NAVALNY: How the N.Y. Times Heroizes Russia’s Most Infamous Traitor

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


Eric Zuesse
Nick Cruse • John Helmer

Resize text-+=

How the N.Y. Times Heroizes Russia’s Most Infamous Traitor

Navalny being marched to jail. He was guilty of fraud, among other things, although this is rarely mentioned. (TGP screenshot)

Here is from the front page of the 18 February 2024 Sunday New York Times:

“Why Navalny, Sacrificing His Freedom and Ultimately His Life, Had to Return”

There was one question that Russians repeatedly asked the opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny, who died in a remote Arctic penal colony on Friday, and he confessed that he found it a little annoying.

Why, after surviving a fatal poisoning attempt widely blamed on the Kremlin, had he returned to

Russia from his extended convalescence abroad to face certain imprisonment and possible death? Even his prison guards, turning off their recording devices, asked him why he had come back, he said.

“I don’t want to give up either my country or my beliefs,” Mr. Navalny wrote in a Jan. 17 Facebook post to mark the third anniversary of his return and arrest in 2021.

“I cannot betray either the first or the second. If your beliefs are worth something, you must be willing to stand up for them. And if necessary, make some sacrifices.”

That was the direct answer, but for many Russians, both those who knew him and those who did not, the issue was more complex. Some of them considered it almost a classical Russian Greek tragedy: The

Continued on Page 8

PUTIN CRITIC Alexei A. Navalny, 47, endured. Obituary. PAGE 26

That’s the Sunday N.Y. Times, and it’s the U.S. Government’s line, too. So: here was the reality about Alexei Navalny:

Though in America and its allies Navalny is presented as an anti-corruption campaigner who long aspired to replace Putin as Russia’s leader and who was in prison in Russia because Navalny was so popular there that in a fair-and-square democratic election, Navalny would beat Putin, Navalny was actually almost universally despised within Russia, and not for any reason pertaining to corruption, nor for his wanting to become Russia’s President.

Though the dominant public image of Navalny in the United States and in its ‘allied’ countries (America’s colonies) is that of his being an anti-corruption campaigner in a very corrupt Russia, and of his being Russia’s most-popular opponent against Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, and therefore was blocked by Putin from running against Putin, and who was even poisoned by Putin, but — amazingly — survived that poisoning by Putin, and was therefore imprisoned by Putin, so as to prevent Navalny from being able to run against him in a free and fair democratic election in Russia, the dominant public image of Navalny inside Russia is and has been that of his being a CIA-MI6 asset who was a racist-fascist traitor who would sell-out his country for anything so long as he could become its leader, just like Benedict Arnold was in early U.S. history, when the then U.S. Vice President Arnold worked with the intelligence services of Britain’s King George III in order to become America’s leader so as to restore the United States to British control — America as being again merely another British colony. (That ploy, by Arnold, failed, of course.)


Navalny was quickly converted into a persecuted "dissident" and later "martyr" by the Western media. Here an item appearing on Newsweek (US)


Typical of the view regarding Navalny that’s popular in the U.S. and in its allied countries was a news-report from Britain’s Reuters on 6 May 2021, titled “Defiant but cornered: Jailed Kremlin critic Navalny’s movement is on the ropes”. It opened:

He has been poisoned, jailed and his close aides are either being prosecuted or have fled abroad. His anti-Kremlin opposition movement is now also likely to soon be outlawed as extremist.

Yet Alexei Navalny and his supporters continue to work on ways to remain a thorn in President Vladimir Putin’s side, even as one of his most important financial backers says the movement in its current form is finished and will take time to rebound.

In the eyes of the Kremlin, the only half-meaningful political weapon the Navalny camp has left is its campaign for tactical, or what it calls “smart” voting against the ruling United Russia party in a parliamentary election in September, according to three people close to the Russian authorities.

Navalny’s supporters are set to be barred from that election via a court case, due to unfold later this month, and planned legislation unveiled on the parliamentary website on Tuesday that would ban “extremists” from running for office.

