thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-06-06--To Understand Iran’s 150-Year Fight, Follow the Trail of Blood and Oil

Undeniably , gangster Anglo-American imperialism alienated Iran from the West , and the latter 's posture toward Tehran has only gotten worse .
Undeniably , gangster Anglo-American imperialism alienated Iran from the West , and the latter 's posture toward Tehran has only gotten worse .
T his past Sunday , April 17th , a dispute between Iran and the U.S. occurred over the U.S. ’ decision to increase its military presence in Caribbean and Eastern Pacific waters , with the purported reason being a counter-narcotics campaign .
Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote to the UN Secretary-General Antonio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real purpose for this move by the U.S. is to “ intervene and create disruption in the transfer of Iran ’ s fuel to Venezuela.
” In the same letter , Zarif expressed concern over “ the United States ’ intention to consider dangerous , unlawful and provocative measures against Iranian oil tankers engaged in perfectly lawful international commerce with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
” The Iranian deployment consists of five tankers carrying around $ 45.5million of gasoline and related products , as part of a wider deal between Iran and Venezuela @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both nations ’ oil exports .
For the first time since 1962 , Iran has requested IMF assistance due to severe shortages created by the COVID-19 pandemic , with Iran requesting an emergency loan of $ 5 billion .
However , the request is currently being blocked by the U.S. , which accounts for slightly more than 16.5 % of IMF ’ s voting shares and has an effective veto over decisions .
Iran is presently experiencing a critical shortage of medicines and equipment amid the pandemic , and yet is prohibited from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banking sanctions .
It is clear that these manoeuvres against Iran are not on behalf of anyone ’ s “ security ” but rather an attempt to force Iran to finally bend the knee and be reduced to a state of complete dependence .
Iran has fought a long fight to claim its independence from western powers .
However , what if I were to tell you that once there was a time when Iran and the U.S. had good relations and that the U.S. was in fact the leading promoter and supporter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of a Shakespearean play of tragedy and betrayal , the relationship was jeopardised by a third player .
As identified by John Perkins , in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man , the first ever U.S. coup against a foreign country was the overthrow of Iran ’ s nationalist Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953 .
However , what is often left out…is that it was a British authored and designed operation .
In order for us to understand how and why the U.S. was dragged into such an affair , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all started in 1872 , with Nasir al-Din Shah ( right ) having granted to the British Baron Julius de Reuter , rights to Iran ’ s entire economic estate .
Reuter not only controlled Iran ’ s industry , farming , and rail transportation , but also held the right to issue currency and to set up a national bank , called the Imperial Bank of Persia , which was under direct British control .
In 1901 , Muzzaffar al-Din Shah negotiated what became known as the D ’ Arcy Contract , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a millionaire London socialite , the special and exclusive privilege to basically own and manage the natural gas and petroleum of Iran for a term of 60 years .
In May 26th 1908 D ’ Arcy struck pay-dirt in Iran , discovering a huge oil field in Masjed-Soleiman .
Britain immediately set up APOC in 1908 , purchasing the rights to the black gold from D ’ Arcy .
Six years later , First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill gave the order to purchase 51 % of APOC , effectively nationalizing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free flow of oil to the British navy .
It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran .
Iran received only 16 % of the royalties on the oil .
Britain continued to pursue total control of Iran , not through colonial occupation , but rather through economic “ agreements ” .
In the midst of carving up the empire ’ s new “ jewels ” of the Middle East from the Sykes-Picot fraud on the Arabian people and the illegal British occupation of Palestine , the notorious Anglo-Persian Agreement of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with London effectively turning Iran into a de facto protectorate run by British “ advisors ” .
Britain had succeeded in becoming the masters of Iran ’ s natural resources through this agreement .
Iran received almost nothing in return , not even oil from APOC for domestic consumption , but rather had to import it from the Soviet Union !
On Nov 28th 1932 Reza Shah announced that he would be cancelling the British concession to APOC .
The British Navy was heavily dependent on cheap Iranian oil and thus Britain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached in 1933 through bilateral negotiations and the British managed to extend their concession up until 1993 !
Iran had succeeded in getting the British to pay a higher price but it still did not control its own oil .
Despite claiming a neutral stance for Iran during WWII , word had gotten out that Reza Shah was apparently sympathetic to the cause of Hitler .
The argument was thus used that a pro-German Iran could become a launching pad for an attack against the Soviet Union , justifying British and Soviet entry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for what would be a several years ’ occupation .
On Sept 16th Reza was forced by the British to abdicate and go into exile transferring power to his 22 year old son , Mohammad Reza Shah .
Mohammad Reza Shah was not happy with the joint occupation and sought an American military presence as a mediator to British and Soviet interests .
The Shah sent a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aug 25th 1941 asking him to : “ be good enough to interest yourself in this incident…I beg Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps to put an end to these acts of aggression.
” In response to this plea , Roosevelt sent Gen. Patrick Hurley as his special representative to Iran to help prepare what was to become the Iran Declaration , finally adopted at the Tehran Conference where Stalin , Roosevelt and Churchill would agree to guarantee the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran .
The Iran Declaration was used to finally end the foreign occupation of Iran after WWII , despite some resistance , and would play a crucial role in Iran ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran Declaration thus proved itself to be more than just words , and this would certainly never have happened if not for FDR .
As part of Hurley ’ s report to FDR , he wrote some biting words on the present system of British imperialism , “ The imperialism of Germany , Japan , Italy , France… will , we hope , end or be radically revised by this war [ WWII ] .
British imperialism seems to have acquired a new life .
.
.
What appears to be a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , into its emaciated form , of the blood of productivity and liberty from a free nation [ Iran ] through Lend-Lease.
” Roosevelt sent a copy of the Hurley report to Churchill with his thoughts on the matter : “ The enclosed memorandum was sent to me… I rather like his general approach to the care and education of what used to be called ‘ backward countries ’ …the point of all this is that I do not want the United States to acquire a ‘ zone of influence , ’ or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Iran ] .
” Churchill was less than enthusiastic on the Hurley-FDR vision .
He was particularly irked by Hurley ’ s notion that British imperialism were in conflict with democracy .
FDR died only a few months later , and with his interment , Hurley ’ s plans for American support for a sovereign and democratic Iran as a model for the rest of the Middle East were relegated to the dust bins of time and forgotten by much of the world .
Following WWII , nationalistic sentiments were on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most notable being Iran .
However , following the death of FDR the British were free to disingenuously respond to Iran ’ s request for better economic conditions by offering what was called the “ Supplemental Agreement ” , in May 1949 .
This entailed a better payment in royalties but still denied Iran any oversight over accounts or any other form of control over Iranian oil .
In the late 1940s , a new political force emerged in Iran called the National Front led by Mohammad Mosaddegh .
Their campaign was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AIOC and the people of Iran were in accord , electing Mosaddegh into the Majlis ( parliament ) in 1949 .
Mosaddegh lost no time , and quickly became the head of the Majlis Oil Committee which was tasked to study the British “ Supplemental Agreement ” .
When it came time to put it to a vote on Nov 25th 1950 , the committee delivered a resounding “ no ” to the British proposition .
Less than four months later , the Majlis voted on March 15th 1951 for nationalization of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Iranian Oil Company ( NIOC ) .
Less than two months later , Mosaddegh became Prime Minister of Iran on April 28th 1951 .
Twice the British tried to argue their case before the international community , once in May 1951 at The Hague and again in October at the UN Security Council .
Both attempts were to lose to Mosaddegh ’ s defense .
Mosaddegh had earned a Ph.D. in law from the Neuchatel Law School in Switzerland in 1914 .
This was anything but a formal victory .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ international community that a country ’ s right to national sovereignty would be favored over Britain ’ s imperial “ claims ” , which were exposed during these two very public trials as amounting to nothing more than the threats and bribes of pirates .
At the UN Security Council , Mosaddegh responded to Britain ’ s imperial ambitions over Iran with these eloquent words : The British were fuming over Mosaddegh ’ s high profile humiliation of the British Empire ’ s claim to Iran ’ s oil .
Mosaddegh would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not look like a British retaliation .
During Averell Harrimann ’ s visit to Tehran in July 1951 , in an attempt to salvage the broken British-Iranian relationship , Mosaddegh is reported to have said , As coup rumours circulated and reports were rife of British contact being sought with Iranian military officers , Mosaddegh severed diplomatic relations with the UK on Oct 16th 1952 .
The British were further humiliated and had to leave the country taking their agents with them .
It was at this point that Churchill “ invited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president Truman , to participate in his vision for regime change in Iran .
In November 1952 , NSC 136 and 136/I were written into record , Truman had agreed to promote direct intervention in Iran through covert operations and even military force .
A detailed plan was approved on Jan 8th 1953 which was 12 days before Eisenhower was inaugurated .
The management of this covert operation was under the treasonous Dulles brothers , who would use the very same technique when JFK first entered office in setting him up with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ JFK managed to publicly expose Allan Dulles in this scheme and fired him .
Dulles had been the Director of the CIA for 8 years up until that point , and was Deputy Director of the CIA for two years prior .
