Patrick Lawrence: Powerlessness

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Patrick Lawrence
scheerpost


Resize text-+=

Extensive damage in Gaza Strip already in October 2023. Palestinian News & Information Agency (Wafa) in contract with APAimages, CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0, via Wikimedia Commons


By Patrick Lawrence / Original to ScheerPost

“Eleven months into the conflict in the Middle East, the Palestinian territories are nearing economic freefall, amidst a historic humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip,” the report begins. “Official data reveals a 35 percent decline in real GDP in the first quarter of 2024 for the Palestinian territories overall, marking its largest economic contraction on record. The conflict has brought Gaza’s economy to the brink of total collapse, with a staggering 86 percent contraction in Q1–2024.”

As most Palestinians well and grimly understand, the Israelis intend to make the West Bank another Gaza and are simply attempting to attract less attention as they do so. The West Bank economy contracted by only—“only”—25 percent in this year’s first quarter. The bank puts unemployment at 35 percent, primarily because post–Oct. 7 checkpoints and roadblocks make getting to work difficult, if not impossible, and because Palestinians are now barred from commuting to jobs in Israel. Bezalel Smotrich, the Netanyahu regime’s fanatical finance minister, has taken to withholding tax funds Israel collects on the Palestinian Authority’s behalf, sending the West Bank into a deficit the bank predicts will come to nearly $2 billion this year.

What has any one of us been able to do to stop the rampage that has produced these conditions? This is my question. 

Gilles Paris, a longtime reporter and now columnist at Le Monde, considered the realities facing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank in a commentary published this week under the headline, “The losers of the Gaza war are those whose powerlessness has become de facto acceptance.” Apart from all the World Bank stats, he also notes a U.N. Environment Program study published in June that concludes the Palestinians of Gaza now live under or atop 39 million metric tons of rubble and will need at least a decade to dig out of it.

The Gilles Paris piece caught my eye because the state of powerlessness has been much on my mind since Israel began its genocide Oct. 8. There is no question Israel’s inhuman conduct toward the Palestinian people has revealed, in rip-off-the-veil fashion, the impotence of many people and constituencies. But which people, which constituencies? And what can be done about it? Let us take care to consider these questions scrupulously.

As Gilles Paris sees it, the powerless losers in the current West Asia crisis are the American leadership—he names President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken and CIA Director William Burns—along with the European powers and the Arab regimes that signed the Abraham Accords four years ago hoping to normalize with the Zionist state. They have all suffered damaged images and reputations. None succeeded in stopping the Israelis’ atrocities. They have all suffered “humiliation upon humiliation,” as Paris puts it.  

Gilles Paris takes too much at face value, it seems to me, and so makes a critical error of judgment. It is true that Benjamin Netanyahu has emerged this past year as an out-of-control sociopath, and I am going by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the good old DSM. He is aggressive, given to violence, isolated, driven by irrational compulsions, indifferent to others, utterly lacking in empathy. If you study his face you detect the features of a crazed, maniacally possessed man. He has acted, since the events of Oct. 7, with near-total impunity. 

But the thought that Biden and his people “proved incapable of preventing the disaster,” as Gilles Paris puts it, is a preposterous fiction I would have thought a journalist of his standing could see as such. “The collective Biden”—a wonderful term the Russians have used since the president’s mental infirmities make it impossible to tell who is running the show—never had any intention of stopping the Israelis. All paying-attention people know this. 

Brett Murphy at ProPublica reported this week, when two State Department reports concluded in the spring that Israel was blocking humanitarian aid from Gaza, Blinken went to Congress to testify, “We do not currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance.” The two official findings—from the Agency for International Development and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration—should have required the Biden regime to freeze nearly $830 million in weapons aid to Israel. Blinken dumped his own people out of the limo. 

Is this a man or an administration trying and failing to prevent Israel’s campaign of terror? 

It is true, as Gilles Paris asserts, that the collective Biden has proved powerless even to attenuate Netanyahu’s madness, just as the Biden White House, whoever is making its decisions, will not moderate it now as Israeli aggression accelerates in the West Bank and lately against Lebanon. But it is vitally important to get this question of powerlessness right if we are to understand our predicament. 

America’s political elites are not powerless to restrain the rogue Israeli regime: They are powerless to act against the grotesque lobby, led by but not limited to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, to which they have sold themselves. In the past week the Israelis have opened in Lebanon another theater in what Netanyahu describes as “the seven-front war” he plans. On Monday, Middle East Eye quoted Amichai Chikli, Israel’s Minister for Diaspora Affairs, calling for the occupation of southern Lebanon on the argument that Beirut has “failed to exercise its sovereignty.” 

There is no sign the Biden regime will raise any objection as Israel aggresses in Lebanon, another of its wanton provocations. We must now consider whether “the Jewish state’s” near-total impunity, as it has appeared to date, is in fact limitless impunity—impunity without end. 