A court, meeting in secret, is considering a request from Moscow prosecutors to have Navalny’s network designated “extremist” for allegedly plotting a revolution, state media have reported. Russia’s financial monitoring agency has already added the network to a list on its website of groups involved in “terrorism and extremism”.

In response, Navalny’s movement has redoubled its call for sympathisers to vote for other opposition parties in September, however unpalatable they may consider them.

Typical of the view of Navalny that is popular inside Russia itself are the following:

An RT news-report on 1 February 2021 headlined “Top Navalny aide asked alleged British spy for millions in funding, intelligence video released by Russia’s FSB claims to reveal”. Back in 2012, Russia’s equivalent of America’s FBI had a hidden camera in position filming, and recording, Navalny’s top aide trying to persuade a person he thought to be an MI6 (UK’s CIA) agent that MI6 should annually donate tens of millions of dollars to Navalny’s organization because doing this would provide billions of dollars of benefit to UK corporations if Navalny would then succeed and become Russia’s leader. It was a sting-operation filmed by Russia’s Government.

Navalny was also known in Russia as a far-right ethnic supremacist. Here is a video that he posted to youtube on 19 September 2007, under the title of “НАРОД за легализацию оружия” meaning “PEOPLE for the legalization of weapons”:


or

https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/oVNJiO10SWw

He said there that all Russians should get guns in order to kill Muslims who are infesting Russia, which would be like swatting big flies or stamping on big cockroaches.

Later, he decided that demagoguing against Russia’s “corruption” was far likelier to win him the backing of the U.S and its allies than demagoguing against Russia’s Muslims would. This was when U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media began presenting him as the ‘democratic’ alternative to Vladimir Putin, who has always been vastly more favorably viewed by Russians than Navalny has been. On 5 September 2020, right before the latest Russian Presidential election, the internationally respected Levada polling organization in Russia reported that the top choice of Russians to lead the country was Putin at 56%, the second-from-top choice was Zhirinovsky at 5%, and Alexey Navalny (shown there as Алексей Навальный), was the third-from-top choice, at 2%. In the 2018 Presidential election, Zhirinovsky polled at 13.7%, Grudinin polled at 12.0%, and Putin polled at 72.6%. The actual election-outcome was Putin 76.69%, Grudinin 11.77%, and Zhirinovsky 5.65%. There were many polls and Navalny was never any serious contender for Russia’s Presidency. The U.S. regime lies as it usually does.

That’s what Russians knew about Navalny. And, of course, it’s very different from what the publics in U.S.-and-allied countries knew and know (or, at least, believe) about him.

Here was some typical May 2021 propaganda that was published by U.S.-and-allied regimes about Navalny:

On May 22nd, Japan Times ran a Reuters report, “How Russia’s new gulag tries to break convicts like Alexei Navalny”.

On May 23rd, the Wall Street Journal headlined “Russia’s Navalny Fights to Stay in Public Eye in Putin Standoff”.

On May 4th, the Washington Post columnist Vladimir Kara-Murza headlined “Russia just took a big step back toward the Soviet Union”, and said: “Last week, for the first time since the Soviet era, the Kremlin officially classified opposition to its rule as a criminal offense. … Moscow prosecutors suspended the activities of the nationwide organization of Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Putin’s most prominent opponent. Navalny is currently incarcerated in a prison camp after surviving a state-sponsored assassination attempt last year.”

Navalny, though he actually was favorably viewed by only around 2% of Russians (as indicated in polls there), was widely publicized in U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media as having instead the highest support by the Russian people of anyone who might challenge Vladimir Putin for Russia’s leadership. It’s a lie, and always has been. Other politicians had far higher polled support in Russia — but none was nearly as high support by Russia’s voters as Putin was.

