You know something is going on when the cautious Boston Globe publishes not one, but two, pieces dealing with the “double government.”
This cryptic phrase encapsulates a serious claim about the American body politic: That a permanent and largely unaccountable bureaucracy keeps on doing what it wants to do, no matter who the voters elect to the White House.
Both of the Globe articles refer to “National Security and Double Government,” a book by Michael J. Glennon, professor of international law at Tufts University. From the descriptions of its contents (we haven’t read the book yet, but we will—and perhaps excerpt), the author is talking, with due academic caution, about an out-of-control security/military apparatus.
The fact that the Globe thinks this book is important enough to warrant not one but two analytical pieces is significant, because Boston was the scene of the mysterious Boston Marathon Bombing.
In the aftermath of that tragedy, the national security apparatus and its allies in the media, academia and corporate America (including, significantly, the Globe itself) rushed to discourage us from looking deeper at what happened—while at the same time the nat-sec folks used the event to further expand their influence at the expense of civil liberties.
The Secret Government
One of the Globe’s pieces was a highly favorable review of Dr. Glennon’s book by former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards. Edwards, a co-founder of the staunchly conservative Heritage Foundation, has over the years become more and more of a maverick—and more outspokenly alarmed by the path America has taken.
The other piece, which appeared in the Globe the same day,was a Q&A with Glennon. The astonishing headline was:
Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.
The sub-headline wasn’t much tamer:
The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon
The genesis of the book was a question that confounded Glennon about President Obama: How did a man who won election pledging to change the national security policies of his predecessor effect so little of that? Here’s what Edwards wrote in his review:
The answer Glennon places before us is not reassuring: “a bifurcated system — a structure of double government—in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy.” The result, he writes, is a system of dual institutions that have evolved “toward greater centralization, less accountability, and emergent autocracy.”
The paradox, Glennon says, is that this barely accountable government machinery actually arose from President Harry S. Truman’s attempts to reduce the military’s growing and unchecked power. The unforeseen outcome was the growth of an unaccountable civilian power center. …
Europe is facing a catastrophic economic and social decline, according to a new Red Cross report. The charity concludes that austerity measures taken during Europe’s economic downturn have further contributed to snowballing poverty and unemployment.
“Whilst other continents successfully reduce poverty, Europe adds to it,” says the report, entitled “Think differently: Humanitarian impacts of the economic crisis in Europe.”
The 68 page Red Cross report, published Thursday, adds: “We now see a quiet desperation spreading among Europeans, resulting in depression, resignation and loss of hope for their future.”
Five major trends characterizing the impact of the economic crisis across Europe are identified in the document: the poor getting poorer; the ‘new poor’ spiraling into poverty; weakening health; a toughening stance on increasing migration; and a steep rise in unemployment.
The study ominously warns that “the long term consequences of this crisis have yet to surface,” despite already very serious, visible symptoms of economic downturn being detailed throughout its pages.
The Red Cross’s research includes data and conclusions collected from a wide range of European countries, from Belgium, Georgia, Greece and Italy to Sweden, charting statistics from the 28 countries of the EU plus 14 in the Balkans, Eastern Europe and central Asia.
“While poverty has increased, social services have been reduced,” the Italian Red Cross notes in its report. “Public services simply cannot respond to the ever-growing needs,” the report cites Marco Tozzi, a Red Cross volunteer, as saying. “Poverty is on the increase in France, Romania, Spain, Sweden and many other countries as reported by National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies through the IFRC’s mapping exercise.”
Among more general trends, such as increases in poverty, unemployment and reductions in social services, some secondary social consequences are also identified. Grown-up children have been found to be moving back in with their parents in Greece and Spain, and generations are living under a single roof with just one income-earner to pay for the household’s upkeep.
However, there is simultaneously a broadening inequality gap. “Not only are more people falling into poverty, but the poor are getting poorer, and the sense is that the gaps between the wealthy and the poor are growing,” the report states, adding that those suffering the most in Europe were those identified as already badly off….
Where is all the money going? Don’t look at the guy behind the curtain. Economics is just too difficult to understand. Best to leave it to the experts.
For the first time in the history of Brazil, the federal government is investigating the deaths and abuses suffered by Indigenous peoples during military dictatorship (1964-1985). The death toll may be twenty times more than previously known.
Just as in World War II and Vietnam, napalm manufactured in the US burned the bodies of hundreds of indigenous individuals in Brazil, people without an army and without weapons. The objective was to take over their lands. Indigenous peoples in this country suffered the most from the atrocities committed during the military dictatorship (1964-1985) – with the support of the United States. For the first time in Brazil’s history, the National Truth Commission, created by the federal government in 2012 in order to investigate political crimes committed by the State during the military dictatorship, gives statistics showing that the number of indigenous individuals killed could be 20 times greater than was previously officially registered by leftist militants.
Unlike other crimes committed by the State during that time period, no reparations or indemnification for the acts have been offered to indigenous people; they were not even considered victims of the military regime. “From the north to the south and from the east to the west, accusations of genocide, assassination of leaders and indigenous rights defenders, slavery, massacres, poisonings in small towns, forced displacement, secret prisons for indigenous people, the bombing of towns, torture, and denigrating treatment were registered [with the State Truth Commissions],” Marcelo Zelic, vice president of the anti-torture group Never Again – SP, one of the organizations that makes up the Indigenous Truth and Justice Commission, created in order to provide documents and information to the National Truth Commission – told Truthout during an audience with the Truth Commission of San Pablo open to journalists.