Once we grasp the extent to which the executive and legislative branches in Washington have sold U.S. policy to AIPAC and other influence-mongering groups serving in the Zionist state’s behalf, we are face to face with powerlessness as it is. 

The true powerlessness is ours. This is what we have to think about.  

From the comment thread appended to a randomly selected column, “The War Party Makes Its Plans,” published in this space and reproduced in Consortium News, I choose the remarks of a few readers representative of various shared views.

From Lois Gagnon, September 20, 2024 at 17:15:

At what point do the people of the U.S. and its colonies decide they’ve had enough of this insane brinkmanship and call for a national strike until these lunatics step back, concede defeat, call for an immediate ceasefire and negotiations? Nothing less is acceptable. They are terrorizing the whole of humanity to further their imperialist agenda that only benefits a tiny oligarchy.

From “Steve,” September 21, 2024 at 11:56, in response to Lois Gagnon:

Never.

FOMO is real. Fear of Missing Out on that next promotion, or that next invite to a cool kids’ party, or of being ostracized by people you thought were your friends has paralyzed Western society. Just look at what has happened with families and friends freezing out members because of political beliefs since 2016, or because of unwillingness to take a vaccine in 2020, or because of lack of support for war in Ukraine, or lack of support for Israel’s war in Gaza. Social media has driven the world mad over the last decade. People once used to be able to put political or religious differences aside, but now everything has to become a Manichean decision. You are either with me or I will cut you out of my life.

From Cypher Random, September 21, 2024 at 17:53:

I’d love to think it could happen, but we are about to have an election where, just like in the last election, well over 95% of Americans will vote for candidates that support war.

There’s not even a hint of a peace party in this country. The only thing that can be found is warmongers who tactically say that they are against a particular war. Or the Obama tactic of complaining that the war is being mismanaged and that they can do better. All such anti-war candidates would of course give even more money to the military. But, in America, a Partner for Peace is not anywhere in sight. When they tally the votes for this election, they will find War with about 98–99% and Peace with maybe 1%….

In an election with uncertainty about whether an even bigger war might erupt even before the computers announce the victor, that is how America is going to vote…. Nobody proposes big cuts to the military for prosperity at home. A candidate proposing Peace would get stoned by the mob….

President Kennedy once gave a Peace Speech. One can still find it on YouTube, or at least you could the last time I looked. The Dems might have classified it as Russian Propaganda by now. But he did make such a speech. JFK never got a chance to see if that might have been a popular way to run for re-election….

This is what powerlessness sounds like in America in the early autumn of 2024, less than two months before those who vote will choose a new president. It is by turns principled, determined, bitter, cynical, at times confused in its thinking, nostalgic for what once was but no longer is. These three, and I quote them because there are so many like them, look at the political landscape this autumn and see no one standing for election, other than honorable fringe candidates, who comes even close to representing their aspirations. 

I am sure there are many different views of the Gaza crisis, Israel and the Palestinians abroad among Americans. I am not sure how many people who still vote would choose an antiwar, anti-genocide president were one on the ballot this Nov. 5. I am absolutely sure that, setting aside the impossible prospect of a partner for peace, as Cypher Random would put it, whoever is elected in a few weeks’ time will take more or less no interest in the sentiments and aspirations of Americans as he or she proceeds with the business of making war. 

This is one of the realities of powerlessness in America. The nation’s political institutions and its political process are no longer responsive to those they are supposed to serve—those who own them, indeed. The elites purporting to lead the United States, and to speak and act in our name, have fully participated in Israel’s brutalities these past 11 months, and in so doing debase our morality and our very humanity—making us complicit, indeed, in war crimes. We have watched for nearly a year as the violence, torture, suffering and death have proceeded. And now, as dismal reminders of our impotence, we read of the results, the faits accomplis, in World Bank and U.N. reports. 

I have long thought, having lost faith in the political process many years ago, that ours is a time—and there have been many such times in America’s past—when people need to form genuine social and political movements well outside this process to find their ways forward. “A ’60s on steroids,” as a late friend from the old antiwar days once put it. Some of those readers quoted above seem to tilt in this direction. But then comes the pessimism: No, that sort of scene is not possible any longer. 

The New York Times ran a remarkable piece in this line in its Sept. 21 editions under the headline, “How the Powerful Outmaneuvered the American Protest Movement.” Zeynep Tufekci is a professor at Princeton, where she claims the study of social movements as her expertise. Reviewing the preparations universities now make to preclude protests and the ineffectual demonstrations at the Democratic convention in Chicago last month, she writes, “Protesting just doesn’t get results anymore. Not the way it used to. Not in that form. It can’t.”