Refer to my paper on this for further details .
A preliminary meeting in Washington saw representatives of the Near East and Africa Division ( NEA ) with British Intelligence .
The key personalities were Christopher Montague Woodhouse who had been station chief for British Intelligence in Tehran and on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Teddy Roosevelt ) acting as NEA Division Chief .
It was the British who would propose a joint political action to remove Prime Minister Mosaddegh according to CIA documents , which were in part leaked by the New York Times on April 16th 2000 .
The final plan was codenamed TPAJAX .
Appendix B , aka “ London Draft of the TPAJAX Operational Plan ” was black propaganda aimed at hammering out these themes 1 ) Mosaddegh favors the Tudeh Party and the USSR 2 ) Mosaddegh is an enemy of Islam since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of such tactics was to drive a wedge between Mosaddegh and his National Front on the one side and his clerical allies , especially Kashani on the other .
Demonstrations against Mosaddegh in the streets were to provide the pretext for bought MPs to hold a vote against him , if he refused to step down the plan was to have Fazlollah Zahedi , leader of the opposition , to arrest him .
Zahedi , as laid out in Appendix B was selected by the British to replace Mosaddegh as Prime Minister after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Taghi Riahi found out about the coup plans and alerted Mosaddegh in time .
When the chief of the Imperial Guards , Col. Nasiri went to Mosaddegh ’ s house the evening before the planned coup day ( Aug 16th ) to arrest him , Nasiri himself was taken as prisoner by the pro- Mosaddegh military .
Zahedi managed to flee .
The coup attempt had failed and the word spread fast , crowds flooded the streets supporting Mosaddegh and denouncing the Shah .
The Shah left the country quickly .
The CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he should leave Iran immediately .
But Kermit believed the coup could still work and would make a second attempt three days later .
British Intelligence and CIA orchestrated demonstrations set to the streets on Aug 19th .
The royal decrees signed by the Shah for the deposal of Mosaddegh to be replaced by Zahedi were made public in the press that very day with the radio news announcing : that Zahedi was Prime Minister , that Mosaddegh had been ousted and that the Shah would return soon .
Military units were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As his house was being destroyed by gunfire and tanks , Mosaddegh managed to escape .
It is said he later turned himself in to the authorities .
After a ten-week period in a military prison , Mosaddegh was tried on charges of treason , because he had allegedly mobilized for a rebellion and had contradicted the Shah .
In fact , the accused treason was a nationalistic response to a foreign led coup .
Mosaddegh was promptly found guilty and sentenced to death , later lessened to three years in prison , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s response to the kangaroo court proceedings was , Members of his government were also arrested , as were the leading military who remained loyal to him .
Six hundred of the 6 , 000 of these men were executed .
Even after Mosaddegh had passed away , on March 5th , 1967 , his enemies were fearful of his influence .
Mosaddegh had requested that upon his death , he be buried in the public graveyard beside the victims of the political violence that occurred on the 21st July 1952 from British-backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Mosaddegh nationalists during a demonstration , resulting in a blood bath .
Not wanting his grave to become the site of political manifestations , a public funeral for Mosaddegh was denied and his body was quietly buried underneath the floorboards of a room in his house .

Undeniably, gangster Anglo-American imperialism alienated Iran from the West, and the latter's posture toward Tehran has only gotten worse.
Undeniably, gangster Anglo-American imperialism alienated Iran from the West, and the latter's posture toward Tehran has only gotten worse. T his past Sunday, April 17th, a dispute between Iran and the U.S. occurred over the U.S.’ decision to increase its military presence in Caribbean and Eastern Pacific waters, with the purported reason being a counter-narcotics campaign.
Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres this past Sunday, that the real purpose for this move by the U.S. is to “intervene and create disruption in the transfer of Iran’s fuel to Venezuela.” In the same letter, Zarif expressed concern over “the United States’ intention to consider dangerous, unlawful and provocative measures against Iranian oil tankers engaged in perfectly lawful international commerce with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”
The Iranian deployment consists of five tankers carrying around $45.5million of gasoline and related products, as part of a wider deal between Iran and Venezuela. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on both nations’ oil exports.
For the first time since 1962, Iran has requested IMF assistance due to severe shortages created by the COVID-19 pandemic, with Iran requesting an emergency loan of $5 billion. However, the request is currently being blocked by the U.S., which accounts for slightly more than 16.5% of IMF’s voting shares and has an effective veto over decisions.
Iran is presently experiencing a critical shortage of medicines and equipment amid the pandemic, and yet is prohibited from purchasing medicines and supplies because of the banking sanctions.
It is clear that these manoeuvres against Iran are not on behalf of anyone’s “security” but rather an attempt to force Iran to finally bend the knee and be reduced to a state of complete dependence.
Iran has fought a long fight to claim its independence from western powers.
However, what if I were to tell you that once there was a time when Iran and the U.S. had good relations and that the U.S. was in fact the leading promoter and supporter of Iran’s sovereignty?
Almost out of a Shakespearean play of tragedy and betrayal, the relationship was jeopardised by a third player. As identified by John Perkins, in his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, the first ever U.S. coup against a foreign country was the overthrow of Iran’s nationalist Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953. However, what is often left out…is that it was a British authored and designed operation.
In order for us to understand how and why the U.S. was dragged into such an affair, our story starts 150 years ago…
Dieu et mon droit
It all started in 1872, with Nasir al-Din Shah (right) having granted to the British Baron Julius de Reuter, rights to Iran’s entire economic estate. Reuter not only controlled Iran’s industry, farming, and rail transportation, but also held the right to issue currency and to set up a national bank, called the Imperial Bank of Persia, which was under direct British control.
In 1901, Muzzaffar al-Din Shah negotiated what became known as the D’Arcy Contract, granting William Knox D’Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, the special and exclusive privilege to basically own and manage the natural gas and petroleum of Iran for a term of 60 years.
In May 26th 1908 D’Arcy struck pay-dirt in Iran, discovering a huge oil field in Masjed-Soleiman. Britain immediately set up APOC in 1908, purchasing the rights to the black gold from D’Arcy. Six years later, First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill gave the order to purchase 51% of APOC, effectively nationalizing the company. This was to ensure the free flow of oil to the British navy. It was the first company to extract petroleum from Iran.
Iran received only 16% of the royalties on the oil.
Britain continued to pursue total control of Iran, not through colonial occupation, but rather through economic “agreements”. In the midst of carving up the empire’s new “jewels” of the Middle East from the Sykes-Picot fraud on the Arabian people and the illegal British occupation of Palestine, the notorious Anglo-Persian Agreement of Aug 19, 1919 was also signed, with London effectively turning Iran into a de facto protectorate run by British “advisors”. Britain had succeeded in becoming the masters of Iran’s natural resources through this agreement.
Iran received almost nothing in return, not even oil from APOC for domestic consumption, but rather had to import it from the Soviet Union!
On Nov 28th 1932 Reza Shah announced that he would be cancelling the British concession to APOC. The British Navy was heavily dependent on cheap Iranian oil and thus Britain refused to acquiesce. A compromise was reached in 1933 through bilateral negotiations and the British managed to extend their concession up until 1993! Iran had succeeded in getting the British to pay a higher price but it still did not control its own oil.
The American Relationship
Despite claiming a neutral stance for Iran during WWII, word had gotten out that Reza Shah was apparently sympathetic to the cause of Hitler. The argument was thus used that a pro-German Iran could become a launching pad for an attack against the Soviet Union, justifying British and Soviet entry into the country on Aug 25th 1941 for what would be a several years’ occupation. On Sept 16th Reza was forced by the British to abdicate and go into exile transferring power to his 22 year old son, Mohammad Reza Shah.
Mohammad Reza Shah was not happy with the joint occupation and sought an American military presence as a mediator to British and Soviet interests. The Shah sent a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aug 25th 1941 asking him to:
“be good enough to interest yourself in this incident…I beg Your Excellency to take efficacious and urgent humanitarian steps to put an end to these acts of aggression.”
In response to this plea, Roosevelt sent Gen. Patrick Hurley as his special representative to Iran to help prepare what was to become the Iran Declaration, finally adopted at the Tehran Conference where Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill would agree to guarantee the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of Iran.
The Iran Declaration was used to finally end the foreign occupation of Iran after WWII, despite some resistance, and would play a crucial role in Iran’s future fight for sovereignty. The Iran Declaration thus proved itself to be more than just words, and this would certainly never have happened if not for FDR.
As part of Hurley’s report to FDR, he wrote some biting words on the present system of British imperialism, “The imperialism of Germany, Japan, Italy, France… will, we hope, end or be radically revised by this war [WWII]. British imperialism seems to have acquired a new life. . . What appears to be a new life… is the result of the infusion, into its emaciated form, of the blood of productivity and liberty from a free nation [Iran] through Lend-Lease.”
Roosevelt sent a copy of the Hurley report to Churchill with his thoughts on the matter: “The enclosed memorandum was sent to me… I rather like his general approach to the care and education of what used to be called ‘backward countries’…the point of all this is that I do not want the United States to acquire a ‘zone of influence,’ or any other nation for that matter [in Iran].”