Guaraní leader Timoteo Popyguá is from the El Dorado community in the state of Sao Paulo. He tells of his parents and grandparents, who lived in the municipality of the Manguerinha region in southern Brazil’s Paraná state, and who were victims of the military regime. Popyguá explained to Truthout that his relatives were forcibly removed from their lands, and those who managed to stay suffered from a drastic reduction in their territories. Because these indigenous groups require “ample space” for the reproduction of their cultural life, according to him this is another form of violence that they were subjected to. “My parents were victims of abuses, chained to tree trunks. The reason was land,” he says. “There must be reparations for the loss of our land and our culture.” …
Funny, I don’t recall ever voting for my taxes to be used in this way. And it’s strange how the total devastation and brutalization of latin america under the guise of the US “national interest” was so instrumental in destroying US domestic manufacturers as sweat shops and agro-exporting plantations drove them out of business. Could it be that the so-called government isn’t really a government at all, but some kind of zombie bankster puppet horror show?
It will be interesting to see what happens when the “government’s” sole claim to legitimacy is based on its use of force.
US Struggles to Keep Asia in Dark Age
US-funded newspapers promote US-funded NGOs in their efforts to halt infrastructure projects that would reduce flooding, produce clean, renewable energy, and provide jobs and development for millions.“The Irrawaddy,” which claims to be “a leading source of reliable news, information, and analysis on Burma/Myanmar and the Southeast Asian region,” has doggedly covered efforts by so-called “activists” to prevent the construction of dams all across Southeast Asia – from Myanmar (still called by its British imperial nomenclature “Burma” by the Western media), across Thailand, and in Laos.Its most recent article, “Thai Power Firm’s Business Tactics ‘Use Burma’s Weak Laws’,” is a typical representation of these efforts. It reports that:
One of the chief financiers of hydroelectric dams planned on Burma’s Salween River is accused of investing in countries where there is “oppression and limited transparency” in order to achieve its objectives.
Having been restricted in its activities at home, the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) wants to use Burma and Laos as proxy suppliers of electricity via environmentally damaging river dams, the US-based NGO International Rivers told The Irrawaddy.
Dams are undoubtedly disruptive to the surrounding, existing environment and surely governments and special interests regularly sidestep their responsibility to ensure dam construction results in equitable outcomes for surrounding human populations as well as wildlife. However, to oppose their construction entirely is a regressive, politically motivated agenda peddled by some of the most sociopolitically and environmentally destructive special interests on Earth.
To understand this, one must understand what both The Irrawaddy and International Rivers have in common, and specifically why their agenda has become entwined in the battle against real development across all of Southeast Asia.
US-Funded “Newspapers” and “Activists”
Both The Irrawaddy and International Rivers are creations and perpetuations of the US State Department and several Fortune 500 corporate-financier funded foundations. These include foundations that represent the interests of corporations including Exxon, Chevron, British Petroleum (BP), Total, as well as big-finance and the World Bank. Already, it should be easy to understand why Western energy giants and financiers would be interested in arresting the development of sustainable energy independence across Southeast Asia.
The Irrawaddy is literally a creation of the US State Department via its National Endowment for Democracy (NED). This is revealed in a 2006 report titled, “FAILING THE PEOPLE OF BURMA? A call for a review of DFID policy on Burma,” published by the Burma Campaign UK. In it, it states specifically:
The NED sub-grant program also has fostered the development of three well-known Burmese media organizations. The New Era Journal, the Irrawaddy, and the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB) radio have become critical sources of independent news and information on the struggle for democracy in Burma. …
The “global warming crisis” couldn’t have come at a better time.
This is what the skeptics have been saying for YEARS. Vaccines aren’t worth squat until the child’s immune system is mature enough to process them, one at a time.
But in every other respect, you can trust american medicine to do the right thing. Except for circumcision, obstetrical abuse, bottle feeding, psych drugging and wherever else profit conflicts with science.
A PhD immunologist and vaccine proponent recently admitted during a conference that babies are only given shots up to age one in order to ‘train the parents’ to get their children into the medical system and that the vaccines are completely worthless.
The immunologist, who declined to be identified after she made the comments, responded to a question about the rationale of giving infants vaccines in the first year of their life when they have no positive effect.
Q. So the science seems fairly clear that for the first year of life, probably, that the immunization is not stimulating the kind of response we expect it to stimulate.
Q. So what’s the rationale for continuing to do that if it’s not doing what it’s supposed to be [doing]?
A. The vaccines are given at pediatric wellness visits, and the idea is that you are training the parent to bring their child in at all the pediatric wellness visits, and that it’s only the year visit that actually is truly important. But that for most parents you are not going to get them to bring their kid in if they don’t come in at two months, four months, and six months. And so it’s actually more of a training thing.
It’s interesting, I was on the phone with [?] county public health last week, with one of their vaccine nurses. She was like, ‘Oh, you’re talking about vaccines? Make sure you tell them they have to do that year shot because the first three [the 2, 4 and 6 month shots] don’t work.’ I was like, ‘Yeah, I know.’ [laughter].
The notion that babies are being injected with vaccines for the first year of their life simply in order to brainwash parents into feeding their children into the medical system is an extremely disturbing premise. ….
The money seems to affect them all to varying degrees.
Of course the “right” media is no exception, it’s just that the left media corporate connection tends to be overlooked.
For all his faults, Alex Jones’s funding model tends to make him immune from business influences outside his own business. That’s why he can deal with 9/11 and other issues that are verboten on Democracy Now.