And then:

Those in power have figured out how to outmaneuver protesters: by keeping peaceful demonstrators far out of sight, organizing an overwhelming police response that brings the threat of long prison sentences, and circulating images of the most disruptive outliers that makes the whole movement look bad.

It works. And the organizers have failed to keep up.

And a little further, Tufekci’s coup de grâce:

Hell, no, we won’t go! The whole world is watching! No justice, no peace! R.I.P. the era when big protest marches, civil disobedience and campus encampments so often changed the course of history. It was a good run, wasn’t it?

It is a good thing Professor Tufekci is not an organizer or a leader of anything of importance, so exuberantly does she celebrate what she takes to be the end-of-history triumph of power—power, the topic from which she flinches in the predictable way of most liberals, in this case power as repression. Tufekci’s training is in computer programming. There is no evidence in this piece, none, that she has any understanding of the dynamics of dissidence, as I may as well call it. Where would we be, I have to wonder, if some new university rules and more rows of police barricades were sufficient, as Tufekci seems to think, to extinguish any idea of worth, any commitment to a cause that insists on itself because its time is imminent?  

I credit Tufekci, though, for suggesting various social factors that make the impressive movements of the past seem so distant, impossible acts to follow. 

Consumer capitalism is vastly more advanced than it was during the “Hell, no” days. Neoliberal orthodoxies are far more prevalent, economic insecurities much greater. The “me decade,” so brilliantly explicated in the late Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (Norton, 1979), came but never went. Ours, in short, is a different and diminished consciousness. Our dependence on technological devices has advanced a social atomization that was evident well before Apple put its first iPhone on the market. Somewhere along the post–1960s line, people took on the idea that right-thinking social movements are not to countenance either hierarchy or authority. It is childish. Nothing gets done without both.   

These matters have a lot to do with what I take to be a sense of powerlessness prevalent among many of us as one violent crisis after another unfolds before our eyes, the worst of them threats to humanity itself, and no effective reply seems available. The sensation of powerlessness, as I have argued previously, is a primary source of depression. But it is almost always an illusion. To escape it one need only take the next logical step after an honest appraisal of circumstances as they are. This may be an advance of a few inches or of many miles. But with it, one is in motion, one has begun to act. One is still alive. 

Please share this story and help us grow our network!


 


Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




Jimmy Dore Dispatches: Stupid celebrities cheer fascism

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


The Jimmy Dore Show


Resize text-+=

"The CIA is but the strong arm for [the Empire's] economic hitmen, and yet we have these liberals in love with the CIA and the FBI!"  Jimmy and Drea de Matteo comment on the appalling ignorance, cowardice, and alarming stupidity of celebrities, as they join the parade to cheer the liberal authoritarian Empire—the "WOKE" edition—in support of all its wars, regime change ops, suppression of free speech and labor rights, and even broad daylight genocide! 


Celebrities Should Be Speaking Out AGAINST Kamala! w/ Drea de Matteo
Special Feature!


“The Democrats Have Lost Their Way Entirely & I’m leaving The Party!” – Dem Fundraiser Evan Barker


Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




Dmitry Orlov: Russia’s path to Negotiations – Israel is Defeated

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


Dialogue Works
Nima R. Alkhorshid • Dmitry Orlov


Resize text-+=


 


Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




Ex-diplomat’s Cuban Espionage Case Isn’t the Biggest U.S. “Spyfail”

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.




Resize text-+=

Ex-diplomat’s Cuban Espionage Case Isn’t the Biggest U.S. “Spyfail”


Manuel Rocha in 2001 [Source: abcnews.go.com]


Mainstream media outlets reacted with astonishment when they reported earlier this year that a former American diplomat had confessed to being a Cuban spy for more than four decades.

It was indeed shocking when Victor Manuel Rocha, U.S. Ambassador to Bolivia under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, suddenly came clean to FBI investigators that he had been covertly gathering intelligence for the island since the early 1980s.

Fewer than six months after his arrest in December, Rocha was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison following a plea deal where he admitted to conspiring to act as an illegal foreign agent to defraud the United States.

According to court documents, the Bogotá-born envoy was first recruited by Cuba’s main state intelligence agency, the Intelligence Directorate or Dirección General de Inteligencia (DGI), as a student at Yale University in 1973.

Shortly after graduating, Rocha reportedly traveled to Chile around the time the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) ousted the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and was radicalized by the experience.

Cuba’s KGB-trained intelligence service has long enjoyed an esteemed reputation as one of the best in the world, famously having thwarted hundreds of attempts on the life of Fidel Castro by the CIA. The DGI has also become known for its effective operations abroad, such as the case of double agent Ana Montes who penetrated the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) as an analyst for 17 years.

