Tag Archives: Regime Change

Biden’s Policy on Cuba Reveals Itself, by Ramona Wadi

Cuba is the US government’s longest running regime change failure. From Ramona Wadi at strategic-culture.org:

The assumption that military intervention would fix Cuba only illustrates how the interests of the Miami dissidents are aligned with those of the U.S.

As protests erupted in Cuba over shortages of basic necessities, the decades-long illegal U.S. blockade on Cuba was no longer a part of mainstream media narratives. In 2020, media focus was on the Cuban contribution to the fight against Covid19 and how, despite the blockade, Cuba had still managed its internationalist approach, while manufacturing its own vaccines. For a brief period, talk about lifting the illegal blockade on Cuba was also part of the international narrative, even as the medical brigades were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Meanwhile, due to the blockade and Covid19, Cuba’s economy contracted further. Unwaveringly, the U.S. government also continued with its funding of anti-governments groups. Only the U.S. intentions are not democratic, despite what mainstream propaganda disseminates.

In April 1960, a memorandum under the heading “The Decline and Fall of Castro” partly stated, “The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship.” Calling for economic deprivation, the memorandum further advocated for action which, “while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”

Continue reading→

The progressive civil war over Syria and Assad exposes an astonishing lack of intellectual curiosity by some on the American Left, by Scott Ritter

The left has accepted without question the government’s narrative on Syria and Assad, notwithstanding it’s gaping holes and contradictions. From Scott Ritter at rt.com:

The progressive civil war over Syria and Assad exposes an astonishing lack of intellectual curiosity by some on the American Left
Truth and politics are often mutually exclusive concepts when dealing with the progressive American Left. This unfortunate fact is being driven home in spades in an ongoing spat between two lefty online personalities.

Anyone following Aaron Maté (149K followers on Twitter); The Young Turks (TYT, with 440K followers as an institution, and as many followers each tracking the activity of co-hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian); the comedian Jimmy Dore (274K followers); or any number of other Twitter personalities whose online paths have crossed with any of the above; knows these left-leaning social media stars have been engaged in a vicious feud. Full disclosure, I have appeared on both Maté’s podcast, Pushback, as well as The Young Turks radio show. At issue is Syria and, more pointedly, the contention by both Uygur and Kasparian that Maté is shilling for President Bashar Assad.

A tale of two narratives

The sheer drama and vitriol which has emerged as a result of this feud has been entertaining for those who get a kick out of leftwing internecine warfare. Maté’s use of Jimmy Dore’s popular online program The Jimmy Dore Show as a platform for promoting his arguments has torn the scab off old wounds created when Dore left The Young Turks and struck out on his own, appears to underpin at least some of Uygur and Kasparian’s anti-Maté invective. However, more interesting is the fact that, as Maté pointed out in a recent interview with The Hill, the progressive wing of the American Left has hit a brick wall over the issue of Syria. Criticism of Assad has run up against the lies used to sustain US military hegemony in the Middle East.

“I think,” Maté noted, “that that meltdown reflects just like a general hostility they [The Young Turks] have towards people who are upholding actual progressive values and upholding actual journalism standards.” While the smear campaign waged by Uygur and Kasparian has been as unconscionable as it has been factually wrong, the fact that there is controversy among the progressive wing of the American political Left should not surprise anyone.As Maté observed, “[t]he reason why they slandered me at that time is because I was in Syria and Syria is a, you know, touchy subject for many people on the Left. It has been divisive.”

Continue reading→

How the British Invented George Soros, by Richard Poe

Who pulls George Soros’s strings? From Richard Poe at lewrockwell.com:

IN 1993, many in Europe felt betrayed.

Some grumbled about an “Anglo-Saxon plot.”

Britain had rejected monetary union with Europe, saying she would stick with the British pound.

Tempers flared.  Tongues loosened.  Rhetoric was starting to get downright racial.

“There is a kind of plot,” said Belgian Foreign Minister Willy Claes.  “In the Anglo-Saxon world, there exist organizations and personalities who prefer a divided Europe.”

“Anglo-Saxon financial institutions” are undermining Europe’s efforts to unify currencies, charged Raymond Barre, France’s former Prime Minister.

Speaking before the European Parliament, Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission, railed against “les Anglo-Saxons.”

Not since Napoleon’s cuirassiers charged the British lines at Waterloo had the French-speaking world exploded in such fury against perfidious Albion.  Tensions were escalating dangerously.

Not to worry, though.

Help was on the way.

The Soros Psyop

Into the breach stepped Roger Cohen, born and raised in England, educated at Oxford, but now writing for The New York Times.

Cohen slyly changed the subject.

He called Willy Claes’s office and asked spokesman Ghislain D’Hoop to please identify the “Anglo-Saxon” plotters.

There were many, D’Hoop replied.  But one was George Soros.