Churchill was less than enthusiastic on the Hurley-FDR vision. He was particularly irked by Hurley’s notion that British imperialism were in conflict with democracy.
FDR died only a few months later, and with his interment, Hurley’s plans for American support for a sovereign and democratic Iran as a model for the rest of the Middle East were relegated to the dust bins of time and forgotten by much of the world.
Following WWII, nationalistic sentiments were on the rise including in the Middle East, the most notable being Iran. However, following the death of FDR the British were free to disingenuously respond to Iran’s request for better economic conditions by offering what was called the “Supplemental Agreement”, in May 1949. This entailed a better payment in royalties but still denied Iran any oversight over accounts or any other form of control over Iranian oil.
Enter Mosaddegh
In the late 1940s, a new political force emerged in Iran called the National Front led by Mohammad Mosaddegh. Their campaign was centered on the demand to nationalize the AIOC and the people of Iran were in accord, electing Mosaddegh into the Majlis (parliament) in 1949.
Mosaddegh lost no time, and quickly became the head of the Majlis Oil Committee which was tasked to study the British “Supplemental Agreement”. When it came time to put it to a vote on Nov 25th 1950, the committee delivered a resounding “no” to the British proposition.
Less than four months later, the Majlis voted on March 15th 1951 for nationalization of the AIOC, and it was renamed as the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Less than two months later, Mosaddegh became Prime Minister of Iran on April 28th 1951.
The British were left empty handed.
Twice the British tried to argue their case before the international community, once in May 1951 at The Hague and again in October at the UN Security Council. Both attempts were to lose to Mosaddegh’s defense. Mosaddegh had earned a Ph.D. in law from the Neuchatel Law School in Switzerland in 1914.
This was anything but a formal victory. It was to set a precedent in the international community that a country’s right to national sovereignty would be favored over Britain’s imperial “claims”, which were exposed during these two very public trials as amounting to nothing more than the threats and bribes of pirates.
At the UN Security Council, Mosaddegh responded to Britain’s imperial ambitions over Iran with these eloquent words:
“My countrymen lack the bare necessities of existence…Our greatest natural asset is oil. This should be the source of work and food for the population of Iran. Its exploitation should properly be our national industry, and the revenue from it should go to improve our conditions of life. As now organized, however, the petroleum industry has contributed practically nothing to the well-being of the people or to the technical progress or industrial development of my country…if we are to tolerate a situation in which the Iranian plays the part of a mere manual worker in the oil fields…and if foreign exploiters continue to appropriate practically all of the income, then our people will remain forever in a state of poverty and misery. These are the reasons that have prompted the Iranian parliament… to vote unanimously in favor of nationalizing the oil industry.”
A British coup
The British were fuming over Mosaddegh’s high profile humiliation of the British Empire’s claim to Iran’s oil. Mosaddegh would have to be deposed, however, this could not look like a British retaliation.
During Averell Harrimann’s visit to Tehran in July 1951, in an attempt to salvage the broken British-Iranian relationship, Mosaddegh is reported to have said,
“You do not know how crafty they are. You do not know how evil they are. You do not know how they sully everything they touch.”
As coup rumours circulated and reports were rife of British contact being sought with Iranian military officers, Mosaddegh severed diplomatic relations with the UK on Oct 16th 1952. The British were further humiliated and had to leave the country taking their agents with them.
It was at this point that Churchill “invited” his lap dog, de facto president Truman, to participate in his vision for regime change in Iran. In November 1952, NSC 136 and 136/I were written into record, Truman had agreed to promote direct intervention in Iran through covert operations and even military force. A detailed plan was approved on Jan 8th 1953 which was 12 days before Eisenhower was inaugurated.
The management of this covert operation was under the treasonous Dulles brothers, who would use the very same technique when JFK first entered office in setting him up with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, however, JFK managed to publicly expose Allan Dulles in this scheme and fired him. Dulles had been the Director of the CIA for 8 years up until that point, and was Deputy Director of the CIA for two years prior. Refer to my paper on this for further details.
A preliminary meeting in Washington saw representatives of the Near East and Africa Division (NEA) with British Intelligence. The key personalities were Christopher Montague Woodhouse who had been station chief for British Intelligence in Tehran and on the American side Kermit Roosevelt (son of Teddy Roosevelt) acting as NEA Division Chief. It was the British who would propose a joint political action to remove Prime Minister Mosaddegh according to CIA documents, which were in part leaked by the New York Times on April 16th 2000. The final plan was codenamed TPAJAX.
Appendix B, aka “London Draft of the TPAJAX Operational Plan” was black propaganda aimed at hammering out these themes 1) Mosaddegh favors the Tudeh Party and the USSR 2) Mosaddegh is an enemy of Islam since he associates with Tudeh.
The aim of such tactics was to drive a wedge between Mosaddegh and his National Front on the one side and his clerical allies, especially Kashani on the other. Demonstrations against Mosaddegh in the streets were to provide the pretext for bought MPs to hold a vote against him, if he refused to step down the plan was to have Fazlollah Zahedi, leader of the opposition, to arrest him. Zahedi, as laid out in Appendix B was selected by the British to replace Mosaddegh as Prime Minister after the coup.
Chief of Staff Gen. Taghi Riahi found out about the coup plans and alerted Mosaddegh in time. When the chief of the Imperial Guards, Col. Nasiri went to Mosaddegh’s house the evening before the planned coup day (Aug 16th) to arrest him, Nasiri himself was taken as prisoner by the pro- Mosaddegh military. Zahedi managed to flee.
The coup attempt had failed and the word spread fast, crowds flooded the streets supporting Mosaddegh and denouncing the Shah. The Shah left the country quickly.
The CIA informed of the fiasco alerted Kermit Roosevelt that he should leave Iran immediately. But Kermit believed the coup could still work and would make a second attempt three days later. British Intelligence and CIA orchestrated demonstrations set to the streets on Aug 19th. The royal decrees signed by the Shah for the deposal of Mosaddegh to be replaced by Zahedi were made public in the press that very day with the radio news announcing: that Zahedi was Prime Minister, that Mosaddegh had been ousted and that the Shah would return soon.
Military units were dispatched to Mosaddegh’s home. As his house was being destroyed by gunfire and tanks, Mosaddegh managed to escape. It is said he later turned himself in to the authorities.
After a ten-week period in a military prison, Mosaddegh was tried on charges of treason, because he had allegedly mobilized for a rebellion and had contradicted the Shah. In fact, the accused treason was a nationalistic response to a foreign led coup.
Mosaddegh was promptly found guilty and sentenced to death, later lessened to three years in prison, followed by house arrest.
Mosaddegh’s response to the kangaroo court proceedings was,
“My only crime is that I nationalized the oil industry and removed from this land the network of colonialism and the political and economic influence of the greatest empire [the British Empire] on Earth.”
Members of his government were also arrested, as were the leading military who remained loyal to him. Six hundred of the 6, 000 of these men were executed.
Even after Mosaddegh had passed away, on March 5th, 1967, his enemies were fearful of his influence. Mosaddegh had requested that upon his death, he be buried in the public graveyard beside the victims of the political violence that occurred on the 21st July 1952 from British-backed Ahmad Qavam who ordered soldiers to shoot at Mosaddegh nationalists during a demonstration, resulting in a blood bath. Not wanting his grave to become the site of political manifestations, a public funeral for Mosaddegh was denied and his body was quietly buried underneath the floorboards of a room in his house.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-06-07--Little Was Changed By The First Round of The Civil Wars Of 2020

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible .
Share with kin , friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise .
DISPATCHES FROM MOON OF ALABAMA , BY `` B '' This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches from Moon of Alabama he first round of the civil wars of 2020 seems to be over .
It did not change much .
Unjustifiable police violence against one man was documented on video .
This enabled the issue to spread .
Protest , first local then nationwide and even internationally , followed .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ unjustifiable police violence .
This was again documented on video - one collection of these now has 282 entries - and spread further .
The police did not exclude the media from its attacks as it usually does .
It even seemed to especially target these .
That again amplified the echo of its violence .
Thus the police and its supporters have lost the argument .
In parallel to the protests some looting happened .
President Trump and many other 'law and order ' people saw the violence against property as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against people - especially against people of color .
Trump reacted by calling up the military and a myriad of federal police forces to 'dominate the battlespace ' of Washington DC and other cities .
They cleared a peace- and lawful demonstration from Lafayette Square near the White House for a photo-op .
The move was illegal but will likely have no legal consequences .
Five well known retired 4-star generals , Dempsey , Kelly , Mullen , Mattis , Allen , protested against the proposed abuse of the military .
The active @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4-star African-American , published a moving video with his thoughts on the issue .
On this the military is not on Trump 's side .
Thus Trump and his supporters have lost the argument .
That the police and Trump lost their arguments unfortunately does not mean that anything within the U.S. will change .
The military will not correct the issues the situation exposed .
Political corruption at the federal as well as the local level is bipartisan and too engrained : Opposition candidate Joe Biden responded to the issue of institutionalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden says '10-15 % ' of Americans 'are just not very good people ' .
Well of course not .