With the Rocha case closed within a few short months, it is unclear precisely what actions he took while in diplomatic service that could have benefited Havana. If true, not only did he have privileged access to classified information but the ability to directly impact U.S. diplomacy with tradecraft. However, many have noted that, while serving as U.S. ambassador to Bolivia, Rocha made a name for himself during the Andean nation’s 2002 election when he publicly threatened the withdrawal of U.S. aid if then-underdog candidate Evo Morales were to win the presidency.

In hindsight, what was perceived as a controversial gaffe at the time, which inadvertently increased support for Morales, could have been deliberate if Rocha was truly an infiltrator.


Manuel Rocha when he was U.S. ambassador to Bolivia. [Source: coha.org]


It is no secret that Morales, an Indigenous union organizer of coca farmers, was heavily favored by Havana and under his future leadership would make La Paz a staunch Cuban ally. Morales himself would even quip that Rocha was his “best campaign manager” when he surged from third place to runner-up after the remarks, forcing a second round runoff against the eventual victor, right-wing ex-President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada. A pro-American neo-liberal nicknamed “Goni,” Sánchez de Lozada would subsequently preside over numerous human rights violations and massacres of protesters during the Bolivian gas conflict before resigning just a year into his second stint and fleeing to the United States. Although Morales did not prevail in 2002, the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) party was thrust into the national spotlight and the Aymara Indian activist became de facto opposition leader, ultimately winning the 2005 general elections.

social media toward the charges against Rocha when the news broke. Except bodycam footage from an undercover sting shows the 73-year-old confessing to an FBI employee posing as a Cuban DGI contact about being an asset.


Evo Morales [Source: globalizacion.ca]


The corrupt mayor of Cochabamba, Manfred Reyes Villa, who finished third once Morales narrowly overtook him in the final hours of the 2002 contest, cited the accusations against Rocha and his memorable tirade that nearly swung the election as evidence of Cuban interference in Bolivia. While the School of the Americas alumnus was trying to delegitimize his left-wing opponent’s rise to power, it is not out of the realm of possibility considering Rocha left the foreign service soon after his tactless comments backfired and never occupied a position in government again. Rocha’s election-eve ultimatum, in which he compared the cocalero leader to Osama bin Laden and MAS-ista peasantry to the Taliban, only aroused anti-Yanqui sentiment. Yet if Rocha did try to elevate Morales on purpose, it would have been to counter blatant U.S. electoral intervention in Bolivia.


Manfred Reyes Villa [Source: manfredreyesvilla.com]

 

James Carville in Bolivia in 2002. [Source: ew.com]

Similar to Western stage-managing of Boris Yeltsin‘s 1996 campaign in Russia, Goni hired American consulting firm Greenberg Carville Shrum (GCS) to boost his low approval ratings since his previous incumbency when he privatized much of the country’s natural resources and public services. GCS was founded by Beltway campaign strategist James Carville who used his successful management of Bill Clinton’s 1992 U.S. presidential run to market Western compradors abroad. In addition to Goni’s bid, Carville lent his expertise in manipulating elections throughout Latin America to Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Brazil, Carlos Flores Facussé in Honduras, Jamil Mahuad in Ecuador, Ernesto Pérez Balladares in Panama, and Juan Manuel Santos in Colombia, all of whom implemented austerity measures. “It’s the economy, stupid,” indeed. Carville also advised anti-Chavista business leaders in Venezuela following the abortive 2002 coup against Hugo Chávez. Carville and GCS’s machinations in Bolivia were captured in the 2005 documentaryOur Brand Is Crisis which was dramatized by Hollywood in a 2015 film of the same name starring Sandra Bullock.

Attorney General Merrick Garland referred to the Rocha case as “one of the highest-reaching and longest-lasting infiltrations of the United States government by a foreign agent.” With the ex-diplomat and National Security Council official behind bars, it quickly disappeared from the news cycle. The same corporate media, surprised that the one-time DOS bureaucrat-turned-spy went undetected for so many years, failed to observe a growing pattern of similar breaches of U.S. counterespionage in recent decades, including by Washington’s own supposed allies. Last year, veteran investigative journalist James Bamford published Spyfail: Foreign Spies, Moles, Saboteurs, and the Collapse of America’s Counterintelligence, which details the accumulating penetrations of the U.S. security state by foreign powers.


[Source: amazon.com]

Bamford demonstrates how the American counterintelligence apparatus has become a paper tiger vulnerable to sabotage and its susceptibility has not been limited to subversion by ideological adversaries like Cuba. While geo-political rivals in Moscow and Beijing have been among the expected offenders in spy scandals as well, Spyfailalso shows how many of Washington’s allies and partners have been behind spycraft against the U.S.—with politicians and the yellow press turning a blind eye. Given the revelations by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden of the extent of Washington’s own eavesdropping on members of the Atlantic alliance, it is not that surprising. However, one country in particular has been able to evade scrutiny as the source of numerous espionage operations violating American national security for just as long as Rocha is said to have been a mole for Havana.