Back in 2017, the British firm of WIN/Gallup International issued “Gallup International’s 41st Annual Global End of Year Survey Opinion Poll in 55 Countries Across the Globe”, which sampled 1,000 persons in each country in order to determine in each one the percentage of the public who rated “Favorable” and who rated “Unfavorable” each of the following 11 national heads-of-state (listed here in descending order of their net favorability, or “favorable” minus “unfavorable”): Merkel, Macron, Modi, May, Xi, Putin, Saud, Netanyahu, Rouhani, Erdogan, and Trump. (Merkel globally scored highest, Trump lowest.)

This was an extraordinary poll because it reported not only the job-approval percentages worldwide for each of those 11 heads-of-state, but also the job-approvals for that person within that leader’s own nation — by his or her own countrymen, citizens. Who would be in a better position to evaluate a nation’s leader than the citizens of that country are? Can the people who don’t live there be reasonably be expected to be better-informed of that than the people who do live there are? Hardly.

Amongst Russians, the score for Putin was 79% Favorable, 11% Unfavorable, for a net score of +68%.

Though Germany’s Merkel had the highest score worldwide, her score in Germany was only 54% Favorable and 44% Unfavorable, for a net of +10.

Macron’s net score in France was -1%.

May’s net in UK was -18%

Rouhani’s in Iran was +37%

Erdogan’s in Turkey was +22%

Modi’s in India was +72% (that’s 84%-12%)

Trump’s in U.S. was -23% (35%-58%) — the worst of all.

The following leaders weren’t surveyed in their own countries: Xi, Netanyahu, and Saud.

So: Putin’s net +68% score amongst his own country’s population was second ony to Modi’s — and, whereas Modi had been in office for only 3 years, Putin had led Russia for 17 years, and was a very firmly established high performer in these figures. Here were some of the reasons for this.

To say that Navalny had enough public supporters for him to have become elected as Russia’s President is like alleging that the former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke had enough public supporters for him to have become elected as America’s President.

Contrast the case regarding Navalny with the case of Julian Assange, who has been in prison now for over a decade without having been convicted of anything at all except for jumping bail on a fraudulent rape-charge that even the two alleged victims acknowledged didn’t actually happen:

The Assange case legally involves the Governments of U.S., UK, and Sweden (as well as his home country, of which he is a citizen but which Government likewise opposes him: Australia), but, by contrast, the Navalny case legally involves only the Government of Russia, but has been taken up by all of the countries that are trying to conquer Russia — the U.S.-and-‘allied’ countries.

poisoning him, or else convicting him of something and then executing him. On 4 January 2021, a British judge nixed Assange’s defense case: “I reject the defence submissions concerning staying extradition [to U.S.] as an abuse of the process of this court.” Earlier, her handling of Assange’s only ‘trial’, which was his extradition hearing, was a travesty, which would have been expected in Hitler’s courts, and which makes clear that UK’s courts can be just as bad as Nazi courts had been. However, the U.S. regime’s efforts to grab Assange continued on. Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and the overwhelmingly compliant U.S. Congress, are all to blame for that dictatorial regime’s pursuit against this champion of truth-telling; and the same blame applies to the leadership in UK. The UK regime has, throughout the Assange matter, been fronting for its hegemonic imperial master, the U.S. regime. On 10 December 2021, BBC bannered “Julian Assange can be extradited to the US, court rules”. Blatantly, both America and England lie in order to refer to themselves as being democracies. In fact, America has the world’s highest percentage of its residents in prisons. It’s the world’s #1 police-state. Is that because Americans are worse than the people in other countries, or is it instead because the thousand or so individuals who collectively control the nation’s Government are, themselves, especially psychopathic? Evidence will now be linked-to on that question: America has been scientifically examined more than any other country has, in regards to whether it is an aristocracy, or instead a democracy, and the clear and consistent finding is that it’s an aristocracy, no democrachy at all. And it clearly is that at the federal level. (Here is a video summarizing the best single study of that, and it finds America to be an aristocracy, because it’s controlled by the richest few). And Norway’s aristocracy had also been part of this scandal. It is an international scandal, and keeps getting worse.

