Monday, June 3, 2019

The War On Truth Paul Craig Roberts


The War On Truth

The War On Truth
Paul Craig Roberts
“The ability of the owners of the political/media class to discredit and neutralize anyone who poses a threat to their interests simply by rearranging the narratives about them is one of the most destructive psychological weapons in their arsenal. The main reason it’s so hard to convince the public that they have been taken in by propaganda and smear campaigns is because for some stupid reason, one of the most shameful things anyone can do in our society is be fooled. If we are to overcome the narrative dominance of the powerful, it is essential that we find a way to shift that shame from those who have been fooled onto those who have been fooling them.”  — Caitlin Johnstone
Dear Readers:
This is my quarterly call for your donations.
This website originated on New Year’s Eve 2011.  I had enjoyed two months retirement before you called me back into action.  We are now well into the 8th year of my recall from retirement.
I am pleased that you called me back. The column is read by millions of people annually in many languages. The columns have resulted in three books translated into Russian, Chinese, Korean, Czech, Turkish, German, and French. They don’t make much money, but they help the world to wake up to the evil that has an iron grip on the Western World.  The endless wars based entirely on lies serving hidden agendas have destroyed the concept of the West as the hope of humanity.  The soft power behind which secret agendas operated is gone forever.

The brute open power is now checked by the military power of Russia, backed up by China.  The latest EU elections demonstrate that the European and British peoples have had all they can take of Washington and the EU’s destruction of countries based on ethnic nationality.  If Israel can be for Jews, then France can be for French, Germany for Germans, Britain for British, Italy for Italians, and, perhaps, America for Americans.  The Ziocon idea that all white countries, except Israel, are for everybody is failing in the European elections.
What is yet to fail is the police state.  The police state has been slowly sneaking up on the West for a long time.  It advanced gangbusters with 9/11 and the hoax “war on terror.”  Everywhere in the West civil liberties have taken a hard hit from secret agendas of the ruling oligarchies. 
The construction of the police state that now surrounds Americans and Western peoples generally, has many contributors.  Some of the police state’s constructors were well intentioned, such as “child advocates,” but they were ignorant of the likely consequences. In the US the exercise of parental judgment can result in the traumatic seizure of children by the Child Protective Services Gestapo, an arbitrary and unaccountable police with more powers than the Nazi Gestapo. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/22/how-dare-she-dash-muffins/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fbd2aa9392bd  
Americans have been trained to rat on one another.  Leave your children (or a dog) in your car for a minute while you get something from a convenience store and a fellow citizen is certain to call the police.  A report will be filed, and a Child Protective Service Gestapo will show up at your door, demanding admission. You will be coerced into accepting the strip searching of your children in search of a bruise from play that can be misconstrued as evidence that you beat your kids. The Gestapo will then seize your kids, and you will pay heavily in stress and attorney’s bills in the effort to recover your kids, who by this time are probably traumatized for life. The helplessness that parents endure must make them hate the government and even the country.
In the United States the deluded patriotic elements believe that our soldiers fight “to preserve our freedom,” but in fact, as Marine General Smedley Butler—the most decorated officer in the history of the US military—tells us, our soldiers die for the material interests of the ruling oligarchy.  https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/27/something-to-think-about-on-memorial-day/ 
Americans, like the British, are brainwashed about the “Great Democracies,” in which, allegedly, the governments are held accountable by the people.  In actual fact, in the “Great Democracies,” the peoples have been reduced to brainwashed slaves. 
The brainwashing is obvious. The slavery less so.  Once again let me make the slavery obvious.
A slave is a person who does not own his own labor.  Therefore, the product of his labor, or some portion of it, is not his.  For medieval serfs the maximum tax rate was 30%. Given the technology of the time, a higher tax rate so dispossessed serfs that the population could not reproduce, and the sefts would revolt.
19th century slaves worked with better technology, and their higher productivity meant that 50% of their work product could be taken by their owners. This was not all profit as owners had to pay handsomely for the labor, but instead of paying the laborer, the slave owner paid the slave merchant who paid the black African king of Dahomey who captured the black slaves. https://www.amazon.com/Dahomey-Slave-Analysis-Archaic-Economy/dp/B0000CNIBN/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Karl+Polanyi%2C+Dahomey+and+the+Slave+Trade&qid=1559345232&s=books&sr=1-1 
In contrast, prior to the 1981 Reagan tax rate reduction, the maximum tax rate on investment income was 70% and the maximum tax rate on wage and salary income was 50 percent. 
Today every Western taxpayer is a slave in the same economic sense as slaves in prior times.  Today the Western citizen does not own his own labor.  He owns only a part of it. The rest belongs to the slave master, that is, the government. The enslavement of the entire working population of the United States occured in 1913 with the enactment of the income tax. This enslavement is color blind.
In the medieval period, people could be captured and held for ransome or held indefinitely without charges or trial in order to remove obstacles to a powerful person’s agenda.  In the 21st century the Bush/Cheney regime resurrected this power in the form of indefinite detention.  The Obama regime added to the New Tyranny the power of the president to assassinate US citizens without due process of law. The presstitutes have failed to make issues of these tyrannies.
Despite Constitutional and statutory prohibitions against torture, Washington has brought back torture as a means to achieve self-incrimination. Torture was used by the US Army and CIA at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, Guantanamo, and at a number of black-op sites, and torture  is commonplace in American prisons.  At the moment Julian Assange is undergoing torture at the hands of one of the “world’s Greatest Democracies”—Great Britain.  Whenever there is no case against someone who the Western police states masquerading as “Great Democracies” want to convict, the person is tortured into admitting the crime for which there is no evidence. Confession by the rack is now the entrenched policy of the “Great Democracies.”
Nils Melzer is the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.  He reports that Assange shows clear signs of degrading and inhumane treatment and has “all the symptoms typical for a person who has been exposed to prolonged psychological torture.”  Assange is being “persecuted systematically . . . to the point of breaking him.” https://www.rt.com/news/460721-nils-melzer-assange-torture/ 
One hallmark of the collapse of Western civilization is the transformation of law from a shield of the people to a weapon in the hands of government, a weapon that has been brought to bear against Truth-teller Julian Assange.  The Tyranny of Good Intentions by me and Lawrence Stratton describes the destruction of the protective features of law ( https://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Good-Intentions-Prosecutors-Constitution/dp/0307396061/ref=sr_1_5?keywords=Paul+Craig+Roberts&qid=1559496718&s=books&sr=1-5 ).
Another hallmark is the absence of democratic outcomes in the so-called “Western democracies.”  Three years ago the British voted to leave the EU, a decision that the elected, democratic British government has failed to implement.  In Greece despite the manifest will of the people the government permitted the country to be looted by international finance.  The elected US president Donald Trump assumed he has the power to abrogate a democratic election in Venezuela and to appoint as president a person who did not even run for the office. This was not the limit of his arrogance.  Trump assigned Syrian territory—the Golan Heights—to Israel as if he owned Syria.  The elected chancellor of Germany, Merkel, ignored the will of the people and opened Germany to one million unassimilable Muslims who have negatively impacted the safety and quality of life of German citizens. In the US a handful of powerful private interest groups, such as Wall Street and the pharmaceuticals, together with the Israel Lobby and the military/security complex, govern the country regardless of the outcome of elections. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, denounces Europeans as “stupid nationalists who are in love with their own countries.”  Juncker is committed to forcing Europeans to give up their national lives and be forcefully integrated into diversity.  
Yet another hallmark of Western collapse is the extraordinary increase in income and wealth concentration. The vast majority of Western peoples are experiencing stagnant or declining living standards while a small handful have accumulated multi-billon dollar fortunes.  Shareholders, executives, and boards of directors put their interest first and offshored the livelihoods of millions of their fellow citizens without a thought for the consequences.  Amazon’s greedy shareholders recently rejected a proposal that the company stop selling facial recognition technology to police agencies.  The proposal to preserve privacy guaranteed by the Constitution was rejected by 97.6% of Amazon’s owners without a thought of the police state that their greed is creating. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-facial-recognition/at-amazon-facial-recognition-ban-won-just-2-of-shareholder-vote-idUSKCN1SU2H5  
Facial recognition technology means the end of privacy and anonymity, and misidentification by the technology can be life threatening. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/21/facial-recognition-privacy-prepared-regulation 
Entire industries have been deregulated and their concentration permitted.  The concentration of the media has destroyed the independence of the press, which no longer serves to bring accountability to government. Banking deregulation brought the mortgage derivative crisis, mounting indebtedness, and an economic policy that serves the banks rather than the economy.  
Wars on drugs, crime, and terror have made citizens subject to massive abuse by police, TSA, and airlines.  Families are destroyed because a member had an ounce of marijuana or because police dropped groundup wallboard in a bag inside the car and said it was cocaine.
Truth is so at odds with the official explanations that the latest war is a war on truth. Free speech is no longer respected anywhere in the Western world.  Those who exercise it get banned from Facebook and Twitter.  Websites are taken down. Academic tenure is no longer a protection of free speech.  One politically incorrect word and the professor is dismissed.  Equality under the law has given way to “diversity balancing,” which requires discrimination against white people. https://nypost.com/2019/05/25/teachers-allegedly-told-to-treat-black-students-as-victims-punish-whites/?fbclid=IwAR3LruJGLPl_ZMRxt6vBgZKPou3L-urlZ2ifgsLCHMgCvLNooK-qOQMCEuc  
Wherever one looks the structure of Western civilization is collapsing. The Western media, which is a Ministry of Truth that broadcasts official explanations, has no need of the First Amendment as the presstitutes never intend to tell the truth.
Western civilization created the rule of law in order to prevent arbitrary government power that results in tyranny.  Without freedom of speech, the lies that comprise official explanations prevail, and the population is locked in the Matrix of controlled explanations.  Even video games now serve propagandistic purposes. https://www.rt.com/news/460725-modern-warfare-white-helmets-propaganda/ 
This site, and a few others, serves truth, not agendas.  Truth is not free and is becoming more and more expensive to those who strive to provide it. Assange is merely the first victim of Washington’s War on Truth.  There will be many more victims.  There is no one to support truth but those individuals who value it.  Foundations do not support truth.  Advertisers do not support truth.  Today not even universities support truth. 
This is your site.  Our agreement is that I will take the slings and arrows as long as you value the information.  For those of you who want solutions, there can be no solution until enough people are informed.  Once a critical mass of informed people is achieved, the people will find  solutions. But without truth sites, such as this one, the people will never be informed. 
So, whether or not truth prevails is up to you.  



Julian Assange Está a Ser Assassinado

Julian Assange Está a Ser Assassinado 
SUPPORT JULIAN ASSANGE
Julian Assange Está a Ser Assassinado

O governo britânico criminoso concordou  assassinar Julian Assange, a mando de Washington, o seu mentor perverso.

More from Guest Contributions 

O Estado implacável
Por Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk
Junho 1, 2019
Estamos seriamente preocupados com a condição de saúde de Julian Assange. Ontem, estava demasiado doente para poder comparecer perante o tribunal e o seu advogado sueco, Per Samuelson, encontrou-o num estado em que Julian estava incapaz de estabelecer uma conversa e dar instruções. Há sintomas físicos muito marcados, particularmente uma perda rápida de peso, e tememos que não estejam a ser efectuados esforços, genuínos e suficientes, para a obtenção de um diagnóstico, a fim de  determinar a verdadeira causa.
Durante o ano passado, Julian foi mantido na Embaixada do Equador em condições precárias, muito restritas e cada vez mais opressivas e a sua saúde já estava a deteriorar-se de forma alarmante, antes da sua expulsão e prisão. Uma série de condições, incluindo abcessos dentários, que pode ter consequências muito graves se não forem tratados durante muito tempo e a recusa contínua do governo britânico e, mais tarde, dos equatorianos, de permitir o acesso a cuidados de saúde adequados a um asilado político, foi uma negação cruel e deliberada de direitos humanos básicos.
Confesso que senti um certo alívio pessoal após a sua prisão, porque, pelo menos agora ele receberia tratamento médico adequado. No entanto, percebe-se agora, não haver qualquer intenção de fornecê-lo e, de facto, desde que ele esteve em Belmarsh, os problemas de saúde exacerbaram-se. Testemunhei a cumplicidade do Estado britânico em casos de tortura para saber que esta atitude pode significar mais do que somente uma consequência de negligência não intencional. É extremamente alarmante constatar que o homem mais lúcido que eu conheço, já não é capaz de manter, agora, uma conversa racional.
Não há nenhuma razão aceitável para que Assange precise ser mantido numa instalação de alta segurança destinada a terroristas e infractores violentos. Estamos a ver o motivo por trás da sua longa detenção sem precedentes, para esquivar-se à fiança da polícia quando pediu asilo político. Como prisioneiro condenado, Assange pode ser mantido num regime pior do que se estivesse apenas em prisão preventiva, devido aos procedimentos de extradição. Mesmo que ele estivesse saudável, o acesso aos seus advogados é extremamente restrito e, para um homem que enfrenta grandes processos legais no Reino Unido, nos EUA e na Suécia, é impossível que os seus advogados tenham tempo suficiente para preparar, juntamente com ele, os seus processos adequadamente. Assange está sob as mesmas restrições que são impostas a um condenado. Claro que sabemos, pelo facto de que, três horas após ter sido arrastado da Embaixada do Equador, ele ter sido condenado e sentenciado a uma longa pena de prisão, que o Estado não tem intenção de que os seus advogados se possam preparar.
Perguntei antes e faço-o, agora, novamente: Se fosse uma editora dissidente na Rússia, o que é que a classe política e a comunicação mediática do Reino Unido estariam a dizer sobre ele ter sido arrastado por polícias armados, condenado e sentenciado a prisão por um Juiz sem júri, três horas depois, após uma farsa de um "julgamento" durante o qual o Juiz o insultou e chamou de “narcisista” antes de Assange dizer qualquer coisa em sua defesa? A comunicação mediática ocidental estaria em pé de guerra, se esse caso acontecesse na Rússia. Aqui, eles congratulam-se com esses factos.
A seguir está uma foto de Julian na Embaixada em tempos mais felizes, durante a presidência de Correa, com um grupo de pessoas verdadeiramente surpreendente e forte, cada uma delas com histórias, as quais podemos seguir e com elas aprender:
Devo acrescentar que,  juntamente com outros dois amigos íntimos,  estou pessoalmente, a tentar ver Julian Assange, mas, como é óbvio, o acesso é extremamente difícil.
Os objectos pessoais de Julian foram apreendidos pelos equatorianos para serem entregues ao governo dos EUA. Incluem não só os computadores, mas os seus documentos legais e médicos. Este é mais um exemplo de uma acção estatal completamente ilegal contra ele. Além do mais, qualquer transferência deve envolver o material roubado que transita fisicamente em Londres, e o governo britânico não está a tomar medidas para impedi-lo, o que é mais um dos múltiplos sinais do grau de coordenação governamental internacional por trás da frágil pretensão de uma acção judicial independente.
Julian está preso há, pelo menos, mais de cinco meses, mesmo com liberdade condicional (que provavelmente vão encontrar uma desculpa para não conceder). Depois, será mantido em prisão preventiva. Portanto, não há necessidade de pressa. A recusa do tribunal sueco, de atrasar uma audiência sobre um possível mandado de extradição, para permitir que Julian se recupere para poder instruir o advogado e o breve adiamento da audiência de extradição dos EUA em Londres, com a intimação que pode ser mantido dentro da prisão de Belmarsh, se Julian estiver demasiado doente para se deslocar, são exemplos de uma pressa totalmente desacostumada e desnecessária, na maneira como o caso está a prosseguir. Os moinhos de Deus moem devagar; os do Diabo parecem girar a alta velocidade.
Finalmente, para os que ainda acreditam que as acções judiciais contra Julian,  não só na Suécia, são de alguma forma motivadas por uma preocupação em que a justiça seja feita, particularmente os casos de justiça referente a mulheres violadas, peço-lhes que leiam este excelente relato de Jonathan Cook. Quanto ao resumo da série verdadeiramente impressionante de abusos legais por parte dos Estados contra Assange, que a comunicação mediática empresarial e estatal distorceu e escondeu deliberadamente durante uma década, o mesmo não pode ser melhorado.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
Copyright © 2019 Craig Murray
Publicado de novo, com permissão do autor.
Copyright © 2019 Craig Murray


Saturday, June 1, 2019

Julian Assange Is Being Murdered


Julian Assange Is Being Murdered
SUPPORT JULIAN ASSANGE
Julian Assange Is Being Murdered
The criminal British government has agreed to assassinate Julian Assange for its criminal Washington master
More from Guest Contributions
Parte inferior do formulário


By Craig Murray
CraigMurray.org.uk
June 1, 2019
We are seriously worried about the condition of Julian Assange. He was too unwell to appear in court yesterday, and his Swedish lawyer, Per Samuelson, found him in a state where he was unable to conduct a conversation and give instructions. There are very definite physical symptoms, particularly rapid weight loss, and we are not satisfied that genuine and sufficient diagnostic efforts are being made to determine the underlying cause.
Julian had been held for the last year in poor, highly confining and increasingly oppressive conditions in the Ecuadorean Embassy and his health was already deteriorating alarmingly before his expulsion and arrest. A number of conditions, including dental abcesses, can have very serious consequences if long term untreated, and the continual refusal by the British government and latterly the Ecuadoreans to permit him access to adequate healthcare while a political asylee was a callous denial of basic human rights.
I confess to feeling an amount of personal relief after his arrest that at least he would now get proper medical treatment. However there now seems to be no intention to provide that and indeed since he has been in Belmarsh his health problems have accelerated. I witnessed enough of the British state’s complicity in torture to know that this may be more than just the consequence of unintended neglect. That the most lucid man I know is now not capable of having a rational conversation is extremely alarming.
There is no rational reason that Assange needs to be kept in a high security facility for terrorists and violent offenders. We are seeing the motive behind his unprecedented lengthy imprisonment for jumping police bail when he entered political asylum. As a convicted prisoner, Assange can be kept in a worse regime than if he were merely on remand for his extradition proceedings. In particular, his access to his lawyers is extremely restricted and for a man facing major legal proceedings in the UK, USA and Sweden it is impossible, even were he healthy, for his lawyers to have sufficient time with him adequately to prepare his cases while he is under the restrictions placed on a convict. Of course we know from the fact that, within three hours of being dragged from the Ecuadorean Embassy, he was already convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term, that the state has no intention that his lawyers should be able to prepare.
I have asked before and I ask again. If this were a dissident publisher in Russia, what would the UK political and media class be saying about his being dragged out by armed police, and convicted and sentenced to jail by a judge without a jury, just three hours later, after a farce of a “trial” in which the judge insulted him and called him a “narcissist” before he had said anything in his defence? The Western media would be up in arms if that happened in Russia. Here, they cheer it on.
Below is a photo of Julian in the Embassy in happier times, during the Correa Presidency, with a truly amazing and strong group of people, every one of whose stories we can follow and learn from:
Left to Right: Thomas Drake, Coleen Rowley, Julian Assange, Elizabeth Murray, Ray McGovern, Nadira, Ann Wright
I should add that I am currently trying to see Julian personally with two other close friends, but obviously access is extremely difficult.
 Julian’s personal possessions have been seized by the Ecuadoreans to be given to the US government. These include not only computers but his legal and medical papers. This is yet another example of completely illegal state action against him. Furthermore, any transfer must involve the stolen material physically transiting London, and the British government is taking no steps to prevent that, which is yet another of multiple signs of the degree of international governmental coordination behind the flimsy pretence of independent judicial action.
Julian is imprisoned for at least another five months, even with parole (which they will probably find an excuse not to grant). After that he will be held further on remand. There is therefore no need for rush. The refusal of the Swedish court to delay a hearing on a potential extradition warrant at all, to allow Julian to recover to the extent he can instruct his lawyer, and the very brief postponement of the US extradition hearing in London, with the intimation it may be held inside Belmarsh prison if Julian is too unwell to move, are both examples of an entirely unaccustomed and unnecessary haste with which the case is being rushed forward. The mills of God grind slowly; those of the Devil seem to spin dangerously fast.
Finally, for those who still believe that actions against Julian, particularly but not only in Sweden, are in any way motivated by a concern for justice, particularly justice for violated women, I do urge you to read this excellent account by Jonathan Cook. As a summary of the truly breathtaking series of legal abuses by states against Assange, that the corporate and state media has been deliberately distorting and hiding for a decade, it cannot be bettered.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
Copyright © 2019 Craig Murray




EN -- Manlio Dinucci -- The Art of War -- An assault ship for new Crusaders

« THE ART OF WAR »
An assault ship for the new Crusaders
by Manlio Dinucci


On 25 May 2019, Head of State Sergio Mattarella, Minister for Defence Elisabetta Trenta, Minister for Economic Development Luigi Di Maio, and the highest military authorities, were all present for the launching of the ship Trieste,built by Fincantieri, at the Castellammare di Stabia shipyards (Naples).
The Trieste is the Italian Navy's multi-role and multi-function amphibious craft, defined by Trenta as the « perfect synthesis of our country's capacity for technological innovation ». It is 214 metres long and can reach speeds of up to 25 knots (46 km/h). It has a 230-metre flight deck for helicopter take-off, F-35B fighters with short take-off and vertical landing, and V-22 Osprey convertibles. On its garage deck, it can transport armoured vehicles which can cover a linear distance of 1,200 metres. It has an internal launch deck, 50 metres long and 15 metres wide, which enables the ship to operate with NATO's most modern amphibious vehicles.
In technical terms, it is a ship destined to « project and support, in crisis areas, the disembarkation  of the naval military forces and the national capacity for the projection of Defence from the sea ». In practical terms, it is an amphibious assault ship which, by approaching the coast of a target country, can attack it with fighters and helicopters armed with bombs and missiles, then invade with a battalion of 600 men transported, with their heavy weaponry, in helicopters and disembarkation vehicles. In other words, it is a weapons system projected not for defence but attack in large-scale war operations in the context of long-distance USA/NATO « force projection ».
The decision to build the Trieste was taken in 2014 by the Renzi government, which presented it as a naval military naval craft to be used mainly for « humanitarian assistance activities ».
The cost of the ship, to be assumed not by the Ministry for Defence but by the Ministry of Economic Development, was quantified as 844 million Euros, in the context of the financing of 5,427 million Euros for the construction of nine other warships as well as the Trieste. Among these are two other high-speed naval patrol units for the special forces in « operations which require discretion », in other words, secret war operations.
At the moment of launching, the cost of the Trieste was estimated at 1,100 million Euros, or 250 million Euros more than the planned cost. The final cost will be even higher, because of the budget for the F-35B fighters and helicopters taken on board, plus that of the other weapons and electronic systems with which the ship will be equipped in the years to come.
The technical innovation in the military sector – announced the Ministry of Defence - « must be supported by the certainty of the finances ». That is to say the continual and growing financing with public money, including by the Ministry of Economic Development, now headed by Luigi Di Maio. At the launching ceremony, he promised the workers that there were to be other investments : indeed, there are other warships which need to be built.
The launch ceremony took on a different significance when the Vicar of the Armed Forces, Monseigneur Santo Marcianò, praised the fact that the workers had attached a large cross to the prow of the ship, composed of sacred images for which they have a special devotion , including those of Pope Wojtyla and Padre Pio. Monseigneur Marcianò praised the « power of faith »  expressed by the workers, whom he blessed and thanked for « this marvellous sign that you have attached to the ship ».
So was launched the great warship, presented as an example of our country's capacity for innovation, paid for by the Ministry of Economic Development with our own money, subtracted from productive investments and social spending, blessed with the sign of the cross like in the time of the Crusades and colonial conquest.
il manifesto, 28 May 2019
Translator: Pete Kimberley 



«DICHIARAZIONE DI FIRENZE»
Per la creazione di un fronte internazionale NATO EXIT in tutti i paesi europei della NATO

DAN – Manlio Dinucci -- « KRIGSKUNST » -- Et krigsskib til de nye Korsfarere


 
« KRIGSKUNST »
Et krigsskib til de nye Korsfarere
af Manlio Dinucci



25. maj 2019 var statsoverhoved Sergio Mattarella, forsvarsminister Elisabetta Trenta, minister for økonomisk udvikling Luigi Di Maio og de højeste militære myndighedspersoner til stede ved søsætningen af skibet Trieste, bygget af Fincantieri på Castellammare di Stabia skibsværftet (Napoli).


Trieste er den italienske flådes amfibiefartøj, som kan indgå i mange roller og funktioner, betegnet af Trenta som den "perfekte syntese af vores lands kapacitet inden for teknologisk innovation". Det er 214 meter langt og kan komme op på hastigheder på op til 25 knob (46 km/t). Det har et 230 meter langt start- og landingsdæk til helikoptere, F-35B jagerfly med kort startbane og vertikal landing og V-22 Osprey luftfartøjer. På dets garagedæk kan det transportere tankvogne, som kan dække en lineær distance på 1.200 meter. Det har et internt affyringsdæk, 50 meter langt og 15 meter bredt, hvilket gør det muligt for skibet at operere med NATO's mest moderne amfibiefartøjer.

I tekniske termer er det et skib, som er bestemt til at "projektere og støtte landsætningen af militære flådestyrker i kriseområder og den nationale kapacitet til projektion af forsvar fra søsiden". I praktiske termer er det et amfibiekrigsskib, som ved at nærme sig kysten på det land, som er målet, kan angribe det med jagerfly og helikoptere armeret med bomber og missiler, derefter invadere det med en bataljon på 600 mænd transporteret med deres tunge våben i helikoptere og landgangsfartøjer. Med andre ord er det et våbensystem projekteret ikke til forsvar, men til angreb i stor-skala krigsoperationer i forbindelse med langdistance USA/NATO "projektion af styrker".

Beslutningen om at bygge Triesteblev taget i 2014 af Renzi regeringen, som præsenterede det som et militært flådefartøj, som hovedsageligt skulle bruges til "humanitær assistance aktiviteter".

Prisen på skibet, som blev antaget ikke af forsvarsministeriet, men af ministeriet for økonomisk udvikling, blev vurderet til 844 millioner euro, i en budgetteret finansiering på 5.427 millioner euro for bygningen af ni andre krigsskibe samt Trieste. Blandt disse var to andre højhastigheds flåde patruljeenheder til specialstyrkerne i "operationer, som kræver diskretion", med andre ord, hemmelige krigsoperationer.

På tidspunktet for søsætningen blev prisen for Trieste vurderet til 1.100 millioner euro eller 250 millioner euro mere end den planlagte pris. Den endelige pris vil blive endnu højere på grund af budgettet for F-35B jagerflyene og helikopterne, der tages med ombord, og for de andre våben og elektroniske systemer, som skibet vil blive udstyret med i de kommende år.

Den tekniske innovation i den militære sektor - bekendtgjort af forsvarsministeriet - "må støttes med sikkerhed for finanserne". Dvs. den fortsatte og voksende finansiering med offentlige midler, hvilket omfatter ministeriet for økonomisk udvikling, som nu ledes af Luigi Di Maio. Ved søsætningsceremonien lovede han arbejderne, at der ville komme andre investeringer: sandelig, der er andre krigsskibe, der må bygges.

Søsætningsceremonien fik en anden betydning, da præsten for de væbnede styrker, Monseigneur Santo Marcianò, priste det faktum, at arbejderne havde sat et stort kors fast på skibets stævn, lavet af hellige billeder af folk, som de har en speciel hengivenhed for, hvilket omfatter pave Wojtyla og padre Pio. Monseigneur Marcianò priste "troens kraft" udtrykt af arbejderne, som han velsignede og takkede for "dette vidunderlige tegn, som I har sat fast på skibet".

Så blev det store krigsskib søsat, præsenteret som et eksempel på vores lands kapacitet for innovation, betalt af ministeriet for økonomisk udvikling med vores egne penge, på bekostning af produktions investeringer og sociale udgifter, velsignet med korsets tegn som i Korsfarernes og kolonialismens tid.

il manifesto, 28 maj 2019

Oversættelse: MV


«DICHIARAZIONE DI FIRENZE»
Per la creazione di un fronte internazionale NATO EXIT in tutti i paesi europei della NATO


NL -- Manlio Dinucci -- " DE KUNST VAN OORLOG " Een aanvalsschip voor de nieuwe kruisvaarders


 
" DE KUNST VAN OORLOG "
Een aanvalsschip voor de nieuwe kruisvaarders
door Manlio Dinucci




Op 25 mei 2019 waren staatshoofd Sergio Mattarella, minister van Defensie Elisabetta Trenta, minister van Economische Ontwikkeling Luigi Di Maio, en de hoogste militaire autoriteiten aanwezig voor de lancering van het schip Trieste, gebouwd door Fincantieri, aan de Castellammare di Stabia-scheepswerven (Napels).
De Trieste is het multifunctionele en amfibische vaartuig van de Italiaanse marine, gedefinieerd door Trenta als de «perfecte synthese van het vermogen van ons land voor technologische innovatie». Het is 214 meter lang en kan snelheden tot 25 knopen bereiken (46 km / h). Het heeft een 230-meter lang vliegdek voor helikopter opstijging, F-35B-jagers met korte start en verticale landing en V-22 Osprey-cabriolets. Op zijn garagedek kan het gepantserde voertuigen vervoeren die een lineaire afstand van 1200 meter kunnen overbruggen. Het heeft een intern lanceringsdek, 50 meter lang en 15 meter breed, waardoor het schip kan werken met de modernste amfibievoertuigen van de NAVO.
In technisch opzicht is het een schip dat is bestemd om te "ondernemen en ondersteunen, in crisisgebieden, de landing van de marine-strijdkrachten en de nationale capaciteit voor de landingen van Defensie vanuit de zee". In praktische termen, is het een amfibisch aanvalsschip dat, door de kust van een doelland te naderen, kan aanvallen met jagers en helikopters gewapend met bommen en raketten, en dan binnenvalt met een bataljon van 600 mannen vervoerd, met hun zwaar wapentuig, in helikopters en landingsvoertuigen. Met andere woorden, het is een wapensysteem dat niet wordt geprojecteerd als verdediging, maar als aanval op grootschalige oorlogsoperaties in het kader van de VS / NAVO-projectie van lange afstanden.
Het besluit om de Trieste te bouwen werd in 2014 genomen door de regering-Renzi, die het presenteerde als een marine-militair zeevaartuig dat voornamelijk gebruikt zou worden voor «humanitaire hulpactiviteiten».
De kosten van het schip, die vermoedelijk niet door het Ministerie van Defensie maar door het Ministerie van Economische Ontwikkeling werden aangenomen, werden gekwantificeerd als 844 miljoen euro, in het kader van de financiering van 5.427 miljoen euro voor de bouw van negen andere oorlogsschepen en de Triëst. Hiertoe behoren twee andere high-speed marine patrouille-eenheden voor de speciale troepen in «operaties die discretie vereisen», met andere woorden, geheime oorlogsoperaties.
Op het moment van lancering werden de kosten van de Trieste geschat op 1.100 miljoen euro, of 250 miljoen euro meer dan de geplande kosten. De uiteindelijke kosten zullen nog hoger liggen vanwege het budget voor de F-35B jagers en helikopters aan boord, plus dat van de andere wapens en elektronische systemen waarmee het schip de komende jaren zal worden uitgerust.
De technische innovatie in de militaire sector - kondigde het ministerie van Defensie aan - «moet worden gesteund door de zekerheid van de financiën». Dat wil zeggen de voortdurende en groeiende financiering met publiek geld, onder meer door het Ministerie van Economische Ontwikkeling, nu onder leiding van Luigi Di Maio. Bij de lanceringsceremonie beloofde hij de arbeiders dat er andere investeringen zouden zijn: inderdaad, er zijn andere oorlogsschepen die gebouwd moeten worden.
De lanceringsceremonie kreeg een andere betekenis toen de vicaris van de strijdkrachten, Monseigneur Santo Marcianò, het feit prees dat de arbeiders een groot kruis hadden bevestigd aan de boeg van het schip, bestaande uit heilige beelden waarvoor ze een speciale toewijding hebben, inclusief die van paus Wojtyla en Padre Pio. Monseigneur Marcianò prees de 'kracht van het geloof', uitgedrukt door de arbeiders, die hij zegende en bedankte voor «dit prachtige teken dat u aan het schip hebt bevestigd».
Zo werd het grote oorlogsschip gelanceerd, gepresenteerd als een voorbeeld van ons vermogen tot innovatie, betaald door het Ministerie van Economische Ontwikkeling met ons eigen geld, afgetrokken van productieve investeringen en sociale uitgaven, gezegend met het teken van het kruis zoals in de tijd van de kruistochten en koloniale verovering.
Il manifesto, 28 mai 2019
Nederlandse vertaling: Martien



«DICHIARAZIONE DI FIRENZE»
Per la creazione di un fronte internazionale NATO EXIT in tutti i paesi europei della NATO


How Did Russiagate Begin?


How Did Russiagate Begin?


How Did Russiagate Begin?

Why Barr’s investigation is important and should be encouraged.

By Stephen F. Cohen

MAY 30, 2019
It cannot be emphasized too often: Russiagate—allegations that the American president has been compromised by the Kremlin and which may even have helped to put him in the White House—is the worst and (considering the lack of actual evidence) most fraudulent political scandal in American history. We have yet to calculate the damage Russsiagate has inflicted on America’s democratic institutions, including the presidency and the electoral process, and on domestic and foreign perceptions of American democracy, or on US-Russian relations at a critical moment when both sides, having “modernized” their nuclear weapons, are embarking on a new, more dangerous, and largely unreported arms race.
Rational (if politically innocent) observers may have thought that when the Mueller Report found no “collusion” or other conspiracy between Trump and Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin, only possible “obstruction” by Trump—nothing Mueller said in his May 29 press statement altered that conclusion—Russiagate would fade away. If so, they were badly mistaken. Evidently infuriated that Mueller did not liberate the White House from Trump, Russiagate promoters—liberal Democrats and progressives foremost among them—have only redoubled their unverified collusion allegations, even in once-respectable media outlets. Whether out of political ambition or impassioned faith, the damage wrought by these Russiagaters continues to mount, with no end in sight.
One way to end Russiagate might be to discover how it actually began. Considering what we have learned, or been told, since the allegations became public nearly three years ago, in mid-2016, there seem to be at least three hypothetical possibilities:
1. One is the orthodox Russiagate explanation: Early on, sharp-eyed top officials of President Obama’s intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA and FBI, detected truly suspicious “contacts” between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russians “linked to the Kremlin” (whatever that may mean, considering that the presidential administration employs hundreds of people), and this discovery legitimately led to the full-scale “counter-intelligence investigation” initiated in July 2016. Indeed, Mueller documented various foreigners who contacted, or who sought to contact, the Trump campaign. The problem here is that Mueller does not tell us, and we do not know, if the number of them was unusual.
Many foreigners seek “contacts” with US presidential campaigns and have done so for decades. In this case, we do not know, for the sake of comparison, how many such foreigners had or sought contacts with the rival Clinton campaign, directly or through the Clinton Foundation, in 2016. (Certainly, there were quite a few contacts with anti-Trump Ukrainians, for example.) If the number was roughly comparable, why didn’t US intelligence initiate a counter-intelligence investigation of the Clinton campaign?
If readers think the answer is because the foreigners around the Trump campaign included Russians, consider this: In 1988, when Senator Gary Hart was the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, he went to Russia—still Communist Soviet Russia—to make contacts in preparation for his anticipated presidency, including meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. US media coverage of Hart’s visit was generally favorable.(I accompanied Senator Hart and do not recall much, if any, adverse US media reaction.)
2. The second explanation—currently, and oddly, favored by non-comprehending pro-Trump commentators at Fox News and elsewhere—is that “Putin’s Kremlin” pumped anti-Trump “disinformation” into the American media, primarily through what became known as the Steele Dossier. As I pointed out nearly a year and a half ago, this makes no sense factually or logically. Nothing in the Dossier suggests that any of its contents necessarily came from high-level Kremlin sources, as Steele claimed. Moreover, if Kremlin leader Putin so favored Trump, as A Russiagate premise insists, is it really plausible that underlings in the Kremlin would have risked Putin’s ire by furnishing Steele with anti-Trump “information”? On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that “researchers” in the US (some, like Christopher Steele, paid by the Clinton campaign) were supplying him with the fruits of their research.
3. The third possible explanation—one I have termed “Intelgate,” and that I explore in my recent book War With Russia?: From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate—is that US intelligence agencies undertook an operation to damage, if not destroy, first the candidacy and then the presidency of Donald Trump. More evidence of “Intelgate” has since appeared. For example, the intelligence community has said it began its investigation in April 2016 due to a few innocuous remarks by a young, lowly Trump foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos. The relatively obscure Papadopoulos suddenly found himself befriended by apparently influential people he had not previously known, among them Stefan Halper, Joseph Mifsud, Alexander Downer, and a woman calling herself Azra Turk. What we now know—and what Papadopoulos did not know at the time—is that all of them had ties to US and/or UK and Western European intelligence agencies.
US Attorney General William Barr now proposes to investigate the origins of Russiagate. He has appointed yet another special prosecutor, John Durham, to do so, but the power to decide the range and focus of the investigation will remain with Barr. The important news is Barr’s expressed intention to investigate the role of other US intelligence agencies, not just the FBI, which obviously means the CIA when it was headed by John Brennan and Brennan’s partner at the time, James Clapper, then Director of National intelligence. As I argued in The Nation, Brennan, not Obama’s hapless FBI Director James Comey, was the godfather of Russiagate, a thesis for which more evidence has since appeared. We should hope that Barr intends to exclude nothing, including the two foundational texts of the deceitful Russiagate narrative: the Steele Dossier and, directly related, the contrived but equally ramifying Intelligence Community Assessment of January 2017. (Not coincidentally, they were made public at virtually the same time, inflating Russiagate into an obsessive national scandal.)
Thus far, Barr has been cautious in his public statements. He has acknowledged there was “spying,” or surveillance, on the Trump campaign, which can be legal, but he surely knows that in the case of Papadopoulos (and possibly of General Michael Flynn) what happened was more akin to entrapment, which is never legal. Barr no doubt also recalls, and will likely keep in mind, the astonishing warning Senator Charles Schumer issued to President-elect Trump in January 2017: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” (Indeed, Barr might ask Schumer what he meant and why he felt the need to be the menacing messenger of intel agencies, wittingly or not.)
But Barr’s thorniest problem may be understanding the woeful role of mainstream media in Russiagate. As Lee Smith, who contributed important investigative reporting, has written: “The press is part of the operation, the indispensable part. None of it would have been possible … had the media not linked arms with spies, cops, and lawyers to relay a story first spun by Clinton operatives.” How does Barr explore this “indispensable” complicity of the media in originating and perpetuating the Russiagate fraud without impermissibly infringing on the freedom of the press?
Ideally, mainstream media—print and broadcast—would now themselves report on how and why they permitted intelligence officials, through leaks and anonymous sources, and as “opinion” commentators, to use their pages and programming to promote Russiagate for so long, and why they so excluded well-informed, nonpartisan alternative opinions. Instead, they have almost unanimously reported and broadcast negatively, even antagonistically, about Barr’s investigation, and indeed about Barr personally. (The Washington Post even found a way to print this: “William Barr looks like a toad …”) Such is the seeming panic of the Russiagate media over Barr’s investigation, which promises to declassify related documents, that TheNew York Times again trotted out its easily debunked fiction that public disclosures will endanger a purported US informant, a Kremlin mole, at Putin’s side.
Finally, but most crucially, what was the real reason US intelligence agencies launched a discrediting operation against Trump? Was it because, as seems likely, they intensely disliked his campaign talk of “cooperation with Russia,” which seemed to mean the prospect of a new US-Russian détente? Even fervent political and media opponents of Trump should want to know who is making foreign policy in Washington. The next intel target might be their preferred candidate or president, or a foreign policy they favor.
Nor, it seems clear, did the CIA stop. In March 2018, the current director, Gina Haspel, flatly lied to President Trump about an incident in the UK in order to persuade him to escalate measures against Moscow, which he then reluctantly did. Several non-mainstream media outlets have reported the true story. Typically, The New York Times, on April 17 of this year, reported it without correcting Haspel’s falsehood.
We are left, then, with this paradox, formulated in a tweet on May 24 by the British journalist John O’Sullivan: “Spygate is the first American scandal in which the government wants the facts published transparently but the media want to cover them up.”
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen’s most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show. Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com.