Dominating the headlines in the intervening months of the Rocha case has been Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza. For the same reason that the Zionist entity maintains unconditional U.S. assistance and favorable coverage in legacy media as it slaughters Palestinians, Tel Aviv enjoys virtual immunity over its repeated cloak-and-dagger transgressions of American sovereignty—the immense power of the Israel Lobby over Congress and the media. Perhaps the most infamous case was that of Jonathan Pollard, a naval intelligence analyst who was convicted of spying and passing highly confidential data to the Jewish state in the mid-1980s. Like Rocha, Pollard was jailed after negotiating a plea bargain, but the U.S.-Israel “special relationship” itself never came into question. Meanwhile, Bamford sheds light on another scandal involving an Israeli spook that did not receive nearly as much attention while the agent at the center eluded incrimination altogether.


Jonathan Pollard [Source: thefamouspeople.com]


Just a few months before Pollard was charged with violating the Espionage Act, a California aerospace engineer and NASA consultant named Richard Kelly Smyth was indicted by the FBI for unlawfully exporting more than a dozen shipments of “krytrons”—devices used as triggers to fire nuclear bombs—to Israel in the early 1980s. The illicit consignments were made through an intermediary in “former” Israeli spy and Hollywood film mogul Arnon Milchan, whose production credits include Pretty Woman,L.A. Confidential, and Fight Club. Unlike Pollard, Smyth escaped to Spain before his trial began and avoided capture until INTERPOL finally apprehended the fugitive physicist in 2001 for extradition back to Los Angeles. (In spite of an official policy refusing to confirm or deny the possession of a nuclear stockpile, it is widely accepted that the existence of a clandestine Israeli program goes back to the 1950s.)

Smyth served no time in prison as he was immediately paroled because of his advanced age (72), and the Israeli agent whose front company facilitated the entire smuggling ring was never prosecuted and to this day remains a fixture in Tinseltown. In fact, Milchan’s double life as a weapons trafficker only seemed to propel his success as a film magnate. Despite producing propaganda for apartheid South Africa while supplying Pretoria with arms and military technology in exchange for yellowcake uranium to enrich Israeli nukes, Milchan later financed the Oscar-nominated 12 Years a Slave (2014). Even though the billionaire producer candidly owned up to being a LAKAM operative—the same top-secret unit that recruited Jonathan Pollard—it was only when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was brought up on corruption charges that Milchan’s name stirred controversy.

Still ongoing in the midst of the war in Gaza, Bibi’s graft trial involves allegations from a decade ago that he and his wife accepted bribes and lavish gifts from Milchan in order to pressure the Obama administration into securing the latter a U.S. visa, which then-Secretary of State John Kerry obliged. Netanyahu also proposed domestic legislation that gave tax breaks to returning wealthy Israelis such as the movie tycoon for “making Aliyah” (Jews who emigrate to Israel) in what became known as “Milchan’s Law.” According to Bamford, the close friendship between the two men precedes Netanyahu’s tenure as head of state back to his early career at the Israeli Embassy in Washington where he negotiated for Milchan’s immunity in the Smyth case.


Arnon Milchan [Source: timesofisrael.com]


When the national security state has not overlooked spies hiding in plain sight or neglected to prosecute those employed by “friendly” countries, it has framed innocent people to fit political narratives. Bamford was one of the few, if not the only journalist to uncover the truth about one of the most notorious international spy cases in recent years—which turned out not to be a case of espionage at all. Not since the Cold War has foreign intrigue generated so many headlines as the special counsel investigation into alleged collusion between Donald Trump and the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Like the Red Scare, the paranoia surrounding the Mueller probe resulted in scapegoats but none more so than a fiery redhead from Siberia residing in D.C. on a student visa, who was persecuted amidst the neo-McCarthyite atmosphere.

Just a few months shy of her 30th birthday, Maria Butina had just graduated from American University in the nation’s capital during the summer of 2018 when she was taken into custody by the FBI. Held for months in solitary confinement, the Russian-born international relations major was charged with conspiracy to act as an unregistered foreign agent. In addition to her master’s studies, Butina was a gun rights activist in the Motherland and partly came to Washington to build a bridge with the American gun lobby. Even though her advocacy of the right to bear arms made her a dissident within the Russian Federation where firearms are heavily restricted, she somehow became portrayed as the conduit of illicit funds supposedly being funneled from the Kremlin to the Trump campaign via the National Rifle Association (NRA). As if that were not bad enough, the most malicious slander was that she was a Red Sparrow-esque honeypot who traded sex with GOP operatives and NRA figures to advance Moscow’s interests, all based on a few sarcastic text messages.

