#ThisFlag: Surprise Social Media Phenomenon or US-Manufactured Uprising?

//
pale blue horiz
Witnesses to History
CALEB MAUPIN

EvanMawarire-ThisFlag

Evan Mawarire-ThisFlag


Editor's Note
Call in the CIA. It appears that Washington is moving beyond the military control of Africa via US AfriCom, and setting up yet another "classic" overthrow of an uncooperative government. It does seem that whatever tweaks have been made to the good old regime change play book is being even more successful at sowing chaos and ongoing hostile contact; requiring more arms all around, and further legitimating the need for a "muscular" military in a dangerous world.

In reporting on Zimbabwe, the mainstream media gives the impression that recent protests rallying around the Twitter hashtag “ThisFlag” are an epic struggle against a corrupt dictatorship.

Robert Mugabe, the 92-year-old president of Zimbabwe and leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), is presented as a “dictator” and “authoritarian,” while his opponents are held up as advocates of democracy and human rights.

In its brief snapshot of Zimbabwe’s politics, the Western press portrays Evan Mawarire, a Baptist preacher, as a social media phenomenon and “Zimbabwe’s most unlikely dissident.” Mainstream media accounts of his movement that spawned the biggest protests against Mugabe in a decade, arrest for inciting public violence, and most recently, his flight to the United States, portray him as kind of Martin Luther King Jr. figure, someone who is leading peaceful protest against corruption.

In the mainstream media’s narrative, Mawarire is defined not by his own motivations, actions, or goals, but simply by his adversary.

That adversary is Mugabe, who also happens to be an adversary of Washington.

US fingerprints all over recent protests

In addition to a history of U.S. support for the country’s major opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change, a slew of protests which have swept Zimbabwe in recent months have certain attributes that suggest backing and direction from the U.S.

A supporter of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe holds a banner with a message for foreign embassies, at a gathering to honor the country's dead heroes, at the National Heroes Acre in Harare, Monday, Aug. 8, 2016.

A supporter of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe holds a banner with a message for foreign embassies, at a gathering to honor the country’s dead heroes, at the National Heroes Acre in Harare, Monday, Aug. 8, 2016.

In May, opposition parties in Zimbabwe began protesting against China, a country whose international machinations are often at odds with U.S. hegemonic interests. Willias Madzimure, the secretary of international relations for the oppositionist People’s Democratic Party, wrote an editorial calling for all Chinese people to be deported. Noting high unemployment, rampant poverty and drug shortages, Madzimure asserted:

“[T]he Chinese have literary [sic] invaded the national economy and are milking all the profits back to Shanghai, Beijing and Hong Kong. In return for having been given unfettered access to the national economy by the desperate Mugabe regime, the Chinese have offered political protection at international level.”

On June 24, protesters gathered at the Rainbow Towers Hotel in the capital Harare, demanding that Vice President Phelekezela Mphoko and his family to vacate their suite and move into a government-provided mansion — accommodations which are both funded through taxpayer money. When the group refused to leave, riot police arrived to forcibly remove them.

These events came just ahead of the emergence of Mawarire’s #ThisFlag movement. Much like the Euromaidan protests which toppled the Russian-aligned government in Ukraine in early 2014, protesters’ initial demands were vague, just references to “corruption” and demands for “accountability.” Their slogan was simply “this flag,” short for “this flag deserves better.”

However, the BBC reported five specific demands on July 16: “Pay civil servants on time; Reduce roadblocks and stop officers harassing people for cash; President Robert Mugabe should fire and prosecute corrupt officials; Plans to introduce bond notes to ease a cash shortage should be abandoned; Remove a recent ban on imported goods.”

And although some Western media have called the protests “peaceful,” they’ve been marked by violent clashes between protesters and police, which have resulted in widespread arrests.

#ThisFlag: Accidental or manufactured social media phenomenon?

Another indication of foreign sponsorship and involvement in the protests is the prominence of #ThisFlag on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, U.S.-based corporations which routinely coordinate with government agencies around the world.

The campaign was announced by Mawarire on April 19 in a video posted on Facebook (a platform that’s been proven to have a team of “news curators” who make politically-biased decisions about what news stories and political messages to highlight) and YouTube. Draped in the country’s flag, Mawarire described himself as “a citizen, not a politician” and gave a vague speech describing frustrations with the economy.

Mawarire’s Facebook post which is credited with being the impetus for #ThisFlag:


His personal Facebook page reached the maximum 5,000-friends limit within days of his first video going viral, more than 45,000 users have “Liked” the “ThisFlag” Facebook page, and his Twitter account has over 40,000 followers. He’s continued to regularly post videos and other content related to the movement to his Facebook page, which has nearly 65,000 followers.

Yet some in Zimbabwe, like education minister Jonathan Moyo, were quick to dismiss the movement. He told Bloomberg News in May: “It’s a lie that it’s an internet sensation.”

Before a single protest had even taken place, social media was abuzz with videos, articles, and photographs decrying Zimbabwe’s economic situation and urging people to wear the country’s flag and prepare for upcoming protests. Could so much publicity and controversy erupt in response to a single video, made by a seemingly random, previously unknown pastor? Maybe, but it’s more likely that powerful forces both within and outside of Zimbabwe were looking to advance Mawarire’s message and utilize the unfolding unrest to promote their own interests.

ZANU-PF, the political party that emerged from the armed uprising that toppled the apartheid regime of Rhodesia, has never been a favorite of Western leaders. The #ThisFlag uprising, it should be noted, emerged after Zimbabwe announced that it would adopt the Chinese yuan as legal tender and nationalize the country’s diamond mines.

After he was released from his brief detainment, Mawarire, who started the #ThisFlag movement with a Facebook video, fled to neighboring South Africa, seeking “safety,” before arriving in the U.S. earlier this month. He has vowed to lead protests against government corruption outside an annual meeting of heads of state at the United Nations next month.

According to reports, #ThisFlag supporters are “divided” or “fuming” over the pastor’s decision to leave for the U.S. It remains to be seen what will happen with the movement going forward, but Mawarire’s destination provides perhaps yet another indication that the uprising was most likely intended to advance Washington’s ultimate goals for Zimbabwe.

President Mugabe indicated as much on July 19. Speaking to thousands of people gathered at a funeral for the country’s first black cabinet secretary, the BBC quoted Mugabe as saying that “if people like Mr Mawarire did not like living in Zimbabwe, they should go to ‘the countries of those who are sponsoring them.’

 

black-horizontal



Caleb Maupin
Screen Shot 2016-02-04 at 9.46.00 AMIs an American journalist and political analyst. Tasnim News Agency described him as "a native of Ohio who has campaigned against war and the U.S. financial system." His political activism began while attending Baldwin-Wallace College in Ohio. In 2010, he video recorded a confrontation between Collinwood High School students who walked out to protest teacher layoffs and the police. His video footage resulted in one of the students being acquitted in juvenile court. He was a figure within the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York City. Maupin writes on American foreign policy and other social issues. Maupin is featured as a Distinguished Collaborator with The Greanville Post.  READ MORE ABOUT CALEB MAUPIN HERE.


Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PM

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]




Is Southern Africa About To Be Shaken Up By Hybrid War? (Part I)

=By= Andrew Korybko

Zambia tribes

Tribal and linguistic map of Zambia – click to enlarge or go to click here.


Editor's Introduction
In this series, Mr. Korybko is examining the issue of colonialism in Southern Africa, largely for resource exploitation. This is creating tremendous internal stresses which is reflected in hardship, massive displacement, and outright slaughter of the population in many parts of the continent. Africa is a tremendously complex continent with hundreds of different tribal groups. This is reflected in the map above that shows the tribal and linguistic groups inn just one nation - Zambia. Many parts of Africa are tremendously resource rich though the people get precious little benefit from that wealth. These internal pressures, and the growing competition for resource control among nations from the U.S. to Britain, to China, are setting Southern Africa up for a potential hybrid war. Hybrid war is essentially a strategy that blends contemporary strategies with cyber warfare as well as undermining the "enemy" via subversive strategies like the various "color revolutions" instigated by the U.S. - Rowan Wolf

Commonly thought of as a bastion of peace and stability in the continent ever since the turn of the century, the southern part of Africa is once more returning to the spotlight of global attention. Zimbabwean officials have alleged that the American and French embassies are behind the latest Color Revolution commotion in the country, stating that their ambassadors even met with the movement’s newest leader, Pastor Evan Mawarire, before he began his campaign. This accusation is echoed by regional leader South Africa, which described the latest tumult as “sponsored elements seeking regime change”. If the US succeeds in its latest Color Revolution plot, then the collapse of Resistant & Defiant Zimbabwe could be the tripwire for automatically setting into motion a preplanned sequence of other destabilizations that might rapidly spread throughout the neighboring countries, thereby returning Southern Africa back to its Cold War-era of conflict and unexpectedly turning it into the New Cold War’s latest battleground.

An Irresistible Target

Harare has always been very close to Moscow and especially Beijing, and this trilateral relationship has only intensified in the past couple of years. China openly stated that Africa is a priority area of its foreign policy and that its relationship with the continent is integral to the country’s sustainable 21st-century economic growth. The $4 billion that President Xi promised Zimbabwe during his December 2015 visit there is expected to form the cornerstone of their future relations and yield tangible market benefits for China, all in accordance with its African grand strategy. Russia, just like China, also has many investments in the centrally positioned Southern African state, though they focus more on minerals and military equipment than on the real-sector economy. Still, when taken together in the complementary context of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership, Moscow and Beijing’s combined interests in Zimbabwe have made it an irresistible target for Washington’s covert campaign.

More broadly speaking, the region of Southern Africa is internationally known for having the most developed infrastructure networks – a key component of China’s One Belt One Road global vision of connectivity – and a relatively skilled labor force in comparison to the rest of Africa, thus also explaining why many companies rely on this part of the continent as their access point to the rest of it. The high level of physical connectivity between the Southern African states means that people and products can move throughout the lower half of the Southern African Development Community with ease, and while this might be a boon for business, it also inherently carries with it very serious security risks if something goes dangerously wrong in one of these states and insurgent and weapons start moving cross-border instead. Because of the economic importance that many global players attach to Southern Africa – China first and foremost among them – and the real risk that they could all be adversely impacted by the American-directed regime change operation in Zimbabwe, it’s relevant to analyze the situation in depth and prognosticate some of its most likely consequences.

New Year, Same Strategy

Zimbabwe’s economic and political woes aren’t anything new, and their present manifestation is actually the evolution of a years-long policy of hostility that the US has been practicing against it. From the implementation of sanctions in the early 2000s to the first Color Revolution attempt in 2008, the US has been persistently trying to undermine President Mugabe for both for the sake of unseating a multipolar leader and because of the regional contagion effect of instability that the Zimbabwean state’s collapse could trigger. Economic warfare against the country was responsible for historic hyperinflation rates of 231 million percent in late-2008, the timing of which was by no means a coincidence. Inflation had been exponentially multiplying in the run-up to the general election in March of that year and the second round that was eventually held in June, and the economic difficulties that Zimbabweans were forced to experience were manufactured by the US in a bid to break the population’s support for the government.

“Opposition” rival Morgan Tsvangirai was ultimately unsuccessful in toppling the government, though Mugabe eventually had to concede to a form of ‘Regime Tweaking’ in appointing him as his Prime Minister. This post was specifically created in order to deal with the Color Revolution crisis and was abolished immediately after the American proxy’s term was up, but during that four-year time, the US hoped to use Tsvangirai to weaken the government from within and subvert its sovereignty-exercising plans to integrate Zimbabwe within the emerging multipolar world order.  It’s clear that the US has been waging asymmetrical warfare on Zimbabwe for years already, and in fact, many of the lessons that it learned throughout this drawn-out operation have presently been applied to Venezuela as well. Furthermore, the riotous disturbances that are rocking the South American country right now have correspondingly proved to be invaluable lessons for the Color Revolutionaries in Zimbabwe, further demonstrating yet another example of interlinked continuity in the US’ indirect adaptive approach to regime change, or Hybrid War.

Perfecting Timing

The latest outbreak of Color Revolution violence was obviously being prepared for a while, but the dual events that prompted its commencement are the signs of an internal power struggle within the ruling ZANU-PF party and Mugabe’s elderly age, with the latter inevitably leading to the former. The President himself has had to address these rumors several times over the past year, chiding his supposed ‘allies’ for already conniving about what they will do once he eventually dies. The popular chatter is that his wife Grace will pick up the reins and carry on her husband’s legacy, but Tsvangirai has already come out against her possible candidacy and is rallying his supporters to oppose her if she chooses to run. With so much political uncertainty in the air, and the economy still in dire straits, the US saw the perfect structural opportunity for asymmetrically striking against the Zimbabwean state and thus revved up its Color Revolutionaries for the coming battle.

Coordinating The Color Revolution

Religion:

As it has been wont to do over the past couple of years in undermining targeted governments, the US is employing a syncretic approach in assembling as diverse of a crowd as possible to partake in the Zimbabwean Color Revolution. The figurehead who the US has designed to publicly lead this campaign is Pastor Evan Mawarire, and they purposely chose a religious representative in order to capitalize off of the piousness that pervades the country’s population. Mawarire was just arrested by the authorities for inciting violence, but the US likely foresaw this event and has plenty of backup plans to exploit its proxy’s ‘official’ ‘religious’ position in order to turn him into a Color Revolution  martyr behind whom the anti-government crowds and their Western government backers can rally.

Economy:

Supporters of the Zimbabwe African National Union's Patriotic Front

Supporters of the Zimbabwe African National Union’s Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) march in the streets of Harare February 24, 2010, to protest against the decision by the European Union to extend economic sanctions on Zimbabwe for another year. REUTERS/Philimon Bulawayo

Relatedly, most of the people who are organizing against the government aren’t doing so for explicitly regime change purposes, but rather to allegedly protest against the country’s deteriorating economic conditions and alleged police violence. Truth be told, they’re likely well aware of how their participation feeds into this scenario, but because they’re not publicly announcing it, they’re able to hide behind a thin veneer of ‘plausible deniability’ when they’re accused of being the US’ “useful idiots’. Admittedly, the government itself is responsible for mismanaging part of the country’s economy in response to the US’ disruptive aggression against it, and Mugabe made a major mistake in his 2000 “land reform” package that ultimately ended up destroying Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector, but these incidents in and of themselves should not normally be grounds for launching a violent ‘protest’ movement years after they first occurred.

What’s plausibly occurring then isn’t that some Zimbabweans had a years-long delayed reaction to what has happened to their country, but that these ‘protests’ are engineered by the US as the final form of economic warfare against the country designed to push the fragile system past the tipping point and into a tailspin of collapse. “Stay-away day”, as the first themed protest was called at the beginning of the campaign, was more of a nationwide strike than a protest, and it was meant to instantly exacerbate the country’s economic turmoil and grind society to a halt, which would thereby – as the reasoning suggests – attract more dissatisfied people to the street in joining the burgeoning anti-government movement that the Western media would allege had ‘organically’ sprung up in response. Additionally, this sly form of externally triggered economic civil war (the US’ strategic organization of foreign labor strikers against their own targeted economy) also had the unstated ulterior motive of provoking the authorities into a physical response that could then be used to generate intentionally misleading media reports that in turn induceeven more anti-government hostility among the masses and feed the Color Revolution movement.

Military:

The icing on the cake and the real power multiplier in this entire operation isn’t the Color Revolution figurehead’s religious affiliation or the economic civil war that the US has tried to provoke, but the fact that some respected war veterans from the country’s independence struggle have withdrawn their support for Mugabe and are actively campaigning for his overthrow. They began signaling their discontent earlier this year during a series of government meetings and public statements, but in timed coordination with the Color Revolution that has now broken out, Secretary General of the Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association (ZNLWVA) Victor Matemadanda proclaimed that “Tsvangirai can be a better enemy because a defined enemy is an enemy you know, but a pretender is much serious, dangerous and can destroy anyone.” He was speaking about the influential G40 faction within the ruling ZANU-PF party that some commentators believe will ascend to power in the wake of Mugabe’s passing, but the salience of his statement is that he is openly plotting to work together with the pro-American ‘opposition’ agent in maneuvering his forces in a post-Mugabe reality. This was preceded by an organizational spokesman voicing support for the Color Revolution, and earlier this year, it’s notable that the veterans were very loud in their opposition to Grace Mugabe and her political allies, obviously positioning themselves as some form of incipient ‘nationalist opposition’ to the government and its leader’s assumed successor.

The involvement of the ZNLWVA is very important and shouldn’t be overlooked by any observers. This constituency, however patriotic it may be, essentially represents an informal ally of the US in weakening popular support for the Mugabe Administration. There’s no objection being raised to the organic development of a patriotic opposition to the government, but it’s just that the ZNLWVA appears to be inadvertently furthering the exact same objective as the US at this moment, which is the diminishment of civil trust in the government and the promotion of a regime change agenda. There’s likely no contact between American intelligence agencies and this group, and they’d probably immediately reject any outreaches that could be or might have already been made, but the case of ZNLWVA proves that even presumably well intentioned patriotic organizations could unwittingly function as “useful idiots” in lending ‘legitimacy’ to the US’ preplanned scheme, mostly in the pursuit of their own narrow self-interests but possibly also out of the conspiratorial actions of some of its co-opted members. ZNLWVA’s partisanship on the side of the Color Revolutionaries is also meant to exert influence on the military and security forces who might understandably be reluctant to forcibly respond to “their own” if the government orders them to disband the riotous disturbances. The underlying purpose of the veterans’ group is to form the core of a “patriotic-nationalist” opposition against Mugabe that could attract current servicemen and trigger defections, thus weakening the make-or-break powerbrokers that could hold the most control during the uncertain post-Mugabe transitional period (whether he dies or is overthrown).

Continued in Part II.


Andrew Korybko is the American political commentator currently working for the Sputnik agency. He is the post-graduate of the MGIMO University and author of the monograph “Hybrid Wars: The Indirect Adaptive Approach To Regime Change” (2015). This text will be included into his forthcoming book on the theory of Hybrid Warfare.

Source: Oriental Review.

 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.





“China will react if provoked again: you risk the war”

Alessandro Bianchi interviews Andre Vltchek

China art district

Andre Vltchek in the Beijing Art District with the dragons.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he AntiDiplomatico (Italy) interviews philosopher, Andre Vltchek: “Russia and China are forming an incredible defensive wall to protect humanity from Western terrorism.”

Andre Vltchek has become renowned in Italy for being the co-author, along with Noam Chomsky, of the famous book “Western Terrorism” (Ponte alle Grazie).

A documentary filmmaker, novelist, essayist, philosopher and intellectual, multi-faceted Vltchek is the cosmopolitan man par excellence, a “true revolutionary” as he likes to call himself. In recent years with his camera and his extraordinary commitment against injustice on this planet he has explored every corner of the Earth and taken over the length and breadth of Western terrorism, one that our media likes to censor and hide from our consciences.

After the interviews with the great Australian journalist John Pilger and the famous American playwright John Steppling, we have the honor and privilege of speaking to our great friend of l’AntiDiplomatico, asking some questions on burning current international issues.
*

This interview first appeared in the Italian language, published by ‘L’AntiDiplomatico’

*

Alessandro BianchiAlessandro Bianchi: I start with a brutal question: What has become of a country that it offers Donald Trump as its ‘best candidate’?

Andre VltchekAndre Vltchek: It is not much different from the country that it has been for decades, even centuries. Since the beginning, the US presidents (all of European stock, of course), had been promoting slavery, extermination campaigns against the native population of North America, barbaric wars of aggression against Mexico, and other Latin American countries, the Philippines, etc. Has anything changed now? I highly doubt it. Donald Trump is horrendous, but he is also honest. Both Presidents Clinton and Obama were great speakers, but unrepentant mass murderers.

 

Alessandro Bianchi In a recent survey over 53% of Americans were against both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. How long will we continue to consider the United States a democracy? And why, in your opinion, is abstention the only form of “rebellion” by a population completely excluded from the decision-making stage?

Andre Vltchek “Democracy” means nothing else other than, “rule of the people”, in Greek. There is nothing democratic about the political concepts of the United States and Europe. And there is absolutely nothing democratic about the “global arrangement” through which the West has been ruling over the rest of the world for decades and centuries. The second part is, I’m convinced, much more important, much more devastating; in the West, people have been tolerating their insane political system in exchange for the countless privileges they are getting from their countries’ plundering of the planet, and from violating entire nations and continents. But in Africa, Asia and  elsewhere, those “un-people” have no choice at all.

 

Alessandro Bianchi Is Bernie Sanders really the change that many in Europe have described?

 

Andre Vltchek Bernie Sanders is like those liberal members of the German National Socialist Party during the WWII, or of the Italian Fascist movement during Mussolini. They’d do much for their own workers and peasants, socially… as long as funds were flowing in from the countries plundered by their imperialism. Under Bernie Sanders, Western workers would definitely do much better, but the rest of the world, the “wretched of the Earth” would still have to pay the bill.

 

Alessandro Bianchi What would happen to the world under a Hillary Clinton’s presidency?

 

Andre Vltchek Nothing exceptional – things would stay the same: sponsorship of “Color” or “Umbrella” or whatever “revolutions”, some more coups, “regime changes”, direct invasions, bombing, propaganda warfare against China, Russia, Iran, South Africa and what is left of the Latin American revolutions. There would be plenty of torture in “secret centers”, but it would not be as advertised and glorified as it would be if Trump were elected. World War III would become a great possibility, but such a scenario is quite possible under any new US administration… To answer your question: business as usual.

 

Alessandro Bianchi What did you feel when you recently saw Obama speaking in Hiroshima and not apologizing for what was done by his country, declaring almost sarcastically – as the head of the world’s first atomic power – hope for a world without nuclear weapons?

Andre Vltchek I’m quite immune to such speeches, aren’t you? Although, yes… somehow Obama’s is much more disgusting than others, because he is smart and we all “know that he knows”. It is clear that he is thoroughly dishonest. It would be somehow more acceptable to see George W. puking over sushi. And Trump: he’d probably declare in Hiroshima that he’d nuke half of Asia if it would help the West to retain its control over the world. At least one would not harbor any false hopes.


It is not only European and North American propaganda that is responsible for the present state of things: it is also the people, quite ordinary people, living in the West.


Alessandro Bianchi Will the growing US expansionism come to a breaking point and collision with China?

 

Andre Vltchek Yes it will. I have no doubt about it. China is one of the greatest cultures on Earth, and it is one of those countries that suffered immensely from colonialist horrors and humiliation. Chinese people are indignant. Indignant! For decades, despite everything, they tried to make peace with the West. They are in fact the most peaceful big nation on Earth, and what do they get in return? They get insults, provocations and intimidation.

The Western public should learn and remember one essential thing about China: no matter what European and North American propaganda barks about the People’s Republic, China is much more “democratic” than the West. It is democratic in its own way. For thousands of years, it developed its own political system. Its rulers, no matter who they are, are given a conditional right to govern by the people. In the past, but even now it is called a “Heavenly Mandate”. If the rulers fail to respect the will of the people, they get deposed. And the Communist Party of China is greatly respectful of the desires of the majority of the Chinese people. When they want liberal reforms, they are delivered. When they want more Communism and an epic fight against corruption, like now, China’s government immediately reacts. It is powerful and democratic, although it is a very specific and complex arrangement.

And now, the Chinese people are outraged and they are sending clear signals to Beijing: “do not succumb to the West.” “If you do, our nation will suffer immensely, and the rest of the world will turn to ashes.”

Do understand: Chinese people are brilliant; the West cannot fool them. And they are thoroughly sick of Western imperialism. This time, if confronted and provoked, the Chinese government would yield to the pressure from its people: it would be forced to give orders to fight – to defend its motherland!

 

Alessandro Bianchi Although it is NATO action that is placing military installations more and more to the East, in Europe our information apparatus feeds the fear of the danger of an aggressive Russia. Who benefits from spreading these Russophobe feelings?

Andre Vltchek Of course, the Empire! Of course, the Western supremacists!

With Russia, it is very similar to China: people there have had it up to here with the West! The Russian people suffered immensely from Western imperialism. Throughout their history they fought countless invasions led by the French, Scandinavians, Brits, North Americans, Germans, Poles, Czechs and others. Tens of millions of Russian people died, fighting all sorts of Western expansionism. They defeated Nazism. They helped to liberate much of our world from colonialism. Of course the West never forgave Russia for fighting the epic battles against its expansionism and colonialism.

But it is not only European and North American propaganda that is responsible for the present state of things: it is also the people, quite ordinary people, living in the West.

For years now, the fake European ‘left’ has tried to portray European citizens as victims of the US imperialism. It is even trying to make the world feel sorry for those European workers who do not get a fair deal from their governments! It is thoroughly absurd. Overwhelmingly the majority of European citizens are unhappy with the social deal they get, yes; and that is why they are so angry with their governments. Because they want more, much more! They couldn’t care less that their benefits, salaries and other privileges, have been, for decades and centuries ‘subsidized’ by the plunder of other parts of the planet; that they are paid for by blood. There is absolutely no solidarity in the West towards its own victims, and the recent ‘refugee crises’ is direct proof of it. Fanon and Sartre had already determined more than 50 years ago, each and every European citizen is responsible for (and has been benefiting from) the countless genocides and unbridled theft. It has to be repeated again and again: you give Europeans once again ‘all benefits that they can eat’, you make them work shorter hours, and you give more money, and they’d be back in a self-congratulatory, self-righteous mode; damned be the rest of the world. The only reason so many are so pissed off at the US is because they see North America as promoting a ‘bad deal’ for its own masses, not because it is ruining the rest of the world!

So, back to Russia… Russia, despite its heavy flirtation with capitalism and some quite unsavory oligarchs, is still building its foreign policy on the Soviet ideals of internationalism, solidarity and logic. And even domestically, President Putin is slowly, step-by-step, restoring many important Soviet achievements that were torpedoed by a nitwit – Gorbachev, and a gangster – Yeltsin. Let’s not forget that one poll after another clearly demonstrates that well over 50% of Russian citizens still wants both socialism and the USSR back. And the Russian government is listening.

The West, both the elites (consciously) and ordinary people (sub-consciously), want Russia to go to hell; to disappear, drown, explode. It is because Russia is once again defending humanism all over the world. If it succeeds, the elites would lose their power over the planet, and the ‘ordinary citizens’ of the West would lose their privileges; the plunder would have to stop, and the life of one African or Asian person would suddenly gain the same value as that of a one European or North American. And that would be really ‘unacceptable’!

On top of it, Russia and China have become two great allies. They’d never be divided as they were during the Cold War days. Russia and China together cannot be defeated: militarily, economically or morally. The West can only try to destroy them internally, through horrendous sets of tricks, propaganda and toxic lies. But now even such a scenario is unlikely. Russian people, like their Chinese comrades, are well aware of what is going on. And there are tens of millions of their martyrs who are reminding them what is to be expected from the West.

Encircled and provoked, Russia is once again turning into a mighty monolithic defense wall. Its people are ready! They want peace, above anything else. But if they’d have to fight for their own survival, and for the survival of the world, they will. And this time again, if there is a showdown, two enormous nations, Russia and China, standing side-by-side, will defeat fascism!

That is why Russia is hated. That is why China is hated. They are forming a tremendous, final defense line protecting humanity from the Western terror.

 

Alessandro Bianchi Since the advent of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, which began with the famous Obama’s speech at the University of Cairo in 2009, the Eastern Mediterranean has become a powder keg. Was it an external plan – a planned destruction of the states hostile to rulers in Washington, like Libya and Syria in particular, or was it a real quest for democracy and freedom?

Andre VltchekBoth. Some socialist movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain, for instance, were genuine. I was making films about the so-called Arab Spring, and I’m well aware of how complex the situation really was. But it goes without saying is that the West immediately infiltrated and ‘derailed’ the revolutions, turning them into what you have described.

Remember, the West had absolutely no appetite for risking its dictatorial powers over the area. It had no desire to let democratic and revolutionary forces take control of these countries. Why? Just look, again, at the polls: the majority of Arab people see the United States and Israel (definitely not Iran or Syria) as the greatest danger to the world. Could you imagine what the Arab people would do if true democracy (rule of the people) were to be victorious? They’d side with Russia and China, not with the West. And they’d throw their ‘elites’, groomed in and by the West, straight out the window.

 

Alessandro Bianchi Is it right today, to define Aleppo as the “Stalingrad of Syria” and “the cemetery of the dreams of fascist Erdogan” as stated by the Syrian President Assad?

Andre Vltchek Yes, it is like that, or at least, it is somewhere along those lines. Aleppo, Homs… Yes. I wrote about it earlier, comparing Syria to Stalingrad.

.

 

Alessandro Bianchi What do you think will be the final scenario for Syria? It risks crystallization like the Cold War-style situation between the two blocks – Damascus, Russia and regional allies, on the one hand, and Kurds with the United States on the other – and Raqqa, which would become a new Berlin?

Andre Vltchek The Western planners are definitely trying to fragment the entire Middle East. They already have done, on several historical occasions. But this is a new chapter. They play with the Arab countries as if they were simply some milking cows. There is no regard for human lives, or local national interests. It is because the West, despite its hypocritical rhetoric (political correctness) does not really consider non-whites and non-Christians as human beings. You kill millions, so be it. You ruin 5 regional states; who cares?

 

Alessandro Bianchi What role, in your opinion, do the human rights NGOs play in the current international context?

 

Andre Vltchek Even that term, ‘human rights’, makes me ill. You have to really go back to Fanon and Sartre… They said it all. Human rights are only for ‘humans’, therefore for the West. And for the rest of the Planet: there, the ‘human rights’ are used to discredit uncomfortable, even ‘hostile’ governments through countless implants like NGOs. Who talks about the real human rights violations, those committed by the West? Europeans and North Americans have already butchered hundreds of millions of people, or close to one billion, to be precise. They have been looting, torturing and raping. Even now, they are killing millions directly and tens of millions indirectly. But it does not count; because their victims are not white, therefore not human, and as a result, they don’t really have any rights.

 

Alessandro Bianchi 14 years ago, the coup in Venezuela against the democratically elected President Hugo Chavez failed and began the US exit from Latin America. Shortly after, the US invaded Iraq. Today the hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean wobbles, and Washington uses all the weapons at its disposal to return to Latin America. Is, in your opinion, President Rafael Correa right when he says that we are facing a new Plan Condor in the region?

Andre Vltchek Definitely! Comrade Correa gets it right, most of the time. This is new, ‘final’ offensive of the Empire in Latin America. I have just returned from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay; it is absolutely horrible what is going on there. The Empire is trying to finish both BRICS and all the Latin American revolutions.

 

Alessandro Bianchi If that is the case, considering what has also happened in Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia, which techniques are being used today?

Andre Vltchek The same as ‘before’, the same techniques, which have been used against, for instance President Allende and ‘Unidad Popular’ in Chile, before the 9-11-1973 US-orchestrated coup.

The West is supporting, even financing the right-wing media, it is financing ‘the opposition’, encourages capital flight of billions of dollars, works closely with the local ‘elites’ to create ‘deficits’, ‘uncertainty’ and despair. It creates corruption scandals, and it even supports fake ‘left’ anti-government movements. And of course it is training and corrupting some key military cadres.

 

Alessandro Bianchi The future of the world offers at the moment two possible paths: a US unilateralism, particularly in the event of Clinton’s presidency, made up of areas of “free” trade treaties around the world on the NAFTA model (such as the TTIP in Europe), with millions as the desperately poor products of them, profits only for multinationals, and the planned destruction of all countries who rebel against this vision (Libya and Syria style); or, the second possibility: a period of multilateralism, respect for sovereignty, self-determination and peace. If the alternative project to the ‘Washington Consensus’ were to prevail, it would be that of the BRICS and regional integration in Latin America, designed and built by Chavez, Lula and Kirchner. And which of the two views will prevail in your opinion?

Andre Vltchek There will be great battles fought for the future of the world! The coming years will be very tough. In order for the second scenario to win, the world would have to return where the struggle for independence and against Western colonialism and imperialism was lost or abandoned more than 50 years ago. Let’s face it: the world was never really completely de-colonized. It would be total hypocrisy to claim otherwise.

One of the popular views in the liberal circles of the West is that we are actually ‘all victims of capitalism’. I disagree. This savage global capitalism is only one of the most terrible bi-products of the dominant Western culture of racism, greed, brutality and unbridled desire to control the world. The world is still being battered by the Western/white/Christian supremacy dogmas and practices, by the most primitive and fundamentalist ‘principles’.

The truth has to be unveiled. If the West insists, if it keeps pushing, the battles have to be fought. And they will be fought. And the forces of internationalism, humanism and solidarity will have to be victorious, or soon there will be nothing left of the human race.


Alessandro Bianchi, nato a Roma, dirige il sito di politica internazionale “L’Antidiplomatico”

Andre Vltchek
andreVltchekPhilosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.

 


 

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

horiz-long grey

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PMNauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.





Who Is the More Vicious Liar: Trump, or Obama?

horiz-black-wideDispatches from Eric Zuesse
pale blue horiz


bloodshed and misery (all otherwise entirely unnecessary, including in Libya — which, likewise, under Gaddafi, had been friendly toward Russia) they’re creating in the process.

Obama has well exceeded the negative expectations of those who understood his malignant treachery from the outset.

Obama—a sociopathic demagog— has well exceeded the negative expectations of those who understood his malignant treachery from the outset.

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]here was a drastic refocus by U.S. President Barack Obama away from being anti-jihadist and toward being anti-Russian, after his first Presidential term ended and as soon as his second Presidential term began; but the signs that Obama presented during his re-election campaign in 2012 were in exactly the opposite direction — that he was going to reduce, not increase, American armaments against Russia. A major reason why the American people re-elected U.S. President Barack Obama, instead of elected a new President Mitt Romney, was Romney’s having said of Russia, on 26 March 2012,
 …
Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe. They — they fight every cause for the world’s worst actors. … Russia is the — the geopolitical foe.
Not just “a” geopolitical foe, but “the” geopolitical foe.” (Wow! In a world with growing jihadist movements, such as Al Qaeda and ISIS?)
Obama responded to that at the re-election campaign’s end, by springing this upon Romney during a debate, on 22 October 2012:
 …
Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia. In the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.
[dropcap]O[/dropcap]bama’s campaign had very successfully presented himself as having killed Osama bin Laden and many other Al Qaeda leaders; and, though no polling has been done on whether the American public considered jihadists (fundamentalist-extremist Islamists who seek a global “Caliphate”) to be “our number one geopolitical foe,” or Russia to be that instead, the poor polling that has been done relating to that matter, suggests the majority of Americans would have selected “jihadists,” not “Russia,” as being “our number one geopolitical foe”; and, in the final analysis, the 2012 Presidential contest exit polls did show Obama (who was publicly less hostile toward Russia than Romney and the Republicans were) with a 42% to 36% advantage over Romney on the national-security question: “Who Do You Trust To Handle International Crisis?” The exit polls showed Obama winning the total vote by around 50% to 48%; so, “International Crisis” went for Obama, and against Romney, considerably more than did the overall exit-polled Presidential vote, and this at least suggests that Obama not Romney gained from this public disagreement over “our number one geopolitical foe.”
 …
Regarding the incident on 26 March 2012, when Obama spoke with Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev at the South Korean “Nuclear Security Summit”Politifact reported:
In March 2012, at a summit in South Korea, Obama was caught in a “hot mic” incident. Without realizing he could be overheard, Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more ability to negotiate with the Russians about missile defense after the November election.
“On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [the incoming President Putin] to give me space,” Obama was heard telling Medvedev, apparently referring to incoming Russian president Vladi­mir Putin.
“Yeah, I understand,” Medvedev replied.  Obama interjected, saying, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
 …
So: Obama was telling Putin there, through Medvedev, that his next Administration would soften its stand on America’s installing in eastern Europe, near and even on Russia’s borders, missiles that are designed to disable Russia’s ability to retaliate against a U.S. nuclear first-strike — the U.S. ABM or anti-ballistic-missile system.
 …
Obama wasn’t lying only to America’s voters; he was shown there privately lying to Putin, by indicating to Medvedev that instead of becoming more aggressive (by his planned ABMs) against Russia in a second term, he’d become less aggressive (by negotiating with Putin about the matter — as you can see there, the nub of it was George Herbert Walker Bush’s lie to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990).
 …
[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he missile system to disable Russia’s retaliatory force is extremely aggressive (the termination of the nuclear balance — called “Mutually Assured Destruction,” or MAD — replacing that by nuclear weapons as instruments of conquest), and Putin had been constantly making clear that he wouldn’t accept it without hiking Russia’s armaments so as to counter it, if Obama goes forward with it.
 …
Obama’s double-lie there — both to Americans in public, and to Putin in private — was as vicious as can possibly be imagined, because it could produce a nuclear war, which is something that neither the American people want, nor the Russian people want, nor Vladimir Putin wants, even if Barack Obama might (and he’s certainly playing a bold game of poker over it, which is the most vicious part of this entire affair).
 …

Nazi symps Ukie Banderistas with some of the the tools of their trade. Thank you, Mr Obama.

Ukie Banderistas, rightwing extremists with open Nazi sympathies with some of the the tools of their trade. Thank you, Mr Obama.

But actually, Obama’s lie was even worse than this, because, from the very moment when he entered the White House in 2009, he already was hoping to invade Syria so as to eliminate Russia’s ally there, Bashar al-Assad. And, furthermore, Obama at the very start of his second term began preparations to overthrow another key Russian ally, the democratically elected President of Russia’s next-door neighbor Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. The coup in Ukraine started being implemented on 1 March 2013, which was well before the excuse for it (Yanukovych’s 20 November 2013 turn-down of Ukrainian membership in the EU) had even occurred; so, the lie that Obama’s anti-Russian sanctions are because Russia accepted Crimea’s return to Russia, after Obama actually stole Ukraine from its former Russian alliance, after Yanukovych rejected the EU’s offer to sell, to Ukraine, EU membership for a cost of $160 billion to be borne solely by Ukrainians, after Obama had set all of that up almost immediately after his second term began, is actually a string of lies by Obama about what he was doing and about what Putin was doing, and about what it all meant — and means.

 …
And then, when Obama did spring his coup, in February 2014, which was an extremely violent coup, it was very reasonably seen to be a dangerous threat to the regions of Ukraine (Crimea and Donbass) that had voted over 75% for the man whom Obama had just overthrown, and they seceded in Crimea and in Donbass, because not only of the very real threat (and the Obama-regime’s ethnic-cleansing campaign against Donbass), but because they saw no legitimacy in their being ruled by their enemies, who are fake proponents of ‘democracy’, but actually aspiring global dictators.
 …
Does there exist any lying by Donald Trump which trumps that? I have never been a Republican, but I certainly won’t vote for Hillary Clinton, who, in all details, has been similar to Obama on each of these matters, only even more reckless about her aggression than Obama has been — she was the Administration’s “super-hawk”.
 …
On 9 January 2012, the geostrategist F. William Engdahl presented relevant immediate background for Obama’s lie asserting his alleged disagreement with Romney about Russia, when Engdahl headlined “Why Washington Wants ‘Finito’ with Putin”, and he opened (and he was one of the first Westerners to have read correctly the tea leaves on this):
 …
Washington clearly wants ‘finito’ with Russia’s Putin as in basta! or as they said in Egypt last spring, Kefaya — enough!.  Hillary Clinton and friends have apparently decided Russia’s prospective next president, Vladimir Putin, is a major obstacle to their plans. Few however understand why.
Russia today, in tandem with China and to a significant degree Iran, form the spine, however shaky, of the only effective global axis of resistance to a world dominated by one sole superpower [to clarify: dominated by U.S.-based international corporations].
On December 8 several days after election results for Russia’s parliamentary elections were announced, showing a sharp drop in popularity for Prime Minister Putin’s United Russia party, Putin accused the United States and specifically Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of fueling the Russian opposition protesters and their election protests. Putin stated, “The (US) Secretary of State was quick to evaluate the elections, saying that they are unfair and unjust even before she received materials from the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (the OSCE international election monitors-w.e.) observers.”
 …
Obama’s hostility against Russia, and his reasons for it, were known to his targets, but in America’s ‘democracy’, were not only kept secret from the electorate, but Obama blatantly lied to them about the matter, and he won re-election on the basis of lies such as this — lies such as his calling Romney on ugly designs that Obama too (though secretly) held. 
 …
It’s not enough for America’s voracious aristocracy to control their own country; they’re determined to control all others, regardless of how much bloodshed and misery (all otherwise entirely unnecessary, including in Libya — which, likewise, under Gaddafi, had been friendly toward Russia) they’re creating in the process. And that’s what the most vicious lying is really all about: to hide their psychopathic intent, and their fundamental ugliness, as they go about their dirty-work.


About the author

EricZuesseThey're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.



black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]




Brazil, Like Russia, Under Attack by Hybrid War


horiz grey linetgplogo12313



 

 “The whole developing world should be fully alert – and learn the relevant lessons, as Brazil is bound to be analyzed as the ultimate case of Soft Hybrid War.”


Now it’s Brazil’s turn. Color revolutions would never be enough; Exceptionalistan is always on the lookout for major strategic upgrades capable of ensuring perpetual Empire of Chaos hegemony. The ideological matrix and the modus operandi of color revolutions by now are a matter of public domain. Not so much the concept of Unconventional War (UW).

UW was spelled out by the 2010 Special Forces Unconventional Warfare manual. Here’s the money quote:

“The intent of US [Unconventional Warfare] UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish US strategic objectives… For the foreseeable future, US forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.”

“Hostile” powers are meant not only in a military sense; any state that dares to defy any significant plank of the Washington-centric world “order” – from Sudan to Argentina – may be branded “hostile”.

brazil-3MM-protest-againstDilma

Demonstrators attend a protest against Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, part of nationwide protests calling for her impeachment, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, March 13, 2016. © Nacho Doce / Reuters

The dangerous liaisons between color revolutions and UW have now fully blossomed as Hybrid War; a warped case of Flowers of Evil. A color revolution is nothing but the first stage of what will become Hybrid War. And Hybrid War can be interpreted essentially as the weaponization of  chaos theory – an absolute conceptual darling of the US military (“politics is the continuation of war by linguistic means”). My 2014 book Empire of Chaos essentially tracks its myriad manifestations.

This very well-argued three-part thesis clarifies the central objective behind a major Hybrid War; “to disrupt multipolar transnational connective projects through externally provoked identity conflicts (ethnic, religious, political, etc.) within a targeted transit state.”

Brazil-demonstratorsAgainstDilma[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he BRICS – an extremely dirty word/concept in the Beltway/Wall Street axis – had to be the prime targets of Hybrid War. For myriad reasons. Among them; the push for trade and commerce in their own currencies, bypassing the US dollar; the creation of the BRICS development bank; the avowed drive towards Eurasia integration, symbolized by the now converging China-led New Silk Roads – or One Belt, One Road (OBOR), in its official terminology – and Russia-led Eurasia Economic Union (EEU).

This implies that Hybrid War sooner rather than later will hit Central Asia; Kyrgysztan, a prime lab for Exceptionalistan experiments of the color revolution kind, is the ideal candidate.

As it stands, Hybrid War is very much active in Russia’s western borderlands (Ukraine) but still embryonic in Xinjiang, China’s Far West, which Beijing micromanages like a hawk. Hybrid War is already being applied to prevent a crucial Pipelineistan gambit; the construction of Turkish Stream. And will also be fully applied to interrupt the Balkan Silk Road – essential for China’s integrated trade/commerce with Eastern Europe.

As the BRICS are the only, real counter power to Exceptionalistan, a strategy had to be developed for each of the major players. Everything was thrown at Russia – from sanctions to full demonization, from a raid on its currency to an oil price war, even including (pathetic) attempts to start a color revolution in the streets of Moscow. For a weaker BRICS node, a more subtle strategy would have to be developed. Which brings us to the complexity of Hybrid War as applied to the current, massive political/economic destabilization of Brazil.

In the UW manual, swaying the perceptions of a vast “uncommitted middle population” is essential in the road to success, so these uncommitted eventually turn against their political leaders. The process encompasses everything from “supporting insurgency” (as in Syria) to “wider discontent through propaganda and political and psychological efforts to discredit the government” (as in Brazil). And as an insurrection escalates, so should the “intensification of propaganda; psychological preparation of the population for rebellion.” That, in a nutshell, has been the Brazilian case.

We need our own Saddam

Exceptionalistan’s utmost strategic objective is usually to have a merger of color revolution and UW. But Brazil’s civil society and vibrant democracy were too sophisticated for hardcore UW steps such as sanctions or R2P (“responsibility to protect”).

As the BRICS are the only, real counter power to Exceptionalistan, a strategy had to be developed for each of the major players. Everything was thrown at Russia – from sanctions to full demonization, from a raid on its currency to an oil price war, even including (pathetic) attempts to start a color revolution in the streets of Moscow…”

It’s no wonder that Sao Paulo was turned into the epicenter of the Hybrid War against Brazil. Sao Paulo, the wealthiest Brazilian state, also housing the economic/financial capital of Latin America, is the key node in an interlinked national/international power structure.

The Wall Street-centered global financial system – which rules over virtually the whole West – simply could not allow national sovereignty in full expression in a major regional actor such as Brazil.

The Brazilian Spring, in the beginning, was virtually invisible, an exclusive social media phenomenon – just as Syria in early 2011.

Then, in June 2013, Edward Snowden leaked those notorious NSA spying practices. In Brazil, the NSA was all over Petrobras. And suddenly, out of the blue, a regional judge, Sergio Moro, based on a single source – a currency exchange operator in the black market – had access to a major Petrobras document dump. Up to now, the two-year Car Wash corruption investigation has not revealed how they got to know so much about what they dub the “criminal cell” acting inside Petrobras.

brazil-MassiveProtest-LulaEffigy

An inflatable doll known as “Pixuleco” of Brazil’s former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is seen during a protest against Rousseff, part of nationwide protests calling for her impeachment, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, March 13, 2016. © Paulo Whitaker / Reuters.

What matters is that the color revolution modus operandi – a fight against corruption and “in defense of democracy” – was already in place. That was the first step of Hybrid War.

As Exceptionalistan coined “good” and “bad” terrorists wreaking havoc across “Syraq”, in Brazil surged the figure of the “good” and the “bad”—the corrupt.

Wikileaks also unveiled how Exceptionalistan doubted Brazil could design a nuclear submarine – a matter of national security. How construction company Odebrecht was going global. How Petrobras by itself developed the technology to explore the pre-salt deposits – the largest oil discovery of the young 21st century, of which Big Oil was excluded by none other than Lula.

Then, as a result of Snowden’s revelations, the Rousseff administration required all government agencies to use state-owned companies for their technology services. This would mean that US companies could lose as much as $35 billion in revenue over two years as they would be deprived of business in the 7th largest economy in the world – as research group Information Technology & Innovation Foundation discovered.

The future is happening now

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he march towards Hybrid War in Brazil had little do to with the political left or right. It was basically about mobilizing a few wealthy families that actually run the country; buy large swathes of Congress; control mainstream media; behave like 19th century slave plantation owners (slavery still permeates all social relations in Brazil); and legitimize it all via a hefty, yet bogus, intellectual tradition.

They would give the signal for the mobilization of the middle class.

Sociologist Jesse de Souza identified a Freudian “substitutive gratification” phenomenon under which the Brazilian middle class – with large swathes now clamoring for regime change – imitates the wealthy few as much as it’s ruthlessly exploited by them, via mountains of taxes and sky-high interest rates.

The wealthy 0,0001% and the middle classes needed an Other to demonize – Exceptionalistan style. And what could be more perfect for the judicial-police-media-old comprador elite complex than the figure of a tropical Saddam Hussein: former President Lula.

Ultra right-wing “movements” financed by the nefarious Koch Brothers suddenly popped up on social networks and street protests. The Brazilian attorney general visited the Empire of Chaos leading a Car Wash team to hand out Petrobras information that could prop up possible Department of Justice indictments.

Car Wash and the – immensely corrupt – Brazilian Congress, which will now deliberate over the possible impeachment of President Rousseff, revealed themselves as indistinguishable.

By then, the scriptwriters were sure that a regime change social infrastructure was already built into a critical anti-government mass, thus allowing the color revolution’s full bloom. The way to a soft coup was paved – without even having to resort to lethal urban terrorism (as in Ukraine). The problem was that if the soft coup failed – as it now seems at least possible – it would be very hard to unleash a hard coup, Pinochet-style, via UW, against the beleaguered Rousseff administration; that is, finally accomplishing Full Hybrid War.

On a socioeconomic level, Car Wash would only be fully “successful” if mirrored by a softening up of Brazilian laws regulating oil exploration, opening it up for US Big Oil. And in parallel, all social spending programs would have to be smashed.

Instead, what’s happening now is the progressive mobilization of Brazilian civil society against a white coup/soft coup/regime change scenario. Crucial actors in Brazilian society are now firmly positioned against the impeachment of President Rousseff, from the Catholic church to evangelicals; first tier university professors; at least 15 state governors; masses of union workers and “informal economy” workers; artists; leading intellectuals; jurists; the overwhelming majority of lawyers; and last but not least, the “deep Brazil” that legally elected Rousseff with 54.5 million votes.

It ain’t over till some fat man in the Brazilian Supreme Court sings. What’s certain is that independent Brazilian academics are already laying down the theoretical bases to study Car Wash not as a mere, massive anti-corruption drive; but as the ultimate case study of Exceptionalistan’s geopolitical strategy applied to a sophisticated globalized environment dominated by infotech and social networks.

The whole developing world should be fully alert – and learn the relevant lessons, as Brazil is bound to be analyzed as the ultimate case of Soft Hybrid War.


 

SOURCE: RT.COM

Editor's Note
pepe-escobar

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst. He writes for RT, Sputnik and TomDispatch, and is a frequent contributor to websites and radio and TV shows ranging from the US to East Asia. He is the former roving correspondent for Asia Times Online. Born in Brazil, he's been a foreign correspondent since 1985, and has lived in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Washington, Bangkok and Hong Kong. Even before 9/11 he specialized in covering the arc from the Middle East to Central and East Asia, with an emphasis on Big Power geopolitics and energy wars. He is the author of "Globalistan" (2007), "Red Zone Blues" (2007), "Obama does Globalistan" (2009) and "Empire of Chaos" (2014), all published by Nimble Books. His latest book is "2030", also by Nimble Books, out in December 2015.


Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

horiz-long grey




black-horizontal

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable

If you appreciate our articles, do the right thing and let us know by subscribing. It’s free and it implies no obligation to you—ever. We just want to have a way to reach our most loyal readers on important occasions when their input is necessary.  In return you get our email newsletter compiling the best of The Greanville Post several times a week.  

[email-subscribers namefield=”YES” desc=”” group=”Public”]

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.57.29 PM

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?

GET EVEN.
Send a donation to 

The Greanville Post–or
SHARE OUR ARTICLES WIDELY!
But be sure to support YOUR media.
If you don’t, who will?

horiz-black-wide
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL-QUOTES BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHORS.




black-horizontal