U.S.-and-allied press, who claim to be for the public’s right to know regarding all matters of national and international policies, have been overwhelmingly hostile toward him and slanted in favor of the regime against him. For example, on 11 April 2019, the day that Trump got the new President of Ecuador to allow Britain to sieze Assange at Ecuador’s London Embassy nearly 7 years after Assange had first sought refuge in that Embassy in 2012, Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post headlined its editorial “Julian Assange is not a free-press hero. And he is long overdue for personal accountability.” They wrote:

Contrary to much pro-WikiLeaks propaganda, Mr. Assange had no legitimate fears for his life, either at the hands of CIA assassins or, via extradition, the U.S. death penalty, when he fled to the embassy of what was then an anti-American government. Rather, he was avoiding transfer to Sweden pursuant to a seemingly credible sexual assault charge lodged against him in that country. He then proceeded to abuse the hospitality of his South American hosts, most egregiously by presiding over what an indictment by U.S. special counsel Robert S. Mueller III described as Russian intelligence’s use of WikiLeaks as a front for its interference in the U.S. election. Democratic Party documents stolen by the Russians made their way into the public domain under the WikiLeaks label. Ecuador’s new, more pragmatic president, Lenín Moreno, cited Mr. Assange’s more recent alleged involvement in the release of confidential Vatican documents, along with threats against the government in Quito, as reasons to oust him.

lied psychopathically in order to deceive them into supporting the entirely lie-based invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq; so, clearly, the vast majority of Americans are willing to be lied-to by their Government and its ‘news’-media constantly for decades. They don’t learn from experience but instead from propaganda. It’s as-if the American mass robotically follows the leadership of their aristocrats, America’s billionaires. And so they believe that this is a democracy, no aristocracy. That is the fundamental neoconservative belief — it is that the public in America rule, no aristocracy do. No wonder, then, that America leads the hanging-party against Assange globally.


                  Editor's special addendum.           

The two items below are self-explanatory. In the first one, RBN's incomparable Nick Cruse not only demolishes the ludicrous notion being propagated by the establishment flunkies and top politicians that their CIA regime-change asset, certifiable fraudster, and despicable traitor Alexei Navalny, was a brave hero, BUT, equally important, Nick and Misty out the repugnant collaborationist role of fake leftists like Cornel West and Bernie Sanders, who, as expected, have now joined the chorus of praise for Navalny, comparing this transparent Western tool to genuine heroes like Assange, Mumia, and even Mandela.

About Sanders, we have long known that he was no more than a thinly-veiled sheepdog for the imperialist status quo—an unreliable socdem at best. West's motivations are more difficult to explain, except for his longsanding cringy, namby-pamby liberaloid personality (I started disliking and distrusting West when he was busily promoting Obama! How long, how many degrees, does it really take to spot THAT kind of phony?). Fact is, you don't need to do a lot of diligence on Navalny to learn what he was all about. Just start by reading what the Western presstitutes and other high officials of the West and legion of flunkies always said about him. Did the Western media—run and owned by scumbags—ever heap praise on a genuine patriot of Russia, the Soviet Union, or any other nation in the crosshairs of the State Dept.? Of course not. What the Western media say in such political matters is never about truth. Never. No, West's intellectual laziness in this case is inexcusable. And we are being generous.

As previously mentioned, Navalny had been groomed by Western intel to do the dirty in Russia. Yale's "World Fellows" program—of whch he was a graduate—is a busy color revolution incubator (one of many the US establishment has created) for individuals deemed useful in future meddling around the globe. The roster of such "graduates" boasts fellows like Carlos Vecchio, for example, Venezuela's "Ambassador" to the US under Juan Guaido's "presidency." 

In the second addendum, John Helmer, just about one of the most authoritative independent journalists on Russian questions (yes, they still exist) suggests that we calm down with the phony hysterics and begin where we ought to, with an impartial medical evaluation. Navalny, despite his exterior and relative youth, was not a tower of strength. He was seemingly frail. No to mention West intel may have played a role in his demise. After all, his "uselfulness" quotient to the West may have been deemed as dispensable due to his possibly long sentence, and urgency —with Ukraine virtually collapsing any day—to dilute the good will accumulated by Putin through his recent interview with Carlson. 


1.

Get it right, bro. Alexei Navaly was a neo nazi who was despised in Russia. 
WARNING: Nick Cruse is the shortest path to a genuine education in real leftist politics



 
 

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. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Since the overpaid media shills will never risk their careers to report the truth, the world must rely on citizen journalists to provide the facts that explain reality.


Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW



 

 

Creative Commons License
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




Indonesia: still in the shadow of Suharto

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


Michael Roberts Blog


Resize text-+=

CIA-enabled Suharto and wife: He presided over a pyramid of runaway grift, terror, and unabashed foreign plunder of Indonesia's natural wealth.


Indonesians will elect the country’s next president tomorrow (14 February). Indonesia is the world’s fourth-most-populous nation with over 280m people living in a myriad of archipeligo islands spanning Asia to Australia. More than 204 million people are eligible to cast ballots in the world’s largest direct presidential vote, the fifth since the Southeast Asian country began democratic reforms in 1998.  More than half of those eligible to vote are aged between 17 and 40 and about a third are under 30.

The winner will succeed President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, who is constitutionally barred from seeking a third term and will step down in October after ten years in office.  Defence Minister Prabowo Subianto, 72, is the front-runner in the presidential race. Prabowo is a former general with the army’s special command and former son-in-law of the late Indonesian military dictator President Suharto.

Ganjar Pranowo, 55, is a former governor of Central Java and a senior politician with the ruling Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), to which Jokowi currently belongs. The other candidate, Anies Baswedan, 54, is the former governor of Jakarta. He is a former university rector and political scientist. During Jokowi’s first term he served as education minister. However, after being ousted in a cabinet reshuffle, he joined the opposition. Anies paints himself as an alternative to Prabowo and Ganjar as he seeks a break from Jokowi’s policies.

Final opinion polls by major pollsters show support for Prabowo exceeds 50%.  So he is the most likely winner. If no candidate gets 50% in the first round, there will be a second round run-off between the top two. All three candidates demonstrate that Indonesia’s 21st century democracy is still dominated by the political, business and military leaders who built their fortunes during thirty-two years of Suharto’s authoritarian rule.  

Indonesia gained independence from Dutch imperialism after a long hard fought war.  The nationalist Sukarno became its president, leaning on the support of the independence fighters who were mainly led by the Communist party based in the countryside.  In 1965, in the midst of an economic crisis, military chief Suharto came to power through a coup in that ousted Sukarno.  Suharto’s takeover led to a bloodbath in which up to 1 million Communists and nationalists were killed and another 1.5 million imprisoned.  [With no sense of irony, or sociopathically, given its key involvement in these massacres] the CIA described the purge as “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century”.  Suharto’s coup was even worse than Pinochet’s military coup over Chile’s President Allende nearly a decade later in 1973.



Editor's Sidebar 1


Mar 6, 2023

Indonesia’s economy has rested on its oil and gas reserves and the produce of its land.  In the early 1980s, the Suharto government responded to a fall in oil exports during the early 1980s oil crisis by trying to shift the basis of the economy to cheap labour-intensive manufacturing.  Foreign investors came in to take advantage of Indonesia’s low wages.

It was under Suharto that the country’s modern oligarchs first emerged and his reign was littered with examples of close friends and family obtaining preferential access to loans, concessions, import licences and state bail-outs. Aafter over three decades of his dictatorship, the Asian debt crisis of 1998 brought down the Suharto regime.  In the face of growing public protests against his authoritarian rule, Suharto’s own military and political allies forced him to resign. Free elections were held within a year.

The biggest winner then was the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP), led by Megawati, daughter of Sukarno. But Suharto’s Golkar party, led by regime loyalists from business and military backgrounds, and the Muslim United Development Party had sufficient support to block Megawati.  Since then, all so-called parties of the democratic era have been led by Suharto-era businessmen and retired military generals.  As only parties with at least 20 percent of seats in the parliament can field a candidate, that has ensured the continued political control of this elite.

Current president Joko Widodo was the only outsider to breach this clique.  In 2014, voters and Megawati’s party backed him to end the control of Suharto cliques.  Widodo soundly defeated Prabowo Subianto.  But soon Widodo fitted into the existing ruling elite by bringing the oligarchs and politicians into his administration.  He appointed Subianto as his defence minister and Subianto’s party joined the governing coalition, while Jokowi closed down the anti-Corruption Commission that was investigating Suharto’s supporters.

Now in 2024, it is Subianto who looks set to become President at his fourth time of trying.  He has lined up Widodo’s eldest son to be his vice presidential running mate, while Widodo himself is planning to take up the chairmanship of Subianto’s Gerindra party, shifting from Megawati.  It‘s going to be a tight coalition of ‘business as usual’.

Jokowo’s eight years are regarded in the Western media and among mainstream economic circles as a great success, with average real GDP growth at around 5% a year.  And he appears to remain very popular with the electorate.


But Indonesia’s apparent success is superficial.  For a start, per capita income growth is much less, at under 4% a year.


As always, what matters to Indonesians (outside the elite) are living standards and decent jobs.



The elite claim that Indonesia can become a ‘high-income nation’ by 2045, when it celebrates 100 years of independence.  And all the presidential candidates are promising upwards of 15 million new jobs in the next five years, in a country where about 3 million people enter the job market annually. But most estimates reckon that Indonesia needs 7% economic growth annually to churn out enough jobs for its young population and the growth forecast for the next two years is closer to 4% a year.  Around 1,000 jobs were created for every trillion rupiah of investment in 2022, compared with 4,500 jobs in 2013.

These jobs are supposed to be generated by moving away from an economy based on mining, oil production and single crop agro exports (palm oil), which are mainly capital intensive to a more broad-based manufacturing and hi-tech economy like China or Vietnam.  There is little sign of that.  Instead, it is nickel mining for EV batteries that is the main investment.  Investment in nickel mining and refining has created only a limited number of jobs and still relies heavily on skilled foreign labour, particularly from China.


As a result, job creation has plunged.  Officially, Indonesia’s unemployment rate is 5.3%, but people are considered employed if they work just a few hours a week. Nearly 60% of workers are in the informal sector i.e. they are casual workers, with no rights, sick pay or even guaranteed wages.  Young people aged 15 to 24 made up 55% of the 7.86 million officially unemployed in 2023, up from 45% in 2020.



The lack of jobs and the emphasis on capital-intensive industries owned and controlled by the Suharto oligarchs and foreign companies has widened the inequality of wealth and income – a trend in all peripheral economies. The top 1% of income earners take 18% of all personal income in Indonesia, more than the bottom 50% who take just 12% between them.  It’s even more unequal with personal wealth, with the top 1% holding 41% of all personal wealth, the top 10% with 61% and the bottom 50% with just 12%.

In the past two decades, the gap between the richest and the rest in Indonesia has grown faster than in any other country in South-East Asia. It is now the sixth country of greatest wealth inequality in the world.  As this election takes place, the four richest men in Indonesia have more wealth than the combined total of the poorest 100 million people. The vast majority of the land is owned by big corporations.  At least 93 million (36 percent of the population) of Indonesians are below the World Bank minimum poverty level.

Inequality rose fast when Suharto switched from a development policy based on state fusion with the oligarchs to the neoclassical model of the 1980s onwards of deregulation, privatization and the abolition of subsidies on basic commodities, in order to boost the profitability of Indonesian capital that had taken a hit during the global profitability crisis of the 1970s.



But the Asian financial crisis of 1997-8 exposed this neoliberal development model and Indonesia fell back on IMF funding and its Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) that imposed austerity and more ‘flexibility’ in the labour market.  Suharto was forced out, but his successors continued to accede to this ‘structural adjustment’.

Then came the commodity boom of the early 2000s.  This time, expansion was based on less on minerals and oil and instead on palm oil exports.  Indonesia is the world’s biggest producer of palm oil, a ubiquitous ingredient in a wide range of goods ranging from processed foods to cosmetics and biodiesel. Between 2000 and 2008, the ten largest palm oil companies controlled the industry and most of the ten richest men in Indonesia have palm oil in their portfolios.   

But production of the commodity has long been associated with the wholesale clearing of tropical rainforestsburning of peatlands, destruction of endangered wildlife habitatland conflicts with Indigenous and traditional communities, and labor rights abuses. According to one analysis, rainforests spanning an area half the size of California, or 21 million hectares (52 million acres), are at risk of being cleared.  

There are still 3.1 million hectares (7.7 million acres) of plantations for which forests had been cleared for plantation.  But they are not being developed because the commodity price boom is over, for now. As a result, the profitability of Indonesian capital had fallen back in the last 10 years, which is reducing investment growth and weakening economic growth.

The Suharto elite and the Indonesian oligarchs remain firmly in control.  The rich are not taxed properly. The OECD considers Indonesia to have the worst tax administration system of any South-East Asian country and it has the second lowest tax to-GDP ratio in South-East Asia.  So the government consistently misses its already low tax revenue targets.



The IMF has calculated that the country has a potential tax take of 21.5 percent of GDP. If it were to reach this figure, it could increase the health budget nine times over.


None of these issues are being addressed by the presidential candidates, most of whom are obsessed with Jokowo’s ambitious plan to shift the nation’s capital from the congested mess that is Jakarta to a new site in Borneo at an exorbitant cost.

The Indonesian economy has yet to return to its pre-pandemic growth trajectory and it is unlikely to do so. This reflects the ‘scarring’ effects from the pandemic, including in labor markets and productivity growth. And Indonesia’s oil and gas reserves will be exhausted in the next ten years.  So even the current inadequate growth rate is threatened. 

Indonesia has got the classic formula for development in poor countries in the world of 21st century imperialism.  Its economy is founded on basic commodity production that is highly capital intensive, severely damages the environment and does not provide many good jobs for the people, while the rich pay little tax and public services are limited.  And the old Suharto elite remain in control.

Author's bio below.

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. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Since the overpaid media shills will never risk their careers to report the truth, the world must rely on citizen journalists to provide the facts that explain reality.


Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW



 

 

Creative Commons License
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




Whatever happened to God’s chosen army?

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


Greg Kasansakis

Resize text-+=

You tell me. I'm stumped. 


Now compare the above not with Hamas, which would be unfair, but with the Maori Haka Warriors doing their thing.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
Greg is an aspiring humorist living in Ohio. The IOF is apparently baffling him.


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Since the overpaid media shills will never risk their careers to report the truth, the world must rely on citizen journalists to provide the facts that explain reality. Put this effort to use by becoming an influence multiplier. Repost this material everywhere you can. Send it to your friends and kin. Discuss it with your workmates. Liberation from this infernal and mendacious system is in your hands. We can win this. But you must act.
—The Editor
—The Editor


Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW



 

Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?

 


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.


Creative Commons License
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




The New Nazi Germany

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-+=
SELECT LANGUAGE—>

Of course, exaggerating the "Russian threat" may give the European ruling cliques some elbow room to build their own armies. Deviousness is their specialty.


Pistorius  and NATO chief


At this time when Israeli soldiers and U.S. weapons and military intelligence are totally exterminating or else ultimately driving out (into the desert to starve to death) the Gazans from Gaza, Germany, which had organized during WW II the extermination campaign against Jews in not only Germany but many other Christian-majority European nations (no Muslim-majority country participated), is now aiming to lead Europe into a WW III, in order to conquer both Russia and China and take over the world in the name of ‘Europe’ (rather than “Germany”) and of ‘democracy’ (since it can no longer do it in the name of ‘Germany’ and of its ‘Reich’ as it had tried to do in WW II).