The presumed connection linking Butina to the Kremlin was through Aleksandr Torshin, a Russian central banker and senator in the Duma, who was also a hunting enthusiast and gun advocate. When Butina established a Moscow-based, pro-gun organization in 2011, Torshin was one of its earliest supporters. However, the Vladimir Putin administration rejected any legislative attempts to relax gun-control laws domestically. Trump-era National Security Adviser John Bolton, one of the most Russophobic militarists in Washington, even appeared in one of their ads. Butina then came to the U.S. and made contacts with Second Amendment groups while enrolled in graduate school. Despite no evidence to show that she was working for either Torshin or the Russian state, the media began publishing hearsay that she was a sleeper agent who infiltrated special-interest groups to establish a back-channel with Trump.


Maria Butina [Source: abcnews.go.com]


If Butina really was on the Kremlin payroll, no explanation was given as to why she needed to seek financial assistance to cover school tuition from her boyfriend of several years, Republican political consultant Paul Erickson. She also borrowed money from George D. O’Neill, Jr., a Rockefeller heir and op-ed writer for TheAmerican Conservative who penned articles advocating rapprochement between Washington and Moscow. A paleoconservative outsider, O’Neill had previously worked with Erickson on Pat Buchanan’s unsuccessful 1992 Republican primary challenge of George H. W. Bush. After being introduced to Butina, he invited the ginger-haired grad student and her mentor Torshin to the National Prayer Breakfast and other GOP get-togethers in the hopes of improving U.S.-Russia relations. The closest in proximity Butina ever came to the Trump camp was his foreign policy adviser J. D. Gordon, but their interactions were limited to attending a rock concert together and exchanging a handful of emails a few months prior to the 2016 election.

A year earlier, Butina did manage to publicly ask the soon-to-be 45th president about potential U.S.-Russia cooperation just a month into his controversial candidacy at a libertarian convention in Las Vegas. Trump replied he was open to dropping the sanctions placed on Moscow by the Obama administration, which he claimed were pushing Russia into closer relations with China. Such heretical statements which broke from foreign policy orthodoxy made him a marked man and the Russophobic hysteria would reach a fever pitch by the time he assumed office. The day before Trump finally met his Russian counterpart as commander-in-chief at the July 2018 Helsinki summit, Butina’s apartment was raided by the feds. Earlier that week, 12 Russian GRU intelligence officers were separately indicted in absentia for allegedly hacking the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer server. (The cybersecurity firm which blamed Moscow for the email leaks, CrowdStrike, was itself recently responsible for a global software outage. Citing incidents such as the 2014 Sony Pictures hack attributed to North Korea using stolen NSA spy tools, Spyfail shows how cyberattacks are another area in which the U.S. is increasingly exposed.)

Although she was questioned by special prosecutor and former FBI Director Robert Mueller over her association with Gordon, Butina’s case was never part of his two-year inquiry. Prior to her arrest, Butina had already testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on her activities. None of this prevented the fourth estate from branding the 29-year-old Russian national a spy before she had even been swooped up by the authorities. Prosecutors knew perfectly well that Butina had not committed espionage, so they settled for the single charge of being an undeclared foreign agent. Most of the media lazily assumed this meant she had violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), when it was under an entirely different statute (Title 18 U.S.C. § 951). In short, Butina naively failed to turn in bureaucratic paperwork and was convicted on a technicality.

Coincidentally, Jim Bamford had personally encountered Butina years prior to her notoriety while attending a conference on the Middle East as a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine. As a leading expert on intelligence, he knew the claims about her were false. After spending the majority of her year-and-a-half sentence in a Florida prison, Butina was deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) back to Moscow where she has since successfully run for Russian parliament. In the end, the Mueller Report showed no proof the Trump campaign ever conspired with the Kremlin, but the establishment goal of criminalizing détente between two nuclear-armed powers was achieved. Butina’s name did not appear a single time in the 448-page document, but she was still put through a misogynistic character assassination and made a political prisoner.

One of the biggest propagandists of the Russiagate hoax was neo-conservative pundit Max Boot of The Washington Post. In July 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued two counts against Boot’s wife, Sue Mi Terry, an ex-CIA analyst and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, for acting as an agent-of-influence on behalf of South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS). A self-proclaimed expert on the DPRK, Terry received payments with undisclosed payoffs, expensive dinners and designer handbags to advance ROK government positions in the media. The unsealed indictment also alleges Terry used her prestige at various think tanks on a quid pro quo basis to share private information with NIS officers and arrange exclusive meetings between South Korean and U.S. officials, without registering under FARA. She even acknowledged handing over notes from an off-the-record briefing with Secretary of State Antony Blinken over to her handlers. Although Terry co-authored editorials with her husband on Korean matters, Boot himself has not been implicated thus far—but it appears everything the arch-neo-con had to say about Trump and Butina applies much more to his own spouse.


