printed on the soldiers' body armor vests) desecrating a Shia shrine while standing atop an image of the revered slain Shiite preacher, Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr, who was controversially executed early this year after his arrest for being a fierce critic of the Saudi monarchy. Al Masdar News featured the photo set and reported: "The Saudi regime forces have recently taken to social media to brag about the Awamiya siege that has displaced thousands of civilians and killed several other residents." To see what developers under the aegis of the government have planned for the area, one need look no further that Saudi state media. Al-Arabiya, a Saudi government funded regional news channel which operates out of Dubai, published plans for Saudi "redevelopment" of the now utterly destroyed ancient walled quarter of Awamiya. The visual concept plans were issued at a Wednesday press conference hosted by a government housing and development ministry. The Saudi Undersecretary for Construction and Projects, Essam Al Mulla,presented the government's vision, which he called "a quantum leap in urban development". Saudi government supplied visual concept for Awamiya development, currently being occupied by the military after its Shia residents were forced out, with many of them reported killed and their homes and historic neighborhoods demolished. State owned Al-Arabiya English captioned this image as follows: "The development project for Awamiya city in north eastern Saudi Arabia." State owned Al-Arabiya's caption reads: "The development project for Awamiya city in north eastern Saudi Arabia." Should the project come to completion it is uncertain who will inhabit the newly developed property. What is certain is that activists and displaced residents say it is part of a long term plan to purge the country's East of its ancient Shia heartland - something even the United Nations Human Rights Commission has taken note of. Saudi Arabia claims that Iran and other pro-Shia entities purposefully stoke unrest in the province. With the complete takeover and military occupation of restive Awamiya amidst international media silence, the plans seem to be making progress. It appears the project would run at least in the hundreds of millions of dollars - possibly more given the potential for an active Shia insurgency vowing to oppose the obliteration of the area's religious heritage. Saudi Arabia's ability to engage in overt sectarian cleansing of its Eastern province with complete impunity is made glaringly evident by the fact that its state-run media can openly post Orwellian "urban development" plans for a zone now being flattened by government bulldozers accompanied by sectarian sloganizing special forces troops. Meanwhile, there's not a peep from Western capitals accustomed to lecturing the world on the supposedly unique evils of Putin, Assad, or Kim Jong Un.
Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog, Today’s post should be read as Part 3 of my ongoing series about the now infamous Google memo, and what it tells us about where our society is headed if a minority of extremely wealthy and powerful technocratic billionaires are permitted to fully socially engineer our culture to fit their ideological vision using coercion, force and manipulation. For some context, read Part 1 and Part 2. I struggled with the title of this piece, because ever since the 2016 election, usage of the term “deep state” has become overly associated with Trump cheerleaders. I’m not referring to people who voted for Trump, whom I can both understand and respect, I’m talking about the Trump cultists. Like most people who mindlessly and enthusiastically attach themselves to political figures, they tend to be either morons or opportunists. Nevertheless, just because the term has been somewhat tainted doesn’t mean I deny the existence of a “deep state” or “shadow government.” The existence of networks of unelected powerful people who formulate and push policy behind the scenes and then get captured members of Congress to vote on it is pretty much undeniable. I don’t believe that the “deep state” is a monolithic entity by any means, but what seems to unite these various people and institutions is an almost religious belief in U.S. imperial dominance, as well as the idea that this empire should be largely governed by an unaccountable oligarchy of billionaires and assorted technocrats. We see the results of this worldview all around us with endless wars, an unconstitutional domestic surveillance state and the destruction of the middle class. These are the fruits of deep state ideology, and a clear reason why it should be dismantled and replaced by genuine governance by the people before they lead the U.S. to total disaster. From my own personal research and observations, Google has become very much a willing part of this deep state, with Eric Schmidt being the primary driving force that has propelled the company into its contemporary role not just as a search engine monopoly, but also as a powerful and undemocratic tech arm of the shadow government. One of the best things about all the recent attention on the Google memo, is that it has placed this corporate behemoth and its very clear ideological leanings squarely in the public eye. This gives us the space to shine light on some other aspects of Google, which I believe most people would find quite concerning if made aware of. To that end, in 2014, Wikileaks published an extremely powerful excerpt from Julian Assange’s book, When Google Met Wikileaks. The post was titled, Google Is Not What It Seems, and it is an incredible repository of information and insight. If you never read it, I suggest you take the time. Below I share some choice excerpts to get you up to speed with what Google is really up to. Let’s start with the intro to the piece, which sets the stage… Eric Schmidt is an influential figure, even among the parade of powerful characters with whom I have had to cross paths since I founded WikiLeaks. In mid-May 2011 I was under house arrest in rural Norfolk, about three hours’ drive northeast of London. The crackdown against our work was in full swing and every wasted moment seemed like an eternity. It was hard to get my attention. But when my colleague Joseph Farrell told me the executive chairman of Google wanted to make an appointment with me, I was listening. In some ways the higher echelons of Google seemed more distant and obscure to me than the halls of Washington. We had been locking horns with senior US officials for years by that point. The mystique had worn off. But the power centers growing up in Silicon Valley were still opaque and I was suddenly conscious of an opportunity to understand and influence what was becoming the most influential company on earth. Schmidt had taken over as CEO of Google in 2001 and built it into an empire. I was intrigued that the mountain would come to Muhammad. But it was not until well after Schmidt and his companions had been and gone that I came to understand who had really visited me. The stated reason for the visit was a book. Schmidt was penning a treatise with Jared Cohen, the director of Google Ideas, an outfit that describes itself as Google’s in-house “think/do tank.” I knew little else about Cohen at the time. In fact, Cohen had moved to Google from the US State Department in 2010. He had been a fast-talking “Generation Y” ideas man at State under two US administrations, a courtier from the world of policy think tanks and institutes, poached in his early twenties. He became a senior advisor for Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton. At State, on the Policy Planning Staff, Cohen was soon christened “Condi’s party-starter,” channeling buzzwords from Silicon Valley into US policy circles and producing delightful rhetorical concoctions such as “Public Diplomacy 2.0.”2 On his Council on Foreign Relations adjunct staff page he listed his expertise as “terrorism; radicalization; impact of connection technologies on 21st century statecraft; Iran.”3. Now I’m going to skip ahead in the piece to the moment where Assange describes his attempt to make contact with the U.S. State Department in 2011 regarding cables Wikileaks was releasing. It was at this point that I realized Eric Schmidt might not have been an emissary of Google alone. Whether officially or not, he had been keeping some company that placed him very close to Washington, DC, including a well-documented relationship with President Obama. Not only had Hillary Clinton’s people known that Eric Schmidt’s partner had visited me, but they had also elected to use her as a back channel. While WikiLeaks had been deeply involved in publishing the inner archive of the US State Department, the US State Department had, in effect, snuck into the WikiLeaks command center and hit me up for a free lunch. Two years later, in the wake of his early 2013 visits to China, North Korea, and Burma, it would come to be appreciated that the chairman of Google might be conducting, in one way or another, “back-channel diplomacy” for Washington. But at the time it was a novel thought. I put it aside until February 2012, when WikiLeaks—along with over thirty of our international media partners—began publishing the Global Intelligence Files: the internal email spool from the Texas-based private intelligence firm Stratfor. One of our stronger investigative partners—the Beirut-based newspaper Al Akhbar—scoured the emails for intelligence on Jared Cohen.The people at Stratfor, who liked to think of themselves as a sort of corporate CIA, were acutely conscious of other ventures that they perceived as making inroads into their sector. Google had turned up on their radar. In a series of colorful emails they discussed a pattern of activity conducted by Cohen under the Google Ideas aegis, suggesting what the “do” in “think/do tank” actually means. Cohen’s directorate appeared to cross over from public relations and “corporate responsibility” work into active corporate intervention in foreign affairs at a level that is normally reserved for states. Jared Cohen could be wryly named Google’s “director of regime change.” According to the emails, he was trying to plant his fingerprints on some of the major historical events in the contemporary Middle East. He could be placed in Egypt during the revolution, meeting with Wael Ghonim, the Google employee whose arrest and imprisonment hours later would make him a PR-friendly symbol of the uprising in the Western press. Meetings had been planned in Palestine and Turkey, both of which—claimed Stratfor emails—were killed by the senior Google leadership as too risky. Only a few months before he met with me, Cohen was planning a trip to the edge of Iran in Azerbaijan to “engage the Iranian communities closer to the border,” as part of Google Ideas’ project on “repressive societies.” In internal emails Stratfor’s vice president for intelligence, Fred Burton (himself a former State Department security official), wrote: Google is getting WH [White House] and State Dept support and air cover. In reality they are doing things the CIA cannot do . . . [Cohen] is going to get himself kidnapped or killed. Might be the best thing to happen to expose Google’s covert role in foaming up-risings, to be blunt. The US Gov’t can then disavow knowledge and Google is left holding the shit-bag. In further internal communication, Burton said his sources on Cohen’s activities were Marty Lev—Google’s director of security and safety—and Eric Schmidt himself. Looking for something more concrete, I began to search in WikiLeaks’ archive for information on Cohen. State Department cables released as part of Cablegate reveal that Cohen had been in Afghanistan in 2009, trying to convince the four major Afghan mobile phone companies to move their antennas onto US military bases. In Lebanon he quietly worked to establish an intellectual and clerical rival to Hezbollah, the “Higher Shia League.” And in London he offered Bollywood movie executives funds to insert anti-extremist content into their films, and promised to connect them to related networks in Hollywood. Three days after he visited me at Ellingham Hall, Jared Cohen flew to Ireland to direct the “Save Summit,” an event cosponsored by Google Ideas and the Council on Foreign Relations. Gathering former inner-city gang members, right-wing militants, violent nationalists, and “religious extremists” from all over the world together in one place, the event aimed to workshop technological solutions to the problem of “violent extremism.” What could go wrong? Cohen’s world seems to be one event like this after another: endless soirees for the cross-fertilization of influence between elites and their vassals, under the pious rubric of “civil society.” The received wisdom in advanced capitalist societies is that there still exists an organic “civil society sector” in which institutions form autonomously and come together to manifest the interests and will of citizens. The fable has it that the boundaries of this sector are respected by actors from government and the “private sector,” leaving a safe space for NGOs and nonprofits to advocate for things like human rights, free speech, and accountable government. This sounds like a great idea. But if it was ever true, it has not been for decades. Since at least the 1970s, authentic actors like unions and churches have folded under a sustained assault by free-market statism, transforming “civil society” into a buyer’s market for political factions and corporate interests looking to exert influence at arm’s length. The last forty years has seen a huge proliferation of think tanks and political NGOs whose purpose, beneath all the verbiage, is to execute political agendas by proxy. It is not just obvious neocon front groups like Foreign Policy Initiative. It also includes fatuous Western NGOs like Freedom House, where naïve but well-meaning career nonprofit workers are twisted in knots by political funding streams, denouncing non-Western human rights violations while keeping local abuses firmly in their blind spots. The civil society conference circuit—which flies developing-world activists across the globe hundreds of times a year to bless the unholy union between “government and private stakeholders” at geopoliticized events like the “Stockholm Internet Forum”—simply could not exist if it were not blasted with millions of dollars in political funding annually. In 2011, the Alliance of Youth Movements rebranded as “Movements.org.” In 2012 Movements.org became a division of “Advancing Human Rights,” a new NGO set up by Robert L. Bernstein after he resigned from Human Rights Watch (which he had originally founded) because he felt it should not cover Israeli and US human rights abuses. Advancing Human Rights aims to right Human Rights Watch’s wrong by focusing exclusively on “dictatorships.” Cohen stated that the merger of his Movements.org outfit with Advancing Human Rights was “irresistible,” pointing to the latter’s “phenomenal network of cyberactivists in the Middle East and North Africa.” He then joined the Advancing Human Rights board, which also includes Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in occupied Afghanistan. In its present guise, Movements.org continues to receive funding from Gen Next, as well as from Google, MSNBC, and PR giant Edelman, which represents General Electric, Boeing, and Shell, among others. Google Ideas is bigger, but it follows the same game plan. Glance down the speaker lists of its annual invite-only get-togethers, such as “Crisis in a Connected World” in October 2013. Social network theorists and activists give the event a veneer of authenticity, but in truth it boasts a toxic piñata of attendees: US officials, telecom magnates, security consultants, finance capitalists, and foreign-policy tech vultures like Alec Ross (Cohen’s twin at the State Department). At the hard core are the arms contractors and career military: active US Cyber Command chieftains, and even the admiral responsible for all US military operations in Latin America from 2006 to 2009. Tying up the package are Jared Cohen and the chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt. Now here’s a little background on Schmidt. Eric Schmidt was born in Washington, DC, where his father had worked as a professor and economist for the Nixon Treasury. He attended high school in Arlington, Virginia, before graduating with a degree in engineering from Princeton. In 1979 Schmidt headed out West to Berkeley, where he received his PhD before joining Stanford/Berkley spin-off Sun Microsystems in 1983. By the time he left Sun, sixteen years later, he had become part of its executive leadership. Sun had significant contracts with the US government, but it was not until he was in Utah as CEO of Novell that records show Schmidt strategically engaging Washington’s overt political class. Federal campaign finance records show that on January 6, 1999, Schmidt donated two lots of $1,000 to the Republican senator for Utah, Orrin Hatch. On the same day Schmidt’s wife, Wendy, is also listed giving two lots of $1,000 to Senator Hatch. By the start of 2001 over a dozen other politicians and PACs, including Al Gore, George W. Bush, Dianne Feinstein, and Hillary Clinton, were on the Schmidts’ payroll, in one case for $100,000. By 2013, Eric Schmidt—who had become publicly over-associated with the Obama White House—was more politic. Eight Republicans and eight Democrats were directly funded, as were two PACs. That April, $32,300 went to the National Republican Senatorial Committee. A month later the same amount, $32,300, headed off to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Why Schmidt was donating exactly the same amount of money to both parties is a $64,600 question. It was also in 1999 that Schmidt joined the board of a Washington, DC–based group: the New America Foundation, a merger of well-connected centrist forces (in DC terms). The foundation and its 100 staff serves as an influence mill, using its network of approved national security, foreign policy, and technology pundits to place hundreds of articles and op-eds per year. By 2008 Schmidt had become chairman of its board of directors. As of 2013 the New America Foundation’s principal funders (each contributing over $1 million) are listed as Eric and Wendy Schmidt, the US State Department, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Secondary funders include Google, USAID, and Radio Free Asia. Schmidt’s involvement in the New America Foundation places him firmly in the Washington establishment nexus. The foundation’s other board members, seven of whom also list themselves as members of the Council on Foreign Relations, include Francis Fukuyama, one of the intellectual fathers of the neoconservative movement; Rita Hauser, who served on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board under both Bush and Obama; Jonathan Soros, the son of George Soros; Walter Russell Mead, a US security strategist and editor of the American Interest; Helene Gayle, who sits on the boards of Coca-Cola, Colgate-Palmolive, the Rockefeller Foundation, the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Unit, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the White House Fellows program, and Bono’s ONE Campaign; and Daniel Yergin, oil geostrategist, former chair of the US Department of Energy’s Task Force on Strategic Energy Research, and author of The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power. The chief executive of the foundation, appointed in 2013, is Jared Cohen’s former boss at the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff, Anne-Marie Slaughter, a Princeton law and international relations wonk with an eye for revolving doors. She is everywhere at the time of writing, issuing calls for Obama to respond to the Ukraine crisis not only by deploying covert US forces into the country but also by dropping bombs on Syria—on the basis that this will send a message to Russia and China.41 Along with Schmidt, she is a 2013 attendee of the Bilderberg conference and sits on the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board. There was nothing politically hapless about Eric Schmidt. I had been too eager to see a politically unambitious Silicon Valley engineer, a relic of the good old days of computer science graduate culture on the West Coast. But that is not the sort of person who attends the Bilderberg conference four years running, who pays regular visits to the White House, or who delivers “fireside chats” at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Schmidt’s emergence as Google’s “foreign minister”—making pomp and ceremony state visits across geopolitical fault lines—had not come out of nowhere; it had been presaged by years of assimilation within US establishment networks of reputation and influence. On a personal level, Schmidt and Cohen are perfectly likable people. But Google’s chairman is a classic “head of industry” player, with all of the ideological baggage that comes with that role. Schmidt fits exactly where he is: the point where the centrist, liberal, and imperialist tendencies meet in American political life. By all appearances, Google’s bosses genuinely believe in the civilizing power of enlightened multinational corporations, and they see this mission as continuous with the shaping of the world according to the better judgment of the “benevolent superpower.” They will tell you that open-mindedness is a virtue, but all perspectives that challenge the exceptionalist drive at the heart of American foreign policy will remain invisible to them. This is the impenetrable banality of “don’t be evil.” They believe that they are doing good. And that is a problem. Even when Google airs its corporate ambivalence publicly, it does little to dislodge these items of faith. The company’s reputation is seemingly unassailable. Google’s colorful, playful logo is imprinted on human retinas just under six billion times each day, 2.1 trillion times a year—an opportunity for respondent conditioning enjoyed by no other company in history. Caught red-handed last year making petabytes of personal data available to the US intelligence community through the PRISM program, Google nevertheless continues to coast on the goodwill generated by its “don’t be evil” doublespeak. A few symbolic open letters to the White House later and it seems all is forgiven. Even anti-surveillance campaigners cannot help themselves, at once condemning government spying but trying to alter Google’s invasive surveillance practices using appeasement strategies. Nobody wants to acknowledge that Google has grown big and bad. But it has. Schmidt’s tenure as CEO saw Google integrate with the shadiest of US power structures as it expanded into a geographically invasive megacorporation. But Google has always been comfortable with this proximity. Long before company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Schmidt in 2001, their initial research upon which Google was based had been partly funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). And even as Schmidt’s Google developed an image as the overly friendly giant of global tech, it was building a close relationship with the intelligence community. In 2003 the US National Security Agency (NSA) had already started systematically violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) under its director General Michael Hayden. These were the days of the “Total Information Awareness” program. Before PRISM was ever dreamed of, under orders from the Bush White House the NSA was already aiming to “collect it all, sniff it all, know it all, process it all, exploit it all.” During the same period, Google—whose publicly declared corporate mission is to collect and “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”—was accepting NSA money to the tune of $2 million to provide the agency with search tools for its rapidly accreting hoard of stolen knowledge. In 2004, after taking over Keyhole, a mapping tech startup cofunded by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the CIA, Google developed the technology into Google Maps, an enterprise version of which it has since shopped to the Pentagon and associated federal and state agencies on multimillion-dollar contracts.54 In 2008, Google helped launch an NGA spy satellite, the GeoEye-1, into space. Google shares the photographs from the satellite with the US military and intelligence communities. In 2010, NGA awarded Google a $27 million contract for “geospatial visualization services.” Around the same time, Google was becoming involved in a program known as the “Enduring Security Framework” (ESF), which entailed the sharing of information between Silicon Valley tech companies and Pentagon-affiliated agencies “at network speed.” Emails obtained in 2014 under Freedom of Information requests show Schmidt and his fellow Googler Sergey Brin corresponding on first-name terms with NSA chief General Keith Alexander about ESF. Reportage on the emails focused on the familiarity in the correspondence: “General Keith . . . so great to see you . . . !” Schmidt wrote. But most reports overlooked a crucial detail. “Your insights as a key member of the Defense Industrial Base,” Alexander wrote to Brin, “are valuable to ensure ESF’s efforts have measurable impact.” In 2012, Google arrived on the list of top-spending Washington, DC, lobbyists—a list typically stalked exclusively by the US Chamber of Commerce, military contractors, and the petrocarbon leviathans. Google entered the rankings above military aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, with a total of $18.2 million spent in 2012 to Lockheed’s $15.3 million. Boeing, the military contractor that absorbed McDonnell Douglas in 1997, also came below Google, at $15.6 million spent, as did Northrop Grumman at $17.5 million. If anything has changed since those words were written, it is that Silicon Valley has grown restless with that passive role, aspiring instead to adorn the “hidden fist” like a velvet glove. Writing in 2013, Schmidt and Cohen stated, What Lockheed Martin was to the twentieth century, technology and cyber-security companies will be to the twenty-first. This was one of many bold assertions made by Schmidt and Cohen in their book, which was eventually published in April 2013. Gone was the working title, “The Empire of the Mind”, replaced with “The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business”. By the time it came out, I had formally sought and received political asylum from the government of Ecuador, and taken refuge in its embassy in London. At that point I had already spent nearly a year in the embassy under police surveillance, blocked from safe passage out of the UK. Online I noticed the press hum excitedly about Schmidt and Cohen’s book, giddily ignoring the explicit digital imperialism of the title and the conspicuous string of pre-publication endorsements from famous warmongers like Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Bill Hayden and Madeleine Albright on the back. Billed as a visionary forecast of global technological change, the book failed to deliver—failed even to imagine a future, good or bad, substantially different to the present. The book was a simplistic fusion of Fukuyama “end of history” ideology—out of vogue since the 1990s—and faster mobile phones. It was padded out with DC shibboleths, State Department orthodoxies, and fawning grabs from Henry Kissinger. The scholarship was poor—even degenerate. It did not seem to fit the profile of Schmidt, that sharp, quiet man in my living room. But reading on I began to see that the book was not a serious attempt at future history. It was a love song from Google to official Washington. Google, a burgeoning digital superstate, was offering to be Washington’s geopolitical visionary. One way of looking at it is that it’s just business. For an American internet services monopoly to ensure global market dominance it cannot simply keep doing what it is doing, and let politics take care of itself. American strategic and economic hegemony becomes a vital pillar of its market dominance. What’s a megacorp to do? If it wants to straddle the world, it must become part of the original “don’t be evil” empire. Whether it is being just a company or “more than just a company,” Google’s geopolitical aspirations are firmly enmeshed within the foreign-policy agenda of the world’s largest superpower. As Google’s search and internet service monopoly grows, and as it enlarges its industrial surveillance cone to cover the majority of the world’s population, rapidly dominating the mobile phone market and racing to extend internet access in the global south, Google is steadily becoming the internet for many people. Its influence on the choices and behavior of the totality of individual human beings translates to real power to influence the course of history. If the future of the internet is to be Google, that should be of serious concern to people all over the world—in Latin America, East and Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the former Soviet Union, and even in Europe—for whom the internet embodies the promise of an alternative to US cultural, economic, and strategic hegemony. I first became really interested in this side of Google back in 2013, when I read the entire transcript of the Schmidt interview of Assange. For more on the topic, see the post I published at the time: Highlights from the Incredible 2011 Interview of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange by Google’s Eric Schmidt. Finally, I think the perfect way to end this piece is with the following tweet: Google motto 2004: Don't be evilGoogle motto 2010: Evil is tricky to defineGoogle motto 2013: We make military robots — Brent Butt (@BrentButt) December 16, 2013
Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute, “There is one criminal justice system for citizens - especially black and brown ones - and another for police in the United States.” - Redditt Hudson, former St. Louis police officer President Trump needs to be reminded that no one is above the law, especially the police. Unfortunately, Trump and Jeff Sessions, head of the Justice Department (much like their predecessors) appear to have few qualms about giving police the green light to kill, shoot, taser, abuse and steal from American citizens in the so-called name of law and order. Between Trump’s pandering to the police unions and Sessions’ pandering to Trump, this constitutionally illiterate duo has opened the door to a new era of police abuses. As senior editor Adam Serwer warns in The Atlantic, “When local governments violate the basic constitutional rights of citizens, Americans are supposed to be able to look to the federal government to protect those rights. Sessions has made clear that when it comes to police abuses, they’re now on their own. This is the principle at the heart of ‘law and order’ rhetoric: The authorities themselves are bound by neither.” Brace yourselves: things are about to get downright ugly. By shielding police from charges of grave misconduct while prosecuting otherwise law-abiding Americans for the most trivial “offenses,” the government has created a world in which there are two sets of laws: one set for the government and its gun-toting agents, and another set for you and me. No matter which way you spin it, “we the people” are always on the losing end of the deal. If you’re a cop in the American police state, you can now break the law in a myriad of ways without suffering any major, long-term consequences. Indeed, not only are cops protected from most charges of wrongdoing—whether it’s shooting unarmed citizens (including children and old people), raping and abusing young women, falsifying police reports, trafficking drugs, or soliciting sex with minors—but even on the rare occasions when they are fired for misconduct, it’s only a matter of time before they get re-hired again. For example, Oregon police officer Sean Sullivan was forced to resign after being accused of “grooming” a 10-year-old girl for a sexual relationship. A year later, Sullivan was hired on as a police chief in Kansas. St. Louis police officer Eddie Boyd III was forced to resign after a series of incidents in which he “pistol-whipped a 12-year-old girl in the face in 2006, and in 2007 struck a child in the face with his gun or handcuffs before falsifying a police report,” he was quickly re-hired by another Missouri police department. As The Washington Post reports: “In the District, police were told to rehire an officer who allegedly forged prosecutors’ signatures on court documents. In Texas, police had to reinstate an officer who was investigated for shooting up the truck driven by his ex-girlfriend’s new man. In Philadelphia, police were compelled to reinstate an officer despite viral video of him striking a woman in the face. In Florida, police were ordered to reinstate an officer fired for fatally shooting an unarmed man.” Much of the “credit” for shielding these rogue cops goes to influential police unions and laws providing for qualified immunity, police contracts that “provide a shield of protection to officers accused of misdeeds and erect barriers to residents complaining of abuse,” state and federal laws that allow police to walk away without paying a dime for their wrongdoing, and rampant cronyism among government bureaucrats. Whether it’s at the federal level with President Trump, Congress and the Judiciary, or at the state and local level, those deciding whether a police officer should be immune from having to personally pay for misbehavior on the job all belong to the same system, all with a vested interest in protecting the police and their infamous code of silence: city and county attorneys, police commissioners, city councils and judges. It’s a pretty sweet deal if you can get it, I suppose: protection from the courts, immunity from wrongdoing, paid leave while you’re under investigation, the assurance that you won’t have to spend a dime of your own money in your defense, the removal of disciplinary charges from your work file, and then the high probability that you will be rehired and returned to the streets. It’s a chilling prospect, isn’t it? According to the New York Times, “Some experts say thousands of law enforcement officers may have drifted from police department to police department even after having been fired, forced to resign or convicted of a crime.” It’s happening all across the country. This is how perverse justice in America has become. Incredibly, while our own protections against government abuses continue to be dismantled, a growing number of states are adopting Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights (LEOBoR)—written by police unions—which provides police officers accused of a crime with special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen. In other words, the LEOBoR protects police officers from being treated as we are treated during criminal investigations. Not only are officers given a 10-day “cooling-off period” during which they cannot be forced to make any statements about the incident, but when they are questioned, it must be “for a reasonable length of time, at a reasonable hour, by only one or two investigators (who must be fellow policemen), and with plenty of breaks for food and water.” These LEOBoRs epitomize everything that is wrong with America today. Now once in a while, police officers engaged in wrongdoing are actually charged for abusing their authority and using excessive force against American citizens. Occasionally, those officers are even sentenced for their crimes against the citizenry. Yet in just about every case, it’s still the American taxpayer who foots the bill. Human Rights Watch notes that taxpayers actually pay three times for officers who repeatedly commit abuses: “once to cover their salaries while they commit abuses; next to pay settlements or civil jury awards against officers; and a third time through payments into police ‘defense’ funds provided by the cities.” This is a recipe for disaster. “In a democratic society,” observed Oakland police chief Sean Whent, “people have a say in how they are policed.” Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, which means that “we the people” not only have a say in how we are policed—we are the chiefs of police.
He wanted to show his proficiency with guns and knives, but opponents recut government propaganda with scenes from an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.
Authored by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org, The Trump administration continues to demonize Iran, advocating regime change even as the U.S. acknowledges that the country is complying with the nuclear deal. Defying Western perceptions, however, the Middle Eastern nation recently announced its plans to move toward decriminalizing drugs in order to combat addiction and weaken the power of drug traffickers. If the plan receives final approval, the country will join a handful of other nations that have opted to help addicts rather than punish them. The Independent reports that “[b]y allowing the government to give out diluted drugs to addicts, the proposal aims to cut the relationship between drug addicts and drug traffickers.” The plan would allow the government to distribute methadone to addicts in place of heroin, cannabis, and other commonly used drugs in Iran. It would also allow the government to provide addicts with diluted forms of these commonly used drugs to help wean them off the substances. Hassan Norouzi, a spokesperson for the Parliament’s Judicial and Legal Commission, said that in order to undermine the relationship between addicts and traffickers, “we decided that the government hand out diluted drugs to addicts, so that they will be able to give up their addiction gradually and, instead of being drawn to drug-traffickers, turn to the Establishment and meet their needs through official channels,” Iranian government-approved outlet IFPNews reported. “These drugs include methadone and substances more diluted than previous ones, and the authority to decide on that rests with bylaws which are to be jointly drawn up by the Ministry of Justice and [Iran’s] Drug Enforcement HQ, and which could come into effect after getting the all clear from the Cabinet,” Norouzi said. Norouzi noted that “The plan to distribute [low-grade] drugs is similar to what used to be implemented before the [1979 Iran’s Islamic] Revolution.” IFP reports that Norouzi said “all relevant authorities have given the go-ahead to the proposal,” though it has not been finalized. The Independent reported that “The judicial committee has also proposed a draft law halting the death penalty for carrying and distributing less than 100kg of traditional drugs such as opium or less than two kilograms of synthetic drugs.” Iran has employed militarized anti-narcotic measures against traffickers in the past, even while showing some sympathy to addicts. Human Rights Watch previously reported that authorities often obtained forced confessions for traffickinf and also imposed the death penalty on indivuals possessing large quantities of drugs. The latest measures come in response to skyrocketing rates of addiction in Iran in recent years, particularly in regard to opium. According to Iran’s Drug Control Organization, there are roughly 2.8 million people in the country consistently using drugs. Despite Western perceptions that Iran is country doomed to the dark ages, some of its relatively progressive stances on drug addiction prove otherwise. In 2015, Maziyar Ghiabi, an Iranian-Italian Ph.D. candidate at Oxford University discussed rumors that the Iranian government would legalize cannabis and opium. “This is an actual possibility but not in the short term,” Ghiabi, who focuses on drug policy and use in Iran, told Salon two years ago. “One institution is really discussing measures to regulate the drug market. By regulation of the drug market, we can mean many different things. One of the ideas is to allow certain substances, in this case cannabis and opium, to be used under specific circumstances. It hasn’t been clearly stated what these circumstances are. What is interesting to me is that the discussion is open. It is a very interesting fact that in the Islamic Republic such discussions are taking place.” Though Iran is far from completely ending its war on drugs — and its government is indisputably repressive in a variety of ways — its openness to a more lenient policy mirrors some Western nations like Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs in 2001, and parts of Canada, where injection centers have been established to allow addicts to consume drugs like heroin in safe environments. The Iranian government already has some 8,000 rehab clinics that offer methadone treatment for opium addicts (however, it has been reported that addicts are tennis forcibly admitted to these clinics and arrests still occur). Norouzi said the Judicial and Legal Commission will continue work to finalize the latest policy change.
Правозащитные организации обвиняют французских полицейских в бесчеловечном обращении с беженцами в Кале. Несмотря на недавнее закрытие лагеря, в нём до сих пор остаются сотни человек. Согласно докладу организации Human Rights Watch, представители правоохранительных органов забирают у людей спальные мешки, одежду и еду, а также распыляют перцовый газ, вынуждая их покинуть лагерь. Корреспондент RT Шарлотта Дубенски побывала во французском городе Мец, который также столкнулся с наплывом мигрантов, и пообщалась с его жителями. Читать далее
Подпишитесь на канал Россия24: https://www.youtube.com/c/russia24tv?sub_confirmation=1 Правозащитная организация Human Rights Watch.обвинила иракских военных в массовых пытках и убийствах. Речь идёт об элитном подразделении, бойцов которого готовили инструкторы из США. В ходе освобождения Мосула.солдаты без суда и следствия расправлялись с теми, кого они подозревали в связях с ИГ. Последние новости России и мира, политика, экономика, бизнес, курсы валют, культура, технологии, спорт, интервью, специальные репортажи, происшествия и многое другое. Официальный YouTube канал ВГТРК. Россия 24 - это единственный российский информационный канал, вещающий 24 часа в сутки. Мировые новости и новости регионов России. Экономическая аналитика и интервью с влиятельнейшими персонами. Смотрите также: Новости в прямом эфире - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaQ73BA1ECZR916u5EI6DnEE Международное обозрение - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaSEmz_g88P4pjTgoDzVwfP7 Специальный репортаж - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaQLdG0uLyM27FhyBi6J0Ikf Интервью - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaReDfS4-5gJqluKn-BGo3Js Реплика - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaQHbPaRzLi35yWWs5EUnvOs Факты - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaR4eBu2aWmjknIzXn2hPX4c Мнение - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaST71OImm-f_kc-4G9pJtSG Агитпроп - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaTDGsEdC72F1lI1twaLfu9c Россия и мир в цифрах - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaRx4uhDdyX5NhSy5aeTMcc4 Вести в субботу с Брилевым - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MnxjOjSRsQAPpOhH0l_GTegWckbTIB4 Вести недели с Киселевым - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MnxjOjSRsRzsISAlU-JcbTi7_a5wB_v Специальный корреспондент - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDsFlvSBdSWfD19Ygi5fQADrrc4ICefyG Воскресный вечер с Соловьевым - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwJvP0lZee7zYMGBmzUqNn16P71vHzgkU
Правозащитная организация Human Rights Watch обвинила иракских военных в массовых пытках и убийствах. Речь идёт об элитном подразделении, бойцов которого готовили инструкторы из США. В ходе освобождения Мосула солдаты без суда и следствия расправлялись с теми, кого они подозревали в связях с ИГ.
Правозащитная организация Human Rights Watch обвинила иракских военных в массовых пытках и убийствах. Речь идёт об элитном подразделении, бойцов которого готовили инструкторы из США. В ходе освобождения Мосула солдаты без суда и следствия расправлялись с теми, кого они подозревали в связях с ИГ.
Правозащитная организация Human Rights Watch.обвинила иракских военных в массовых пытках и убийствах. Речь идёт об элитном подразделении, бойцов которого готовили инструкторы из США. В ходе освобождения Мосула.солдаты без суда и следствия расправлялись с теми, кого они подозревали в связях с ИГ.
Правозащитные организации обвиняют французских полицейских в бесчеловечном обращении с беженцами в Кале. Несмотря на недавнее закрытие лагеря, в нём до сих пор остаются сотни человек. Согласно докладу Human Rights Watch, представители правоохранительных органов забирают у людей спальные мешки, одежду и еду, а также распыляют перцовый газ, вынуждая их покинуть лагерь. Корреспондент RT Шарлотта Дубенски побывала во французском городе Мец, который тоже столкнулся с проблемой наплыва мигрантов, и пообщалась с его жителями. Подписывайтесь на RT Russian - http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=rtrussian RT на русском — http://russian.rt.com/ Vkontakte — http://vk.com/rt_russian Facebook — http://www.facebook.com/RTRussian Twitter — http://twitter.com/RT_russian Periscope — http://www.periscope.tv/RT_russian/ Livejournal — http://rt-russian.livejournal.com/ Odnoklassniki — http://ok.ru/rtrussian Telegram — https://telegram.me/rt_russian Viber — https://chats.viber.com/rtrussian
США не обеспечивают достаточный уровень безопасности личных данных, поэтому Евросоюз должен пересмотреть соглашение «Щит конфиденциальности» с ними, заявили представители правозащитных организаций Human Rights Watch и Amnesty International.
Правозащитные организации Human Rights Watch и Amnesty International обратились к Еврокомиссии с призывом пересмотреть соглашение «Щит конфиденциальности» между ЕС и США, которое подразумевает передачу личных данных европейцев США. Читать далее
Дыра в «Щите конфиденциальности»: от Брюсселя требуют пересмотреть соглашение о передаче личных данных европейцев в США
Правозащитные организации Human Rights Watch и Amnesty International обратились к ЕК с призывом пересмотреть соглашение «Щит конфиденциальности» между ЕС и США. Соответствующее письмо было направлено комиссару юстиции ЕС Вере Юровой, так как, по мнению правозащитников, Штаты не обеспечивают достаточный уровень защиты прав человека во время передачи личных данных. Организации призывают ЕК обязать исполнительные и законодательные органы США принять меры, чтобы процесс передачи данных соответствовал Хартии ЕС об основных правах и другим стандартам ЕС. Читать далее
Дыра в «Щите конфиденциальности»: от Брюсселя требуют пересмотреть соглашение о передаче личных данных европейцев в США
Правозащитные организации Human Rights Watch и Amnesty International обратились к Еврокомиссии с призывом пересмотреть соглашение «Щит конфиденциальности» между ЕС и США. Соответствующее письмо было направлено комиссару юстиции ЕС Вере Юровой, так как, по мнению правозащитников, Соединённые Штаты не обеспечивают достаточный уровень защиты прав человека во время передачи личных данных. Организации призывают ЕК обязать исполнительные и законодательные органы США принять меры, чтобы процесс передачи данных соответствовал Хартии ЕС по правам человека и другим стандартам ЕС. Читать далее
Police in the French port of Calais are accused of abusing migrants on a routine basis. Human Rights Watch claim it's - quote - 'like living in hell' - for the asylum seekers. RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT Listen to us on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/rttv RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
Положение беженцев возле Кале снова привлекло внимание французской прессы, сообщившей, что президент Эммануэль Макрон распорядился расследовать публикацию Human Rights Watch. Эта правозащитная организация написала, что полиция грубо обращается с лицами, ищущими убежища, и мигрантами в районе этого порта, из которого многие из них пытаются нелегально проникнуть в Великобританию. "Полиция постоянно приезжает по ночам, вытаскивает людей из спальных мешков, даже распыляет газ на спальные мешки и… ЧИТАТЬ ДАЛЕЕ: http://ru.euronews.com/2017/07/28/exclusive-french-police-accused-of-abusing-calais-migrants euronews: самый популярный новостной канал в Европе. Подписывайтесь! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=euronewsru euronews доступен на 13 языках: https://www.youtube.com/user/euronewsnetwork/channels На русском: Сайт: http://ru.euronews.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/euronews Twitter: http://twitter.com/euronewsru Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/101036888397116664208/100240575545901894719/posts?pageId=101036888397116664208 VKontakte: http://vk.com/ru.euronews
Подпишитесь на канал Россия24: https://www.youtube.com/c/russia24tv?sub_confirmation=1 Пехотная дивизия иракской армии, подготовленная американскими инструкторами, казнила несколько десятков заключенных в Мосуле. Об этом сообщает правозащитная организация Human Rights Watch. Практически на глазах ее наблюдателей люди умирали за то, что якобы были террористами. Последние новости России и мира, политика, экономика, бизнес, курсы валют, культура, технологии, спорт, интервью, специальные репортажи, происшествия и многое другое. Официальный YouTube канал ВГТРК. Россия 24 - это единственный российский информационный канал, вещающий 24 часа в сутки. Мировые новости и новости регионов России. Экономическая аналитика и интервью с влиятельнейшими персонами. Смотрите также: Новости в прямом эфире - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaQ73BA1ECZR916u5EI6DnEE Международное обозрение - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaSEmz_g88P4pjTgoDzVwfP7 Специальный репортаж - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaQLdG0uLyM27FhyBi6J0Ikf Интервью - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaReDfS4-5gJqluKn-BGo3Js Реплика - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaQHbPaRzLi35yWWs5EUnvOs Факты - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaR4eBu2aWmjknIzXn2hPX4c Мнение - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaST71OImm-f_kc-4G9pJtSG Агитпроп - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaTDGsEdC72F1lI1twaLfu9c Россия и мир в цифрах - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLHjKKyQ4OaRx4uhDdyX5NhSy5aeTMcc4 Вести в субботу с Брилевым - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MnxjOjSRsQAPpOhH0l_GTegWckbTIB4 Вести недели с Киселевым - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6MnxjOjSRsRzsISAlU-JcbTi7_a5wB_v Специальный корреспондент - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDsFlvSBdSWfD19Ygi5fQADrrc4ICefyG Воскресный вечер с Соловьевым - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwJvP0lZee7zYMGBmzUqNn16P71vHzgkU
Один коллега, ответив на комментарий, сослался нароссийское издание „Новая газета". Пошел по ссылке, начал читать о том, как В.Путин собственноручно контролирует весь российский рынок крепких спиртных напитков... Отложил чтение в сторонку и решил поближе познакомиться с таким осведомленным российским СМИ.Ничего особо интересного не увидел, кроме общеизвестных фактов. Официально газета принадлежит А.Лебедеву на 39%, М.Горбачеву на 10%, а также неизвестной группе акционеров на оставшиеся 51%. Однако во всех известных СМИ именно Лебедев позиционируется, как истинный владелец газеты. Действительно, достаточно прикупить втемную пару процентов акций у неизвестных нам пользователей, чтобы, с очевидного согласия Горбачева, стать полновластным владельцем.Правда, любопытным оказался тот факт, что медийные пристрастия Лебедева сосредоточены в стране извечного ... партнера России - Великобритании. Что, впрочем, не удивительно, т.к. в этой стране еще будучи сотрудником КГБ Лебедев с 1987 по 1991 г. работал в советском посольстве. А сразу после ухода с дипломатической службы мгновенно стал успешным коммерсантом: владелец Национальной резервной корпорации (банк, земельные, медийные, сельскохозяйственные и авиационные активы).Так вот, о медийных пристрастиях Лебедева под покровительством Британской короны. Коммерсант не так давно приобрел две известные английские газеты: „The Independent" и старейшую, издающуюся с 1827 года „Evening Standard". Заглядывался Лебедев и на „The Times", но Мердок отказался с ней расстаться.Многие, наверно, помнят о скандале в 2002 г. между ФСБ и „Новой газетой". ФСБ доказывало участие „Фонда Сороса" в финансировании газеты. Не вникая в детали, приведулишь слова гл. редактора газеты:„А главный редактор "Новой газеты" Дмитрий Муратов, узнав о заявлении ФСБ, пообещал подать на спецслужбу в суд. "Если нам удастся отсудить у ФСБ деньги, мы направим их в Фонд Сороса для развития его проектов",— пообещал он."Что ж, подобные откровения, якобы шутливые, весьма красноречивы.Для полноты картины, попробуем выявить суть публикуемых в „Новой газете" материалов по следующему критерию: наградам. Да, да, именно наградам. Ясно ведь, что совершает человек подвиг или очень достойный поступок во имя, например, Родины,она его и награждает. Или вытащил смельчак ребенка из горящего дома, так его общество во имя проявленного человеколюбия и благодарит. Исключая церемониальный государственный уровень, совершенно очевидно, что награда является средством выражения благодарности за совершенные деяния.Так кто же награждает саму „Новую газету" или ее сотрудников? Об этом нам повествует само издание. Приведем несколько примеров.- 2010 год, гл.редактор награжден „Медалью свобод" Фонда Франклина Рузвельта, а награду вручала сама королева Нидерландов Беатрикс. Излишне, наверно, говорить, что королевские дома Англии и Нидерландов находятся в тесных родственных связях.Основателем Фонда Рузвельта был другой фонд, Foundation to Promote Open Society, председатель которого Джордж Сорос (нет, что-то все-таки было в обвинениях ФСБ против газеты).А сама Foundation to Promote Open Society (Институт «Открытое общество») создавалось целой когортой американских правозащитников, мозговых центров, других фондов, различных политологических институтов и т.д.Тут и Карнеги-центр, и Амнести, Рокфеллеры, Хьюман райтс, Рузвельты...Пожалуй, приведу в конце полный список - впечатляет. Их общая цель - навязать всему миру такое устройство общества, которое было бы выгодно интересам верхушки США.А кого еще награждает „Медалью свобод" голландская королева - так их немало.Горбачев, разрушивший свою и нашу Родину. Или патриарх Варфоломей за разрушение Православия:„12 мая известный борец с Православием во имя толерантности Патриарх Варфоломей I был награжден медалью фонда Франклина Рузвельта «За свободу вероисповедания».Церемония вручения награды состоялась в голландском городе Мидделбург в присутствии королевы Голландии Беатрикс.Медаль была присуждена Варфоломею I за вклад в борьбу за “свободу совести” и развитие межрелигиозного диалога между христианами, иудаистами и магометанами."Вернемся к „Новой газете".- 2009 год. IPI Free Media Pioneer «Лучшая газета Европы». Кто спонсируетнаграждающего? Гугль и другой американский фонд, Ford Foundation. А среди нескольких десятков основателей фонда Форда такие антирусские и античеловеческие институты, как например, Атлантический совет США, Центр по международной политике, центрКарнеги...В 2010 году Елена Милашина была награждена правозащитниками Human Rights Watch. Теми, кто нам навязывает однополые браки и организует митинги сексуальных извращенцев у детских учреждений.Читатель прекрасно понимает, что такие деятели или институции, как Карнеги-центр, Амнести, Рокфеллеры, Хьюман райтс, Рузвельты, фонды Форда, Рузвельта, королевы Английская и Голландская, Атлантический совет США, Центр по международной политике, центр Карнеги и десятки других, помогающих „Новой газете", - искренне желают „добра" всем русским людям и борются за „процветание" России.Их „добро", „пожелания" и „помощь" мы ощущаем на себе вот уже более 20 лет.Партнеры, одним словом.Подводя итог, хотел бы обратить внимание читателя на следующее постоянное объявление, помещаемое в конце страницы электронной версии „Новой газеты":Обратите внимание на фразу: „Читайте в английской версии газеты".Английский читатель газет - это, по-преимуществу, либеральный читатель. Вот ему и подается английский перевод либеральных текстов русскоязычной версии „Новой газеты". Пул газет из „The Independent", „Новой газеты" и „ Evening Standard", являясь собственностью медиамагната Лебедева, действует под английской юрисдикцией и направляетсяидеологией, вырабатываемой „мозговыми центрами" под присмотром Ее Величества королевы английской.С периодическим поощрением от перечисленных выше лиц и организаций американского истеблишмента.*Обещанный список основателей фонда Сороса.Alliance for Climate Protection - funderAmerican Civil Liberties Union - funderAmnesty International - funderAspen Institute - funderBard College - funderBrookings Institution - funderCarnegie Endowment for International Peace - funderCenter for American Progress - funderCenter for International Policy - funderCenter for Investigative Reporting - funderCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities - funderChildren's Defense Fund - funderCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - funderClimateWorks Foundation - funderCommittee for Economic Development - funderCommon Cause - funderDemos - funderDrum Major Institute for Public Policy - funderEconomic Policy Institute - funderFund for the City of New York - funderHarlem Children's Zone - funderHudson Institute - funderHuman Rights First - funderHuman Rights Watch - funderInternational Rescue Committee - funderLeadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights - funderLocal Initiatives Support Corporation - funderMapLight - funderMedia Matters - funderMillennium Promise - funderMs. Foundation for Women - funderNAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund - funderNatural Resources Defense Council - funderNew America Foundation - funderNew Profit Inc. - funderNPR - funderPeople for the American Way - funderPew Charitable Trusts - funderProPublica - funderRefugees International - funderRevenue Watch Institute - funderRobin Hood Foundation - funderRockefeller Family Fund - funderRockefeller Philanthropy Advisors - funderRoosevelt Institute - funderSocial Science Research Council - funderSundance Institute - funderSunlight Foundation - funderTides Foundation - funderUrban Institute - funderИсточник.