On December 16th, Germany’s Minister of Defense, Boris Pistorius, made the announcement of this new policy by his Government. Reuters headlined “Europe must rearm as new threats loom, German minister says”, and reported:

Europe must race to ensure it can better defend itself as new military threats could emerge by the end of the decade even as the focus of security ally the United States shifts towards the Indo-Pacfic, Germany’s defense minister said.

Russia was hiking its weapons production considerably to sustain its invasion of Ukraine, while also threatening the Baltic states, Georgia and Moldova, Boris Pistorius was quoted as saying in an interview with Welt am Sonntag.

Meanwhile the United States will likely reduce its military engagement in Europe as it turns more towards the Indo-Pacfic.

“We Europeans must engage more to ensure security on our own continent,” said Pistorius, noting however it would take time for the region to increase its own weapons production.

“We have about 5-8 years to catch up, in terms of armed forces, industry and society,” he said.

Europe is clear it may also need to compensate for U.S. aid for Ukraine if Washington fails to agree new funding, he added. …

“We need to figure out how best to set ourselves up on the eastern flank on the basis of NATO defense plans,” he said. …

“The alternative would be to not have any more contacts with these countries and to simply hand them over to the Russians and Chinese, and that would be a lot [m]ore dangerous.

In accord with Hitler’s famous “Big Lie” technique of deceiving the masses as any dictatorship needs to do, Germany’s proposed resumption of WW II by means of its now coming to allegedly lead Europe to the restoration of America’s Cold War against communism but this time instead against two nations (Russia and China) that both are independent nations and consequently more democratic than any nation in the U.S. (or any) empire can even possibly be — including Germany itself (with its 231 U.S. military bases) — starts from false assumptions. In the case of Russia, this false assumption is that the war in Ukraine started on 24 February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, not on 20 February 2014 when the U.S. regime’s coup grabbed Ukraine on Russia’s very doorstep and culminated it successfully when the U.S.-selected new and extremely anti-Russian leader of this new U.S. colony adjoining Russia, replaced Ukraine’s generals with ones committed to exterminating, terrorizing and driving out of Ukraine into Russia, the residents in Ukraine’s predominantly Russian-speaking far east and south, so that a new ‘democratic’ Ukrainian electorate (without so many of those voters that were favorable towards Russia) would then reliably elect pro-American anti-Russian leaders of this newly acquired American colony, so that America then would become enabled to post a nuclear missile on Russia’s nearest foreign border to The Kremlin, in that ‘democratic’ Ukraine, just 317 miles or 5 minutes of missile-flying-time away from blitz-nuking and thus beheading Russia’s central command and thus immediately (so the U.S. regime hopes) winning, by this blitz attack, WW III, and so conquering Russia, as is the U.S. regime’s intent to do.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.


Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Since the overpaid corporate media stenographers will never risk their careers to report the truth, the world must rely on citizen journalists to provide the facts that explain reality. Put this effort to use by becoming an influence multiplier. Repost this material everywhere you can. Send it to your friends and kin. Discuss it with your workmates. Liberation from this infernal and mendacious system is in your hands. We can win this. But you must act.
—The Editor
—The Editor


Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW



 

Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?

 


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.


Creative Commons License
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




GARLAND NIXON: Stuart Seldowitz, former Obama official exposes the Empire

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


Garland Nixon

Seldowitz personifies Zionist arrogance

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
Garland Nixon is a leading geopolitical analyst, antiwar, anti-imperialist activist, and Bill of Rights defender. Garland is also a former police officer and criminal justice adjunct professor. He received the national "Stand" award from the American Civil Liberties Union (from which he ultimately resigned due to policy differences).

ADDENDUM
Jimmy Dore also weighs in on the issue



Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Since the overpaid corporate media whores will never risk their careers to report the truth, the world must rely on citizen journalists to provide the facts that explain reality. Put this effort to use by becoming an influence multiplier. Repost this material everywhere you can. Send it to your friends and kin. Discuss it with your workmates. Liberation from this infernal and mendacious system is in your hands.
—The Editor
—The Editor


Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… 
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW



 

Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin?

 


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.


Creative Commons License
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