Sue Mi Terry and Max Boot. [Source: foxnews.com]


Boot referred to Butina as “just the tip of the Russian iceberg” when in fact, it is his wife’s case which does not even scratch the surface of widespread influence peddling by Washington’s purported allies. The corruption charges against Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey for accepting bribes from the Egyptian and Qatari regimes, as well as the grand jury subpoenas of New York City Mayor Eric Adams for receiving kickbacks and unlawful campaign donations from businesses tied to the Turkish government, are just a few examples.

As Bamford observed, while the federal witch-hunt was focused on Moscow in 2016, the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf monarchies were pouring millions in dirty-money contributions into both the Hillary Clinton and Trump campaigns by way of a shady lobbyist and convicted pedophile named George Nader. Not to mention that Benjamin Netanyahu sent a secret Israeli agent to the U.S. to provide Trump aide Roger Stone with advanced knowledge of the damaging intel leaked from the DNC to WikiLeaks.

As American hegemony continues to decline, U.S. national security is more and more unprotected from intrusion and subterfuge. Spyfail chronicles the miserable failures by the intelligence community, despite a gargantuan defense budget, at stopping foreign plots, whether by declared enemies or close allies, while squandering investigative and prosecutorial resources to fabricate charges against blameless individuals to suit political agendas. Due to a combination of hapless incompetence and corruption, the spymasters responsible have only been rewarded with promotions. Russiagate even helped several officials, including James Clapper and John Brennan, land nightly news gigs where they have kept up the CIA tradition of playing the media like its “Mighty Wurlitzer.” Such stenography has resulted in outrageous propaganda such as the disputed claim that American personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Cuba were falling ill due to Russian sonic weaponry, when the more likely cause of so-called “Havana Syndrome” turned out to be the mating cries of crickets.


John Brennan on MSNBC. [Source: youtube.com]


When BBC News reported on the Rocha story, former CIA Chief of Counterintelligence James Olson revived the slander that the late CovertAction Information Bulletin founder and ex-CIA case officer Philip Agee was among the list of past spies “run” by Cuba. A true patriot if there ever was one, Agee blew the whistle on the agency’s various criminal activities around the world in his seminal 1975 bookInside the Company: CIA Diary and the powers that be have never forgiven him.


Philip Agee [Source: imdb.com]


Although he was not a double agent, Agee would have been the first to retort that Cuba has been forced to use any means necessary to defend itself from more than 60 years of economic blockade and consecutive U.S. administrations terrorizing the island in their attempts to topple the communist government. As long as it continues to perpetuate such injustices throughout the globe, the empire will always be inviting the next Manuel Rocha.


CovertAction Magazine is made possible by subscriptionsorders and donations from readers like you.
Blow the Whistle on U.S. Imperialism
Click the whistle and donate


Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




Morgan’s Lies Fuel Hatred, Divisions Worldwide

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.


George Hazim
George’s Newsletter


Resize text-+=

Morgan’s Lies Fuel Hatred, Divisions Worldwide

There’s an undeniable level of stupidity about Piers Morgan that extends beyond the extremes of palpability.

Morgan is a shill on display - a fool for the world to see, but just as his stupidity is overwhelmingly consuming, Morgan is also dangerous.  Whether he recognises it or not, his voice is culpable of creating and inciting both evil and hatred.

Sitting Pretty: Morgan doing an interview with UK's PM in 2023

Morgan has become a figurehead in modern media for promoting skewed narratives that support Western imperialism and overlook the harsh realities of global conflicts. His platform, which claims to promote free speech and hard-hitting journalism, has instead perpetuated dangerous misinformation—particularly regarding the Ukraine-Russia war and the ongoing Israeli aggression against Lebanon and Palestine. It not only distorts facts but fuels racism, xenophobia, and the acceptance of genocidal policies, making him an increasingly dangerous voice in today’s media landscape.

His most recent interview with Professor John Mearsheimer underscores just how harmful his platform has become. Mearsheimer, a renowned international relations scholar, is well-known for his "realist" views on global power politics and his criticisms of NATO and US foreign policy. In the interview, Morgan consistently framed the Ukraine-Russia conflict in a simplistic, distorted narrative, disregarding the deeper historical and geopolitical context that Mearsheimer was attempting to highlight.


SIDEBAR
It's clear Morgan's vile dissembling stuns Mearsheimer.



Rather than offer an insightful debate or drawing attention to the complexities of the situation, Morgan used his platform to further propagate misleading, inflammatory rhetoric that reinforces Western interventionist policies and vilifies Russia.

One of the most significant failings of commentators like Morgan is their refusal to present the full truth behind the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Far from being a simple case of Russian aggression, Russia’s actions in Ukraine were a direct response to the mounting threat posed by NATO’s and the US’s encroachment on its borders. It’s a critical fact Morgan consistently ignores in his [intentionally] oversimplified framing of the conflict.