Some 13 % of U.S. citizens are black .
Given Biden 's racist history - supporting segregation , writing the crime bill , lying about marching with the civil rights movement etc .
- it is highly unlikely that he chose that range by chance .
There is zero evidence that he would change a thing .
The protests will soon die down .
But the divide within the U.S. public will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves the 'Trump Army ' and wear the camouflage 'Keep America Great ' hat to fight the 'Liberal MOB ' .
Liberals will respond with pro-black gestures but without follow up actions .
Writing 'black lives matter ' on a DC street or changing the name of a place does nothing for blacks when the police can continue as before .
Racist attacks in the U.S. will only increase .
What has changed is the public image of the U.S. throughout the world .
Years of careful branding and propaganda have been put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now express concerns about police violence in a foreign country without being laughed at .
The U.S. has been put on crisis watch and in my estimate will stay there for quite a while .
The current economic situation makes it certain that the civil war continues .
The next round is likely to be more violent .
The empire is sinking in front of our eyes .
Posted by b at 18:17 UTC | Comments ( 173 ) '' b '' is Moon of Alabama 's founding ( and chief ) editor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discuss politics , economics , philosophy and blogger Billmon 's Whiskey Bar writings .
Moon Of Alabama was opened as an independent , open forum for members of the Whiskey Bar community .
Bernhard ) '' b '' ) started and still runs the site .
Once in a while you will also find posts and art from regular commentators .
You can reach the current administrator of this site by emailing Bernhard at MoonofA @ aol.com .
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
DISPATCHES FROM MOON OF ALABAMA, BY "B"
This article is part of an ongoing series of dispatches from Moon of Alabama
T
he first round of the civil wars of 2020 seems to be over. It did not change much.
Unjustifiable police violence against one man was documented on video. This enabled the issue to spread. Protest, first local then nationwide and even internationally, followed. The police reacted to it with more unjustifiable police violence. This was again documented on video - one collection of these now has 282 entries - and spread further.
To simplify following the criminal justice news of the last 36 hours, I posted a set of 10 links to police brutality videos on Facebook Can't do that here, obvs So I'm putting them into a thread — T. Greg "Bouquet of F*ckery" Doucette (@greg_doucette) May 30, 2020
The police did not exclude the media from its attacks as it usually does. It even seemed to especially target these. That again amplified the echo of its violence.
Thus the police and its supporters have lost the argument.
In parallel to the protests some looting happened. President Trump and many other 'law and order' people saw the violence against property as a more important issue than the police violence against people - especially against people of color.
Trump reacted by calling up the military and a myriad of federal police forces to 'dominate the battlespace' of Washington DC and other cities.
They cleared a peace- and lawful demonstration from Lafayette Square near the White House for a photo-op. The move was illegal but will likely have no legal consequences.
Five well known retired 4-star generals, Dempsey, Kelly, Mullen, Mattis, Allen, protested against the proposed abuse of the military. The active commander of pacific air forces, a 4-star African-American, published a moving video with his thoughts on the issue. On this the military is not on Trump's side.
"As the Commander of Pacific Air Forces, a senior leader in our Air Force, and an African-American, many of you may be wondering what I’m thinking about the current events surrounding the tragic death of George Floyd. Here’s what I’m thinking about..." - Gen. CQ Brown, Jr. pic.twitter.com/I2sf1067L6 — PACAF (@PACAF) June 5, 2020
Thus Trump and his supporters have lost the argument.
That the police and Trump lost their arguments unfortunately does not mean that anything within the U.S. will change.
The military will not correct the issues the situation exposed. Political corruption at the federal as well as the local level is bipartisan and too engrained:
Cuomo, his party and New York’s legislative leaders have raked in more than $1 million from police unions as they have refused to enact a bill proponents say would deter police violence.
Opposition candidate Joe Biden responded to the issue of institutionalized racism with a dog whistle comment: Joe Biden says '10-15%' of Americans 'are just not very good people'. Well of course not. Some 13% of U.S. citizens are black. Given Biden's racist history - supporting segregation, writing the crime bill, lying about marching with the civil rights movement etc. - it is highly unlikely that he chose that range by chance. There is zero evidence that he would change a thing.
The protests will soon die down. But the divide within the U.S. public will only deepen. Trump voters will call themselves the 'Trump Army' and wear the camouflage 'Keep America Great' hat to fight the 'Liberal MOB'. Liberals will respond with pro-black gestures but without follow up actions. Writing 'black lives matter' on a DC street or changing the name of a place does nothing for blacks when the police can continue as before. Racist attacks in the U.S. will only increase.
What has changed is the public image of the U.S. throughout the world. Years of careful branding and propaganda have been put to waste. No U.S. ambassador can now express concerns about police violence in a foreign country without being laughed at. The U.S. has been put on crisis watch and in my estimate will stay there for quite a while.
The current economic situation makes it certain that the civil war continues. The next round is likely to be more violent. The empire is sinking in front of our eyes.
Police are now brutalizing everyone just to maintain their ability to brutalize black people. — Akilah Green (@akilahgreen) June 5, 2020
This dude trolling the police with Star Wars - Imperial March is exactly the Twitter content I am here for today...pic.twitter.com/zh5R7zm70c — Rex Chapman???????? (@RexChapman) June 5, 2020
Posted by b at 18:17 UTC | Comments (173)
NOTE ^1000Careerist lackeys serving the elites control the American press. Ever pushing for war and inequality, covering up the oligarchy's crimes... They are in reality shameless disinformers. No wonder the world is in such terrible disarray.
[post-views]
About the author(s) "b" is Moon of Alabama's founding (and chief) editor. This site's purpose is to discuss politics, economics, philosophy and blogger Billmon's Whiskey Bar writings. Moon Of Alabama was opened as an independent, open forum for members of the Whiskey Bar community. Bernhard )"b") started and still runs the site. Once in a while you will also find posts and art from regular commentators. You can reach the current administrator of this site by emailing Bernhard at MoonofA@aol.com.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
Comment here or on our Facebook Group page.


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-06-07--Opinion | Agents of Chaos: how the U.S. seeded a colour revolution in Hong Kong

f twenty years ago someone had predicted a colour revolution in Hong Kong , most political analysts would have laughed .
Not because colour revolutions are laughable — their tragic consequences can hardly be laughed off — but because they tend to occur in target states with weak governance at the periphery of transnational networks .
Hong Kong , on the other hand , is one of the top 3 global financial hubs , following New York and London , and right at the centre of those networks .
Though Hong Kong , a special administrative region of China , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a weak target ripe for regime change , the National Endowment for Democracy ( NED ) [ 1 ] and other notorious sponsors of colour revolutions had already set their eyes on the territory even before 1997 , when its sovereignty returned to China .
As China ’ s economic growth rates made the headlines in the 1990s , “ China ’ s threat ” arguments started to appear in the US mainstream media and foreign affairs analysts began to cast China as the “ new red peril ” , a potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
[ 2 ] Although two decades ago the trade war hadn ’ t broken out yet , anyone looking at the bigger , geopolitical picture could see black clouds gathering .
In this article , I will try to explain why the territory , situated at the periphery of China , like Tibet and Xinjiang , was actually a softer target than either of them for those striving to destabilize China .
I will also outline some of the strategies used by agents of regime change to prepare the ground for both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that rocked Hong Kong .
On the surface , post-reunification Hong Kong was running extremely well , but if one scratched the glossy surface typically associated with an international business and financial centre , one could immediately see that this efficiency masked much deeper problems .
Hong Kong certainly had good administrators , but not many who could truly govern a city that was still politically immature due to its colonial legacy , and dominated by vested interests and cartels .
The One Country Two Systems experimental model was still being fine-tuned and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decolonization of Hong Kong ’ s institutions and , most crucially , its people ’ s minds .
By all appearances , the process of creating a sense of identification with , and loyalty to , China was still in its infancy .
In contrast , transnational actors , most notably churches , NGOs , and advocacy networks regarded by the US as “ vectors of influence ” and “ catalysts of democratization ” were well-entrenched in the Hong Kong civil society .
Working in concert with US-sponsored local media and pro-democracy parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government to constant criticism , exploiting domestic grievances in order to deepen rifts in society and achieve the sort of partisan and ideological polarization that would make Hong Kong ungovernable .
If the local government had acknowledged and defined the risks , it would have been able to recognize a pattern in a seemingly random set of events .
All it had to do was gather intelligence and match the information received with what was already known about colour revolutions and their genesis .
Regrettably , the Hong Kong government was too busy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. is no mystery ) and that imaginary entity known as the ‘ international community ’ , that China was not undermining Hong Kong ’ s autonomy , to actually notice the big elephant in the room .
Hong Kong lawmakers failed to acknowledge that the political feasibility of One Country Two Systems ultimately rests on the stability of One Country , without which any talk of Two Systems becomes preposterous .
System stability is never a given , equilibrium must be maintained through a balance of forces .
So , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shaking the foundations of this constitutional arrangement and hindering the process of Hong Kong ’ s re-absorption into China ’ s sphere of governance , the defense of China ’ s sovereignty should have taken precedence over other considerations .
The ‘ do less , get less wrong ’ mentality often displayed by civil servants and lawmakers made them ill-prepared to resolve serious crises and tackle social problems .
Most notably , their hands-off approach created a dangerous vacuum that could easily be filled by subversive elements and groups with proven ties to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colour revolutions would have recognized the pattern that was already emerging in campaigns aimed at discrediting both the central and Hong Kong government .
The process of ideological subversion is always underpinned by a slow penetration into the institutions of a target country , fractious opposition parties magically form a united front , a small army of local volunteers and foreign agents co-operate to promote what is touted as ‘ civic action ’ , a network of foundations and NGOs mushrooms to receive millions of dollars , new media outlets appear .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long before anti-government movements organize mass demonstrations and engage in violent confrontations with the police .
These seeds can be dispersed in a number of different ways but can only grow if they fall on congenial soil , otherwise they will stay dormant until conditions in their microenvironment become favorable .
As a former academic studying the semiotics of culture , I would argue that the cultural field is not only perfectly suited for the germination of these seeds , but it ’ s directly involved in their multiplication and distribution .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should acknowledge culture and theory as crucial weapons in the overall arsenal deployed to perpetuate US interests around the world and conceive a cultural defense system capable of identifying danger and neutralizing it .
Letting a foreign power occupy the field of cultural production , dominate public discourse , and frame the narrative is tantamount to giving a burglar in your home a guest pass .
And that is exactly what the Hong Kong government did for over twenty years .
We also need to understand that no matter how abstract they might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to sow them and tend the field .
The Swarm Model , employed in artificial intelligence and hybrid warfare , provides a good example .
Swarming is a seemingly amorphous and yet coordinated type of behavior , where a cluster of agents interact with one another and with their environment .
The agents follow very simple rules , and although there is no centralized control structure dictating how individual agents should behave , local , and relatively random , interactions between such agents lead to the emergence of ‘ intelligent ’ , collective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be aware of the role they play as it becomes totally natural to them .
Examples of swarm intelligence exist in natural systems such as ant colonies , bird flocking , fish schooling , bacterial and microbial growth , etc .
China ’ s adversaries operated undisturbed in our city , built strongholds in academic circles , rose to positions of power and influence in the culture industry as even a cursory look at a course syllabus , film festival program or literary magazine would show .
Since Hong Kong didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s struggles for liberation from colonialist rule that led to the rejection of colonial identity in other countries , it soon became clear that building a Chinese national identity in post-handover Hong Kong would require sustained and concerted efforts .
Regrettably very little was done in this respect : when British rule ended in 1997 it left behind a toxic legacy of colonial institutions , British-trained civil servants and a damaged collective psyche precariously held together by a false sense of superiority towards mainland China .
The kind of cultural capital that promised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class-conscious Hong Kong , was largely made of material and symbolic goods coming from the West .
Hong Kong was , and still is , teeming with educators , academics and cultural workers who are either foreigners , foreign-educated or share a neocolonial mindset anyway .
They are the swarm pods peddling post-modernist perspectives on the theme of identity , perspectives that dismiss any articulation of Chinese identity as “ essentialist ” , ridicule the idea of national identity as obsolete in the age of the “ global cultural supermarket ” where supposedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identities at the drop of a hat .
In 2000 Gordon Mathews , an American anthropologist teaching at the Chinese University of Hong Kong , published a book titled ‘ Global Culture/Individual Identity ’ that soon became a canonical text in the debate about post-colonial identity in Hong Kong .
Virtually every paper subsequently published about this topic drew upon his research and its underlying argument that our roots are simply one more consumer choice .
The handover of Hong Kong had taken place at a time when U.S. dominance was not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military might , but also predicated upon a cultural hegemony that needed to be constantly upheld and updated through the media and education in order to shape public opinion .
Postmodernism proved to be an exceptionally versatile and well-suited tool to maintain that hegemony .
Postmodernist ideas , for all their radical and anti-authoritarian claims , are in fact perfectly acceptable to an imperial power which understands that its rule is safest when it can fragment the identity of its opposition and most vulnerable when it has to face a united front .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in 1980s the CIA took a keen interest in French postmodernism and deemed it the best defense against Marxism .
After all , a narrative that questions the distinction between facts and opinions , truth and fiction and regards reason with skepticism perfectly suits the interests of a country that successfully peddles fiction to the farthest reaches of the world thanks to its education , media and entertainment industries .
The absurd and yet convincing portrayal of the U.S. as a bastion of freedom , democracy and human rights is testament to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the same intellectuals who had dissected the concept of national identity and rejected it as toxic refused to subject the holy trinity of ‘ freedom , democracy , and human rights ’ to any kind of rational scrutiny .
The old skeptics and relativists soon became dogmatic defenders of ethical absolutes that by transcending any cultural , historical , and political specificity has effectively become the foundation principles of a new theology .
They conveniently forget that philosophers have been debating the concept of freedom for centuries and that , even within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ varies considerably .
They also disregard the fact that no agreed definition of democracy exists in international law and pay no attention to local rights cultures which preceded the international human rights movement by centuries .
Most worryingly , these concepts serve as empty containers , which can be filled with any content deemed useful to disguise U.S. imperialism .
The US began laying the brickwork for a colour revolution in Hong Kong even before the 1997 handover : NED funding for Hong Kong-based groups dates back to 1994 and was described as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was vice president of programs for Asia , the Middle East and North Africa until 2017 .
Its first strategic objective was to prevent the enactment of a national security law ( Article 23 ) in Hong Kong , as this would effectively make the activities of NED and other foreign-funded organizations illegal .
When in 2003 the Secretary for Security Regina Ip announced a Bill to implement Article 23 [ 3 ] , as if on cue , half a million people marched against the government proposal , Mrs. Ip became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that forced her to resign from office and the Bill was eventually withdrawn .
So , why did so many people take to the streets to oppose Article 23 , even if it had no impact on their lives , didn ’ t infringe on their freedom of expression and assembly ?
Why did the legal sector , including the Bar Association and Law professors , so vehemently denounced a law that is standard in many jurisdictions , including the most liberal and democratic societies ?
Besides , not even a fraction of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ active , for instance , they wouldn ’ t march to defend workers ’ rights , demand a minimum wage or the right to breathe cleaner air , as evidenced by the small scale of previous demonstrations .
How could the Civil Human Rights Front , a coalition of NGOs , Christian churches , Trotskyites , small labour unions and opposition parties mobilize hundreds of thousands of people against Article 23 ?
What was the glue that held these disparate groups together ?
An irrational fear of China and distrust of its government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as they largely frame the mainstream media narrative about China , but the anti-China sentiment that was cultivated in colonial times could only remain dominant in political , judicial and cultural circles after 1997 thanks to the laissez-faire approach of local authorities and the relentless efforts of foreign agents and fifth columnists .
Their task was to scupper the One Country Two Systems governance model and contrast any rise of patriotic feelings towards China .
If the One Country Two Systems model failed in Hong Kong , the U.S. would also achieve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Taiwan wouldn ’ t be tempted to adopt it in the future .
As to the multiple implications of such failure for the rest of China , they fall outside of the scope of this article .
In 1999 a chance encounter with a British acquaintance I hadn ’ t seen for many years put me in the unenviable position of observing the methods and tactics of a NED “ agent of change ” at a time when very little was known about US-sponsored colour revolutions .
As we lived very close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests , I had the opportunity to observe the way she and other agents operated to carry out the legal elements of illegal regime-change operations .
After obtaining degrees in both Chinese language and Politics from SOAS University of London she had been offered a paid internship in New York with an NGO called Human Rights in China , mainly funded by NED and Soros ’ Open Society Institute .
After being appointed Research Director , in 1997 she was sent to Hong Kong by the same NGO .
She was usually evasive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ herself as a Ph.D. student at Columbia University pursuing her academic research in the field of Human Rights Law .
As a researcher , she gained access to Hong Kong universities and soon started to liaise with the Centre of Comparative and Public Law and the newly created Master Program in Human Rights Law at HKU .
She co-authored several papers with the most vocal critics of the Chinese Central Government , inevitably designated as an “ authoritarian and oppressive regime ” in studies that focused on Tibet , Xinjiang and migrant workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. universities and HKU junior researchers and professors , who were often rewarded with invitations to conferences , publications , summer programs , grants , etc .
American Ph.D. students researching human rights became conspicuous in the department and after a few years rose to influential positions .
One could say that my acquaintance was actively recruiting and grooming academics to create a critical mass of China-haters within the Department of Law .
Another important step was forging ties with community leaders , activists , journalists , and NGOs through the Street Law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Public Law .
Unsurprisingly among the financial sponsors of these workshops , the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong features prominently .
[ 4 ] Because violent political confrontation and anti-government activities often result in legal proceedings , the colour revolution sponsors had to make sure that there would be enough pro-bono lawyers to defend activists , enough legal scholars to challenge the government ’ s enactment of the most debated article in the Basic Law and to advance Western liberal values .
In this light we can read the legal advice and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as LGBT rights organizations .
Advocating for same-sex marriage is a good example of how these human rights defenders put the local government in a double bind : if it didn ’ t meet their demands for same-sex marriage it would be cast as intolerant , oppressive and backward , if it did , the majority of citizens who held conservative views on this subject would feel alienated .
To prepare a colour revolution , a network of interlocking foundations and charities is usually set up to put thousands of people through training @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by legal and media specialists .
And that was the case in Hong Kong too .
One tireless ‘ agent of change ’ closely associated with my British acquaintance is the director of the LLM in Human Rights Programme at Hong Kong University , a U.S. citizen .
She sat on the boards of several organizations including the Hong Kong Refugee Advice Centre ( as past Chairperson ) , Justice Centre Hong Kong , and Amnesty International ( Hong Kong ) and advises the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor on a range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding the city hostage she declared “ The rule of law does not demand unquestioning obedience to existing regulations ; in fact , defending the rule of law may sometimes require breaking rules ” [ 5 ] .
One can only wonder if she would encourage her compatriots to break rules at home .
My British acquaintance and her American pal were also closely associated with one of the board members of the Centre of Comparative and Public Law at HKU , professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting , who served as Associate Dean of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2008 .
In 2014 he was one of the initiators of the illegal Occupy Central movement , aka Umbrella Movement , and was later convicted and jailed for incitement .
The prominent role played by legal experts in undermining the government authority , disseminating anti-China propaganda , organizing protests and coaching activists is reflected in the US $ 460,000 grant they received from NED .
The 2012 NED annual report states that the money was to “ foster awareness regarding Hong Kong ’ s political institutions and constitutional reform process and to develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ students — to more effectively participate in the public debate on political reform.
” Twenty years ago my acquaintance was not only active in the subversive cluster that was growing in size at the HKU Department of Law , but was also using her connection with the department as a credential to approach political groups and civil society organizations .
Using the usual code word “ human rights ” she moved with ease from Christian groups such as the Hong Kong Women Christian Council to a Trotskyite ragtag collective called April Fifth Action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Leung Kwok-hung .
This group was generally dismissed as a bunch of politically marginal , ridiculous characters better-known for posturing and shouting nonsense into their loudspeakers than their ability to get their point across in a coherent manner .
In private she too joked about their intellectual limitations , but she was coaching them with the zeal of a missionary .
In any case her coaching achieved some results , as Leung Kwok-hung , in his trademark Che Guevara t-shirt , was elected to the Legislative Council in 2004 .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the various Christian ones she had ‘ befriended ’ were among the founders of the Civil Human Rights Front , the coalition of NGOs , civic and religious groups , pro-democracy parties that in 2003 mobilized half a million people against Article 23 of the Basic Law .
Such a large-scale demonstration , unusual for Hong Kong , was a swarm response to a threat that had been carefully manufactured and amplified by the anti-China forces that formed this front .
By now we know that the National Endowment for Democracy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the National Democratic Institute ( NDI ) between 1995 and 2013 , injected more than $ 1.9 million into the coffers of this coalition .
[ 6 ] The role of Trotskyites in enabling the West to create contact with members of the opposition in Soviet Bloc countries in the 1980s is well-known and has been researched by historians .
It seems that they still have some use for Washington , like Christian groups .
As to my acquaintance ’ s tireless activism , it was financially well rewarded — she and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the most expensive cities in the world and jet between Hong Kong , New York , and London .
When her mission was accomplished she was granted a scholarship at an Ivy League university that led to a predictable academic career : teaching and writing about human rights and social movements in China .
By the time of her departure , a network of interlocking foundations and charities , think tanks , education , art and culture groups had already started to proliferate and could not only provide the logistics for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also sponsor work visas for foreign nationals and establish channels to recruit local members .
The ultimate irony is that many of these organizations and groups even applied for and received public grants to finance their ‘ soft power ’ operations .
They put thousands of people through training courses conducted by legal , education , and media specialists .
Their media-savvy , public relations campaigns achieved a great degree of success even before social media entered the fray .
What is to be done ?
In other words for these people the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reversible .
It will take another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotic citizens who would be acting in the interests of China .
I would argue that China needs a hands-on rather than a hands-off approach in Hong Kong in order to ignite the imagination of Hong Kong ’ s new generations and mobilize anti-colonial and anti-imperialist forces .
Local cadres must be trained to exploit the contradictions of the pro-democracy camp whose empty rhetoric about social justice is backed by an imperialist super-power that is ruled by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t shy away from the ideological battle that is being fought in Hong Kong : as a more equitable society than the U.S. , the Chinese model can provide an attractive alternative to the hypocrisy of the neo-colonialist front , an alternative that draws not only on national pride and tradition but also on the revolutionary history of the Chinese Communist Party .
Even during the Long March , while faced with many hardships , Mao Tse-Tung attached great importance to art and literature , fully aware of the role played by culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearts and minds of the younger generations requires mobilization of soft power not only in the education and media fields but also in so-called ‘ fringe cultures ’ where opposition to mainstream cultural norms and values is elaborated .
A NOTE ON THE AUTHOR ( IN HER OWN WORDS ) Notes [ 1 ] NED was envisaged by US foreign policy elites to be a more suitable way to provide strategic funding to nongovernmental organizations and opposition parties than via covert CIA funding .
[ 2 ] Yi Edward Yang & Xinsheng Liu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lens of US Print Media : 1992–2006 , Journal of Contemporary China .
[ 3 ] Article 23 is an article in the Basic Law of Hong Kong .
It states that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region “ shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason , secession , sedition , subversion against the Central People ’ s Government , or theft of state secrets , to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region , and to prohibit political organizations or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with foreign political organizations or bodies .
”

I
f twenty years ago someone had predicted a colour revolution in Hong Kong, most political analysts would have laughed. Not because colour revolutions are laughable — their tragic consequences can hardly be laughed off — but because they tend to occur in target states with weak governance at the periphery of transnational networks. Hong Kong, on the other hand, is one of the top 3 global financial hubs, following New York and London, and right at the centre of those networks. Though Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China, didn’t apparently fit the profile of a weak target ripe for regime change, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)[1] and other notorious sponsors of colour revolutions had already set their eyes on the territory even before 1997, when its sovereignty returned to China. As China’s economic growth rates made the headlines in the 1990s, “China’s threat” arguments started to appear in the US mainstream media and foreign affairs analysts began to cast China as the “new red peril”, a potential challenge to the U.S.’ global supremacy.[2]
Although two decades ago the trade war hadn’t broken out yet, anyone looking at the bigger, geopolitical picture could see black clouds gathering.
In this article, I will try to explain why the territory, situated at the periphery of China, like Tibet and Xinjiang, was actually a softer target than either of them for those striving to destabilize China. I will also outline some of the strategies used by agents of regime change to prepare the ground for both the 2014 Umbrella Movement and 2019 riots that rocked Hong Kong.
On the surface, post-reunification Hong Kong was running extremely well, but if one scratched the glossy surface typically associated with an international business and financial centre, one could immediately see that this efficiency masked much deeper problems. Hong Kong certainly had good administrators, but not many who could truly govern a city that was still politically immature due to its colonial legacy, and dominated by vested interests and cartels. The One Country Two Systems experimental model was still being fine-tuned and little progress had been made towards the decolonization of Hong Kong’s institutions and, most crucially, its people’s minds. By all appearances, the process of creating a sense of identification with, and loyalty to, China was still in its infancy. In contrast, transnational actors, most notably churches, NGOs, and advocacy networks regarded by the US as “vectors of influence” and “catalysts of democratization” were well-entrenched in the Hong Kong civil society. Working in concert with US-sponsored local media and pro-democracy parties they subjected both China and the local government to constant criticism, exploiting domestic grievances in order to deepen rifts in society and achieve the sort of partisan and ideological polarization that would make Hong Kong ungovernable.
If the local government had acknowledged and defined the risks, it would have been able to recognize a pattern in a seemingly random set of events. All it had to do was gather intelligence and match the information received with what was already known about colour revolutions and their genesis.
Regrettably, the Hong Kong government was too busy reassuring opposition parties (whose allegiance to the U.S. is no mystery) and that imaginary entity known as the ‘international community’, that China was not undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy, to actually notice the big elephant in the room.
Hong Kong lawmakers failed to acknowledge that the political feasibility of One Country Two Systems ultimately rests on the stability of One Country, without which any talk of Two Systems becomes preposterous. System stability is never a given, equilibrium must be maintained through a balance of forces. So, when foreign players started coordinating campaigns aimed at shaking the foundations of this constitutional arrangement and hindering the process of Hong Kong’s re-absorption into China’s sphere of governance, the defense of China’s sovereignty should have taken precedence over other considerations. The ‘do less, get less wrong’ mentality often displayed by civil servants and lawmakers made them ill-prepared to resolve serious crises and tackle social problems. Most notably, their hands-off approach created a dangerous vacuum that could easily be filled by subversive elements and groups with proven ties to the U.S. government.
Anyone familiar with colour revolutions would have recognized the pattern that was already emerging in campaigns aimed at discrediting both the central and Hong Kong government. The process of ideological subversion is always underpinned by a slow penetration into the institutions of a target country, fractious opposition parties magically form a united front, a small army of local volunteers and foreign agents co-operate to promote what is touted as ‘civic action’, a network of foundations and NGOs mushrooms to receive millions of dollars, new media outlets appear.
The ideological seeds of colour revolutions are sown long before anti-government movements organize mass demonstrations and engage in violent confrontations with the police.
These seeds can be dispersed in a number of different ways but can only grow if they fall on congenial soil, otherwise they will stay dormant until conditions in their microenvironment become favorable.
As a former academic studying the semiotics of culture, I would argue that the cultural field is not only perfectly suited for the germination of these seeds, but it’s directly involved in their multiplication and distribution.
In order to understand US-sponsored regime-change, we should acknowledge culture and theory as crucial weapons in the overall arsenal deployed to perpetuate US interests around the world and conceive a cultural defense system capable of identifying danger and neutralizing it. Letting a foreign power occupy the field of cultural production, dominate public discourse, and frame the narrative is tantamount to giving a burglar in your home a guest pass. And that is exactly what the Hong Kong government did for over twenty years.
We also need to understand that no matter how abstract they might be, ideas still require trusted agents to sow them and tend the field. The Swarm Model, employed in artificial intelligence and hybrid warfare, provides a good example. Swarming is a seemingly amorphous and yet coordinated type of behavior, where a cluster of agents interact with one another and with their environment. The agents follow very simple rules, and although there is no centralized control structure dictating how individual agents should behave, local, and relatively random, interactions between such agents lead to the emergence of ‘intelligent’, collective behavior. Interestingly, some agents might not be aware of the role they play as it becomes totally natural to them. Examples of swarm intelligence exist in natural systems such as ant colonies, bird flocking, fish schooling, bacterial and microbial growth, etc.
China’s adversaries operated undisturbed in our city, built strongholds in academic circles, rose to positions of power and influence in the culture industry as even a cursory look at a course syllabus, film festival program or literary magazine would show.
Since Hong Kong didn’t experience anything like the people’s struggles for liberation from colonialist rule that led to the rejection of colonial identity in other countries, it soon became clear that building a Chinese national identity in post-handover Hong Kong would require sustained and concerted efforts. Regrettably very little was done in this respect: when British rule ended in 1997 it left behind a toxic legacy of colonial institutions, British-trained civil servants and a damaged collective psyche precariously held together by a false sense of superiority towards mainland China. The kind of cultural capital that promised social acceptance and distinction in stratified, class-conscious Hong Kong, was largely made of material and symbolic goods coming from the West.
Hong Kong was, and still is, teeming with educators, academics and cultural workers who are either foreigners, foreign-educated or share a neocolonial mindset anyway. They are the swarm pods peddling post-modernist perspectives on the theme of identity, perspectives that dismiss any articulation of Chinese identity as “essentialist”, ridicule the idea of national identity as obsolete in the age of the “global cultural supermarket” where supposedly one can adopt and discard fanciful individual identities at the drop of a hat.
In 2000 Gordon Mathews, an American anthropologist teaching at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, published a book titled ‘Global Culture/Individual Identity’ that soon became a canonical text in the debate about post-colonial identity in Hong Kong. Virtually every paper subsequently published about this topic drew upon his research and its underlying argument that our roots are simply one more consumer choice.
The handover of Hong Kong had taken place at a time when U.S. dominance was not only a matter of political, economic and military might, but also predicated upon a cultural hegemony that needed to be constantly upheld and updated through the media and education in order to shape public opinion. Postmodernism proved to be an exceptionally versatile and well-suited tool to maintain that hegemony. Postmodernist ideas, for all their radical and anti-authoritarian claims, are in fact perfectly acceptable to an imperial power which understands that its rule is safest when it can fragment the identity of its opposition and most vulnerable when it has to face a united front.
It’s not a mere coincidence that in 1980s the CIA took a keen interest in French postmodernism and deemed it the best defense against Marxism. After all, a narrative that questions the distinction between facts and opinions, truth and fiction and regards reason with skepticism perfectly suits the interests of a country that successfully peddles fiction to the farthest reaches of the world thanks to its education, media and entertainment industries. The absurd and yet convincing portrayal of the U.S. as a bastion of freedom, democracy and human rights is testament to the power of these industries.
Paradoxically, the same intellectuals who had dissected the concept of national identity and rejected it as toxic refused to subject the holy trinity of ‘freedom, democracy, and human rights’ to any kind of rational scrutiny. The old skeptics and relativists soon became dogmatic defenders of ethical absolutes that by transcending any cultural, historical, and political specificity has effectively become the foundation principles of a new theology.
They conveniently forget that philosophers have been debating the concept of freedom for centuries and that, even within the same philosophical tradition, its interpretation varies considerably. They also disregard the fact that no agreed definition of democracy exists in international law and pay no attention to local rights cultures which preceded the international human rights movement by centuries.
Most worryingly, these concepts serve as empty containers, which can be filled with any content deemed useful to disguise U.S. imperialism.
The US began laying the brickwork for a colour revolution in Hong Kong even before the 1997 handover: NED funding for Hong Kong-based groups dates back to 1994 and was described as “consistent” by Louisa Greve, who was vice president of programs for Asia, the Middle East and North Africa until 2017. Its first strategic objective was to prevent the enactment of a national security law (Article 23) in Hong Kong, as this would effectively make the activities of NED and other foreign-funded organizations illegal.
When in 2003 the Secretary for Security Regina Ip announced a Bill to implement Article 23[3], as if on cue, half a million people marched against the government proposal, Mrs. Ip became the target of a coordinated vilification campaign that forced her to resign from office and the Bill was eventually withdrawn.
So, why did so many people take to the streets to oppose Article 23, even if it had no impact on their lives, didn’t infringe on their freedom of expression and assembly? Why did the legal sector, including the Bar Association and Law professors, so vehemently denounced a law that is standard in many jurisdictions, including the most liberal and democratic societies?
Besides, not even a fraction of those protesters could be described as politically active, for instance, they wouldn’t march to defend workers’ rights, demand a minimum wage or the right to breathe cleaner air, as evidenced by the small scale of previous demonstrations.
How could the Civil Human Rights Front, a coalition of NGOs, Christian churches, Trotskyites, small labour unions and opposition parties mobilize hundreds of thousands of people against Article 23? What was the glue that held these disparate groups together?
An irrational fear of China and distrust of its government and institutions might have been contributing factors, as they largely frame the mainstream media narrative about China, but the anti-China sentiment that was cultivated in colonial times could only remain dominant in political, judicial and cultural circles after 1997 thanks to the laissez-faire approach of local authorities and the relentless efforts of foreign agents and fifth columnists. Their task was to scupper the One Country Two Systems governance model and contrast any rise of patriotic feelings towards China. If the One Country Two Systems model failed in Hong Kong, the U.S. would also achieve another strategic goal at no cost, because Taiwan wouldn’t be tempted to adopt it in the future. As to the multiple implications of such failure for the rest of China, they fall outside of the scope of this article.
In 1999 a chance encounter with a British acquaintance I hadn’t seen for many years put me in the unenviable position of observing the methods and tactics of a NED “agent of change” at a time when very little was known about US-sponsored colour revolutions. As we lived very close to each other and shared a few interests, I had the opportunity to observe the way she and other agents operated to carry out the legal elements of illegal regime-change operations. After obtaining degrees in both Chinese language and Politics from SOAS University of London she had been offered a paid internship in New York with an NGO called Human Rights in China, mainly funded by NED and Soros’ Open Society Institute. After being appointed Research Director, in 1997 she was sent to Hong Kong by the same NGO. She was usually evasive about her employers and preferred to introduce herself as a Ph.D. student at Columbia University pursuing her academic research in the field of Human Rights Law. As a researcher, she gained access to Hong Kong universities and soon started to liaise with the Centre of Comparative and Public Law and the newly created Master Program in Human Rights Law at HKU. She co-authored several papers with the most vocal critics of the Chinese Central Government, inevitably designated as an “authoritarian and oppressive regime” in studies that focused on Tibet, Xinjiang and migrant workers, and helped facilitate academic exchanges between U.S. universities and HKU junior researchers and professors, who were often rewarded with invitations to conferences, publications, summer programs, grants, etc. American Ph.D. students researching human rights became conspicuous in the department and after a few years rose to influential positions. One could say that my acquaintance was actively recruiting and grooming academics to create a critical mass of China-haters within the Department of Law. Another important step was forging ties with community leaders, activists, journalists, and NGOs through the Street Law workshops offered by the Centre of Comparative and Public Law. Unsurprisingly among the financial sponsors of these workshops, the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong features prominently.[4] Because violent political confrontation and anti-government activities often result in legal proceedings, the colour revolution sponsors had to make sure that there would be enough pro-bono lawyers to defend activists, enough legal scholars to challenge the government’s enactment of the most debated article in the Basic Law and to advance Western liberal values. In this light we can read the legal advice and support they offered to minority groups such as LGBT rights organizations. Advocating for same-sex marriage is a good example of how these human rights defenders put the local government in a double bind: if it didn’t meet their demands for same-sex marriage it would be cast as intolerant, oppressive and backward, if it did, the majority of citizens who held conservative views on this subject would feel alienated.
To prepare a colour revolution, a network of interlocking foundations and charities is usually set up to put thousands of people through training courses, seminars, practical tuition conducted by legal and media specialists. And that was the case in Hong Kong too. One tireless ‘agent of change’ closely associated with my British acquaintance is the director of the LLM in Human Rights Programme at Hong Kong University, a U.S. citizen. She sat on the boards of several organizations including the Hong Kong Refugee Advice Centre (as past Chairperson), Justice Centre Hong Kong, and Amnesty International (Hong Kong) and advises the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor on a range of issues. While applauding protesters that were holding the city hostage she declared “The rule of law does not demand unquestioning obedience to existing regulations; in fact, defending the rule of law may sometimes require breaking rules”[5]. One can only wonder if she would encourage her compatriots to break rules at home.
My British acquaintance and her American pal were also closely associated with one of the board members of the Centre of Comparative and Public Law at HKU, professor Benny Tai Yiu-ting, who served as Associate Dean of the Faculty of Law from 2000 to 2008. In 2014 he was one of the initiators of the illegal Occupy Central movement, aka Umbrella Movement, and was later convicted and jailed for incitement. The prominent role played by legal experts in undermining the government authority, disseminating anti-China propaganda, organizing protests and coaching activists is reflected in the US$460,000 grant they received from NED. The 2012 NED annual report states that the money was to “foster awareness regarding Hong Kong’s political institutions and constitutional reform process and to develop the capacity of citizens — particularly university students — to more effectively participate in the public debate on political reform.”
Twenty years ago my acquaintance was not only active in the subversive cluster that was growing in size at the HKU Department of Law, but was also using her connection with the department as a credential to approach political groups and civil society organizations. Using the usual code word “human rights” she moved with ease from Christian groups such as the Hong Kong Women Christian Council to a Trotskyite ragtag collective called April Fifth Action Group which was led by “Longhair” Leung Kwok-hung.
This group was generally dismissed as a bunch of politically marginal, ridiculous characters better-known for posturing and shouting nonsense into their loudspeakers than their ability to get their point across in a coherent manner. In private she too joked about their intellectual limitations, but she was coaching them with the zeal of a missionary. In any case her coaching achieved some results, as Leung Kwok-hung, in his trademark Che Guevara t-shirt, was elected to the Legislative Council in 2004. It’s worth noting that both his group and the various Christian ones she had ‘befriended’ were among the founders of the Civil Human Rights Front, the coalition of NGOs, civic and religious groups, pro-democracy parties that in 2003 mobilized half a million people against Article 23 of the Basic Law. Such a large-scale demonstration, unusual for Hong Kong, was a swarm response to a threat that had been carefully manufactured and amplified by the anti-China forces that formed this front. By now we know that the National Endowment for Democracy, through the Solidarity Center (SC) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) between 1995 and 2013, injected more than $1.9 million into the coffers of this coalition.[6]
The role of Trotskyites in enabling the West to create contact with members of the opposition in Soviet Bloc countries in the 1980s is well-known and has been researched by historians. It seems that they still have some use for Washington, like Christian groups.
As to my acquaintance’s tireless activism, it was financially well rewarded — she and her unemployed husband could live comfortably in one of the most expensive cities in the world and jet between Hong Kong, New York, and London. When her mission was accomplished she was granted a scholarship at an Ivy League university that led to a predictable academic career: teaching and writing about human rights and social movements in China.
By the time of her departure, a network of interlocking foundations and charities, think tanks, education, art and culture groups had already started to proliferate and could not only provide the logistics for the transfer of funds to activists but also sponsor work visas for foreign nationals and establish channels to recruit local members. The ultimate irony is that many of these organizations and groups even applied for and received public grants to finance their ‘soft power’ operations. They put thousands of people through training courses conducted by legal, education, and media specialists. Their media-savvy, public relations campaigns achieved a great degree of success even before social media entered the fray.
What is to be done?
The process of ideological subversion we have witnessed in Hong Kong required seed capital, both human, cultural, and financial. Once the seeds have been sown, it’s extremely difficult to remove the weeds that strangle our society. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation and now you can’t get through to those who have been educated to hate China. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change their basic perception and behavior. Facts no longer matter, emotion is everything. The swarm pods are no different from an echo-chamber and where they create clusters rational debate becomes impossible. We need to accept that Hong Kong is in the midst of a deep-rooted civil conflict of the sort that lasts decades.
In other words for these people the process of demoralization is complete and hardly reversible. It will take another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotic citizens who would be acting in the interests of China.
I would argue that China needs a hands-on rather than a hands-off approach in Hong Kong in order to ignite the imagination of Hong Kong’s new generations and mobilize anti-colonial and anti-imperialist forces. Local cadres must be trained to exploit the contradictions of the pro-democracy camp whose empty rhetoric about social justice is backed by an imperialist super-power that is ruled by a capitalist elite. China shouldn’t shy away from the ideological battle that is being fought in Hong Kong: as a more equitable society than the U.S., the Chinese model can provide an attractive alternative to the hypocrisy of the neo-colonialist front, an alternative that draws not only on national pride and tradition but also on the revolutionary history of the Chinese Communist Party. Even during the Long March, while faced with many hardships, Mao Tse-Tung attached great importance to art and literature, fully aware of the role played by culture in shaping public opinion. Winning the hearts and minds of the younger generations requires mobilization of soft power not only in the education and media fields but also in so-called ‘fringe cultures’ where opposition to mainstream cultural norms and values is elaborated.
A NOTE ON THE AUTHOR (IN HER OWN WORDS)
LAURA RUGGERI — I was born in Milan and grew up in a time of intense political confrontation and armed struggle, brutal repression, industrial restructuring and mass unemployment. Fence-sitting wasn't an option. In 1981 I was living in Northern Ireland, reporting about the British occupation and sectarian war, when prisoners in Long Kesh went on hunger strike and car bombs started going off again. Those where my formative years, so to speak. Later I studied Semiotics in Bologna and Spatial Culture in London, harbouring the illusion that i had finally left war behind. After moving to Berlin, and later to Hong Kong in 1997, I started writing about social and spatial practices, urban space and representation, contributing essays and research papers to academic journals and international conferences. I taught at Hong Kong Polytechnic University, City University, HKU SPACE before it became clear that my principles were not compatible with the neoliberal governance of labour within academia and its associated value-system.
Notes
[1] NED was envisaged by US foreign policy elites to be a more suitable way to provide strategic funding to nongovernmental organizations and opposition parties than via covert CIA funding.
[2] Yi Edward Yang & Xinsheng Liu, The ‘China Threat’ through the Lens of US Print Media: 1992–2006, Journal of Contemporary China.
[3] Article 23 is an article in the Basic Law of Hong Kong. It states that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region “shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People’s Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies.”
[4] http://www.law.hku.hk/ccpl/street-law-in-asia/partners/
[5] https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1612065/students-protest-no-way-undermines-our-rule-law
[6] https://www.globalresearch.ca/american-government-ngos-fuel-fund-hong-kong-anti-extradition-protests/5680581
[post-views]


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-06-06--The “Left” Is Cheering On Censorship & The Left Always Pays.w/Chris Hedges

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible .
Share with kin , friends and workmates and @ @ @ @ @ .
In an interview with Jimmy Dore , Chris hedges warns that the faux left @ @ @ @ @ right corporatist Democrats ) is playing with fire by cheering on censorship , and that @ @ @ @ @ anger grows , conservative Americans , duly incited by Trump and rightwing media , are @ @ @ @ @ and initiate a reign of unrestricted violence .
Read it in your language • Lealo @ @ @ @ @ dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке @ @ @ @ @ UNDER A Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE @ @ @ @

NOW IN THE TOP 1% OF AMAZON’S ASIA TITLES. WITH A SPECIAL FOREWORD BY PEPE ESCOBAR. 568 PP, ILLUSTRATED.
The bestseller on China that everyone is talking about!
Available in eBook edition (Kindle or ePub). Fits all devices.
GET YOUR COPY TODAY. CLICK HERE OR ON THE IMAGE ABOVE JUST $9.99 USD


thegreanvillepostbiasrating--2020-06-07--FBI launches open attack on ‘foreign’ alternative media outlets challenging US foreign policy

^5000The mainstream imperialist media lie CONSTANTLY .
Literally 24/7 .
And it 's getting worse .
All of them do @ @ @ @ @ , the newspapers , the movies .
The internet .
No exceptions .
The corporate @ @ @ @ @ totalitarian .
CBS does it .
NBC does it .
ABC does it .
CNN @ @ @ @ @ it .
NPR does it .
And of course the NYTimes and WaPo do it @ @ @ @ @ '' voices telling you the same lies .
Enough to convince anyone .

Up to You.
^3000US citizens have no real political representation.
We don't live in a democracy. And our freedom is disappearing fast.
I don't want to be ruled by hypocrites, whores, and war criminals.
What about you? Time to push back against the corporate oligarchy.
And its multitude of minions and lackeys.