D’Hoop had stepped into the trap.

He had given Cohen what he wanted.

Continue reading→

CIA (Dis)Information Operations Come Home to the US, from We Meant Well

The CIA charter prohibits its involvement in domestic politics, but that’s not stopping anyone in today’s CIA. From We Meant Well at wemeantwell.com:

Reporters joke the easiest job in Washington is CIA spokesman. You need only listen carefully to questions and say “No comment’ before heading to Happy Hour. The joke, however, is on us. The reporters pretend to see only one side of the CIA, the passive hiding of information about itself. They meanwhile choose to profit from the other side of the equation, active information operations designed to influence events in America. It is 2021 and the CIA is running an op against the American people.

Leon Panetta, the Director CIA from 2009 to 2011 explained bluntly his CIA did influence foreign media outlets ahead of elections in order to “change attitudes within the country.” The method, Panetta said, was to “acquire media within a country or within a region that could very well be used for being able to deliver a specific message or work to influence those that may own elements of the media to be able to cooperate, work with you in delivering that message.”

The CIA has been running such information ops to influence foreign elections since the end of WWII. Richard Bissell, who ran the agency’s operations during the Cold War, wrote of “exercising control over a newspaper or broadcasting station, or of securing the desired outcome in an election.” A report on the CIA in Chile boasts the Agency portrayed its favored candidate in one election as a “wise, sincere and high-minded statesman” while painting his leftist opponent as a “calculating schemer.” At one point in the 1980s foreign media insertions ran 80 a day.

The goal is to control information as a tool of influence. Sometimes the control is very direct, simply paying a reporter to run a story, or, as was done in Iraq, simply operating the media outlet yourself (known as the Orwellian Indigenous Media Project.) The problem is such direct action is easily exposed, destroying credibility.

A more effective strategy is to become a source for legitimate media such that your (dis)information inherits their credibility. The most effective is an operation so complex one CIA plant is the initial information source while a second CIA plant acts seemingly independently as a confirming source. At that point you can push information to the mainstream media, who can then “independently” confirm it, sometimes unknowingly, through your secondary agents. You can basically write tomorrow’s headlines.

Continue reading→

Why Moscow Doesn’t Just Knock Him Over, by Patrick Armstrong

Often times regime changers find that taking out the top guy or gal creates more problems than it solves. From Patrick Armstrong at strategic-culture.org:

Moscow knows what Washington has not yet learnt: it’s not just one guy, it’s a whole country and sugar hits don’t last.

Every time – and we’ve just had an illustration – someone in Kiev makes trouble for Russia, the Internet is full of people crying on Putin to just go in and knock them over. A sub-variant of this is that Moscow should have invaded after the Maidan coup, arrested all the nazis and put Yanukovych back to serve out the rest of his term under the now-forgotten agreement hammered out by the EU.

But there’s actually a good reason why Moscow, in Ukraine or earlier in Georgia, did not invade and knock Zelensky or Saakashvili over and why it doesn’t forcefully deal with other irritations. And that reason is a very simple one: it’s not that it couldn’t have done it – there was nothing between Russian power and Tbilisi in 2008 or between it and Kiev in 2021 – but, simply, experience. Both Moscow’s experience and its observation of others’ experiences.

Continue reading→

Biden and His Aides Pushed America Into Syria’s Civil War a Decade Ago, by Doug Bandow

Can you teach an old regime-changer new tricks? From Doug Bandow at antiwar.com:

The United States tore itself apart with extraordinary violence 160 years ago. Around 750,000 Americans died in the Civil War, which would be about eight million dead today. It is an experience no American should want to go through again.

Yet U.S. policymakers seem drawn to foreign conflicts like moths to light. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton unaccountably made brutal battles in Lebanon, Somalia, and the Balkans Washington’s own. George W. Bush turned Iraq into a civil war and joined Afghanistan’s long-running conflict. Barack Obama escalated in Afghanistan, returned to Iraq after leaving, and racked up involvement in three additional bitter conflicts: Libya, Syria, and Yemen. Donald Trump kept the US fighting in all of them, though he launched a last-minute bid to withdraw from the longest one, Afghanistan.

So tired of enduring “endless wars” was the American public that even candidate Joe Biden promised to halt them. But will he? Or will this pledge, like the promises of so many other presidents, end up down the fabled memory hole?

A decade ago the “Arab Spring” swept the Middle East. Protests in Tunisia upended the dictator and led to a democracy which survives against the odds. In Egypt the autocrat also was ousted and a democratic election for president was held. However, the Saudis and Emiratis underwrote the generals, who retook control, creating an even more brutal tyranny that killed hundreds and imprisoned tens of thousands. The Gulf monarchies generally recognized the threat and opened their treasuries to dampen revolutionary sentiments. Bahrain invited Emirati and Saudi troops to back a vicious crackdown on protesters and guarantee the authoritarian Sunni monarchy’s survival, along with its rule over a majority Shia population.

Continue reading→

U(nspeakably) S(adistic) Foreign Policy, by Sheldon Richmond

It’s hard to see the nobility of US intentions when you’re just a poor, innocent peasant and you run the risk every day that US bombs or bullets might kill you. From Sheldon Richmond at antiwar.com:

If you had set out to construct a foreign policy designed to impose indescribable suffering on millions of innocent people around the world, you’d have a tough time coming up with anything more systematic and effective than U.S. foreign policy. An inventory of US direct military and covert operations, aid to savage governments and murderous “rebels,” and economic sanctions would easily lead one to think that the architects of this constellation of policies aimed to inflict death and maximum pain on innocent bystanders. It has been one series of crimes against humanity.

That would be an oversimplification of course. Clearly, the makers and executors of those policies have not merely aimed to inflict such suffering on innocents. Larger geopolitical goals have always been in play. But that by no means mitigated the results, which have been foreseeable and avoidable. Besides, the geopolitical goals are themselves to be condemned, seeing as how they flow from US rulers’ “exceptional nation” zeal to shape the world according to their idea of what’s good.

Nor does it help to point out that the foreign regimes and other targets of US policy have often perpetrated unfathomable brutality against innocents. The fact is that US intervention predictably enlarges local and regional violence by orders of magnitude. So other people’s crimes are no excuse for US piling on.

Over many years, from Latin America to Africa, the Middle East, and throughout Asia, US policymakers have imposed great hardship in a variety of forms: open combat through invasion and occupation, covert activities, and aid to allied repressive governments and insurgent groups aiming at regime change.

Continue reading→

The Omnipotent Power to Assassinate, by Jacob G. Hornberg

Can good things be in store for a government that claims the power to assassinate anyone it chooses? From Jacob G. Hornberger at fff.org:

It goes without saying that the Constitution called into existence a government with few, limited powers. That was the purpose of enumerating the powers of the federal government. If the Constitution was bringing into existence a government of unlimited or omnipotent powers, then there would have been no point in enumerating a few limited powers. In that event, the Constitution would have called into existence a government with general, unlimited powers to do whatever was in the interests of the nation.

If the Constitution had proposed a government of omnipotent powers, there is no way the American people would have accepted it, in which case America would have continued operating under the Articles of Confederation. Our American ancestors didn’t want a government of omnipotent powers. They wanted a government of few, limited, enumerated powers.

Among the most omnipotent powers a government can wield is the power of government officials to assassinate people. Our American ancestors definitely did not want that type of government. That is why the power to assassinate is not among the enumerated powers of government in the Constitution.

Continue reading→

World Braces for New Round of ‘American Leadership’ by Daniel McAdams

There may be a few countries out there that don’t want to be led by the United States. From Daniel McAdams at lewrockwell.com:

Say what you will about President Biden’s foreign policy team, they’re no slouches. Biden had not been president for one full day when a convoy full of military equipment and a reported hundreds of US troops rolled (illegally) into Syria from Iraq.

Readers will recall that it was the Obama/Biden Administration that came up with the brilliant idea that funding, arming, training, and equipping jihadists and terrorists in the Middle East would be a terrific way of bringing democracy to Syria.

As Syrian president Bashar al-Assad faced defeat at the hands of US-backed rebels (often, as with al-Nusra Front, affiliated with al-Qaeda) and ISIS, he in 2015 formally requested Russian assistance. Facing the prospect of al-Qaeda and ISIS on its doorstep if they succeeded in Syria, Russia accepted the request and Assad was able to slowly regain much of Syrian territory.

The hysterical warnings that Assad would genocide his people if he re-took control of the major cities proved to be all hot air – or more likely just pure war propaganda.

Continue reading→

Do you realize now what you have done? US gets the kind of ‘democracy’ it championed overseas, by Nebojsa Malic

The US’s regime change chickens have come home to roost. Needless to say, the CIA’s approved candidate won the staged election. From Nebojsa Malic at rt.com:

Do you realize now what you have done? US gets the kind of ‘democracy’ it championed overseas
A crowd of protesters stormed Congress protesting a presidential election they claimed had been fraudulent. When this happened in Serbia in 2000, the US called it democracy. When it happened in Washington, DC – not so much.

Scenes from the US Capitol on Wednesday, as protesters backing President Donald Trump disrupted the joint session of Congress meeting to certify the election of Democrat Joe Biden, looked very much like Belgrade in October 2000.

The sight was later repeated in Ukraine – twice, in 2004 and 2014 – Georgia, Moldova, Belarus, and several Central Asian former Soviet republics. On every occasion, the US backed the “people power,” because American NGOs and embassies were supporting what became known as “color revolutions.”

Continue reading→