The US and NATO's push to place military forces and infrastructure right on Russia’s doorstep was an existential threat to Russian security. For years, Russia warned against NATO's expansion and the possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member—an outcome that would have effectively surrounded Russia with hostile forces. These warnings were repeatedly dismissed by the West, leaving Russia with no choice but to defend its national security interests. To portray Russia's actions as unprovoked aggression, as Morgan does in his interview with Mearsheimer, is a gross misrepresentation of the geopolitical realities at play.  (Not to mention an indecent lack of elementary fairness.—Ed)

Mearsheimer attempted to bring attention to these critical details, emphasising that NATO’s expansion and the West's disregard for Russian security concerns were pivotal factors in the escalation of the conflict. However, Morgan largely dismissed or downplayed these points, insisting on a narrative that positions Russia as the sole aggressor, while painting the West as innocent defenders of democracy. His one-sided portrayal not only distorts the truth but also exacerbates anti-Russian sentiment, contributing to the growing tide of Russophobia in the West.

By refusing to engage with the complexities of the situation, Morgan’s coverage encourages a dangerous form of jingoism that could escalate international tensions even further.


Piers Morgan with wives

Piers' wives: Morgan showing off his reward for being an establishment shill. (TGP screenshot)


Morgan’s distortion of facts is not limited to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. When it comes to Israel’s ongoing aggression against Lebanon and Palestine, Morgan’s narrative is equally dangerous and one-sided. Israel’s repeated military assaults on Lebanon, particularly its frequent air raids, are acts of aggression that violate international law and terrorize civilians. These attacks are not defensive measures, as Morgan often suggests, but calculated efforts to maintain Israeli dominance in the region and suppress resistance to its occupation.

In his interview with Mearsheimer, Morgan missed yet another opportunity to delve into the realities of Israel’s constant military aggression, especially toward Lebanon and its pager terrorism attack. Hezbollah, a resistance movement that emerged in response to Israel's brutal occupation of Lebanon, is often vilified in Western media as a terrorist organisation. In reality, Hezbollah plays a critical role in defending Lebanon's sovereignty and protecting Palestinian civilians from Israel’s ongoing atrocities. However, Morgan, like much of the Western media, continues to downplay Israel's repeated violations of Lebanese and Palestinian rights while framing any act of defense by Hezbollah or Palestinian resistance as terrorism.

By refusing to acknowledge Israel’s role as an aggressor, Morgan perpetuates a disturbingly dangerous narrative that dehumanises Palestinians and Lebanese civilians. His interview with Mearsheimer could have explored the nuances of Hezbollah’s role in defending Lebanon and the reasons behind Palestinian resistance, but instead, Morgan clung to simplistic, inflammatory rhetoric that ignores the root causes of the conflict.

But perhaps the most glaring failure of Morgan’s commentary lies in his treatment of the Israeli occupation of Gaza. The situation in Gaza is not merely a conflict—it is a genocide. Israel’s blockade of Gaza, combined with its frequent military assaults, has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history. The people of Gaza are living in an open-air prison, subjected to continuous airstrikes, economic deprivation, and systemic violence. Yet Morgan consistently downplays this reality, framing Palestinian resistance as terrorism while ignoring the root causes of their struggle.

Mearsheimer's academic perspective, which could have illuminated the broader context of Israeli apartheid and the genocide in Gaza, was side-stepped in the interview. Morgan's refusal to discuss or even acknowledge Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza highlights how his platform is complicit in the normalisation of war crimes. By choosing to frame Palestinians as aggressors without addressing the overwhelming brutality they face, Morgan erases the suffering of millions and contributes to the ongoing global indifference to Palestinian genocide.

The most troubling aspect of Morgan’s media presence is the influence he wields over public opinion. His platform reaches millions, and his narratives are often accepted without question by his audience. By presenting biased and untruthful accounts of these complex geopolitical issues, Morgan is not just misleading his viewers—he is helping to shape a dangerous and racist worldview that fuels hatred and division.

Morgan’s most recent interview with Mearsheimer serves as a prime example of how media figures like him perpetuate dangerously simplified narratives that contribute to global instability. His refusal to engage with the real causes of the Ukraine-Russia conflict or acknowledge the legitimacy of Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements only serves to reinforce Western imperialist agendas and dehumanise those who suffer under occupation and aggression.

Morgan’s one-sided portrayal of Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine distorts the truth in ways that dehumanize entire populations. His rhetoric stokes anti-Russian sentiment, fuels Islamophobia, and downplays the ongoing genocide in Gaza. This kind of reporting is not just irresponsible—it is dangerous.

The remedy for voices like Morgan is responsible journalism—journalism that presents the full picture, acknowledges the complexities of geopolitical conflicts, and refuses to simplify issues into good-versus-evil narratives. The role of the media should be to inform, not to incite hatred or support imperialist agendas.


George’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 


Lili News 029
  • In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
  • Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
  • Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.


window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License • 
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS