Posted by greydogg, 99GetSmart
* EVO MORALES: TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR CONFRONTING CAPITALISM AND CONSTRUCTING A CULTURE OF LIFE
By Evo Morales, President of Bolivia
|Sisters, brothers: The world is being hit by a world-wide multiple crisis that is manifested in a climate, financial, food, institutional, cultural, ethical and spiritual crisis. This crisis indicates to us that we are living in the final days of capitalism and unbridled consumerism; that is, of a model of society in which human beings claim to be superior to Mother Earth, converting nature into an object of their merciless predatory domination.
The ideologues of capitalism argue that the following are the solutions to the crisis of the capitalist system:
On the one hand, more capitalism, more privatization, more commoditization, more consumerism, more irrational and predatory exploitation of natural resources and more protection for companies and private profit.
On the other hand, fewer social rights, less public health, less public and free education, and less protection for human rights.
Today the societies and peoples of the developed countries are tragically experiencing the capitalist crisis created by its own market. Capitalist governments think that it is more important to save the banks than to save human beings, and it is more important to save the companies than to save people. In the capitalist system the banks have priority economic rights and enjoy first-class citizenship, which is why we can say that the banks are worth more than life. In this unfettered capitalism, individuals and peoples are not brothers and sisters, they are not citizens, they are not human beings; individuals and peoples are debt defaulters, borrowers, tenants and clients; in short, if people do not have money, they are nothing.
We are living in the kingdom of the colour green. Green like dollars are the monetary policies, green like dollars are the development policies, green like dollars are the housing policies, green like dollars are the human development policies and environmental policies. That is why, faced with the new wave of crisis of the capitalist system, its ideologues have come out in favour of privatizing nature through the so-called green economy or green capitalism.
However, the recipes of the market, of liberalism, of privatization simply generate poverty and exclusion, hunger and marginalization. […]
* ICELAND PRESIDENT: LET BANKS GO BANKRUPT
* THE COST OF INEQUALITY: HOW WEALTH AND INCOME EXTREMES HURT US ALL
The world must urgently set goals to tackle extreme inequality and extreme wealth
It is now widely accepted that rapidly growing extreme wealth and inequality are harmful to human progress, and that something needs to be done. Already this year, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report rated inequality as one of the top global risks of 20131. The IMF and the Economist2 agree. Around the world, the Occupy protests demonstrated the increasing public anger and feeling that inequality has gone too far3.
In the last decade, the focus has been exclusively on one half of the inequality equation – ending extreme poverty. Inequality and the extreme wealth that contributes to it were seen as either not relevant, or a prerequisite for the growth that would also help the poorest, as the wealth created trickled down to the benefit of everyone.
There has been great progress in the fight against extreme poverty. Hundreds of millions of people have seen their lives improve dramatically – an historically unprecedented achievement of which the world should be proud4. But as we look to the next decade, and new development goals we need to define progress, we must demonstrate that we are also tackling inequality- and that means looking at not just the poorest but the richest5. Oxfam believes that reducing inequality is a key part of fighting poverty and securing a sustainable future for all. In a world of finite resources, we cannot end poverty unless we reduce inequality rapidly.
That is why we are calling for a new global goal to end extreme wealth by 2025, and reverse the rapid increase in inequality seen in the majority of countries in the last twenty years, taking inequality back to 1990 levels67.
Extreme wealth and inequality are reaching levels never before seen and are getting worse. […]
* “CONSPIRACY THEORY”: FOUNDATIONS OF A WEAPONIZED TERM
Subtle and Deceptive Tactics to Discredit Truth in Media and Research
By Prof. James F. Tracy, Global Research
“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.
Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.
This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a forthcoming book by Florida State University political scientist Lance de-Haven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. de-Haven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11. […]
* A LEADER’S LEXICON FOR THE 21st CENTURY
By Lesley Docksey, Global Research
Intended to help all 21st Century leaders (Western of course) when making speeches or statements to the press and their gullible public. N.B.: this is not an exhaustive list, and leaders will invent their own useful words and phrases, freely copied by their fellows.
Insurgents (also known as terrorists, Mujahideen, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Islamists): bad. We don’t support them.
Rebels: good. We support them, with weapons and other equipment, training by our own forces (that are not there) because…
Boots on the ground: we are not going to send in any of our own troops (because they went in secretly last week/month/year).
Regimes, dictatorships: legitimate governments we don’t support.
Governments: regimes and dictatorships we do support.
‘We are proud of our special relationship’: we buy arms from them.
‘Partners’: we sell arms to them.
Friendly nations: and them.
Global allies: and them too.
We welcome the new government/the overthrow of the last government: we want to sell arms to them.
Regimes: people we used to sell arms to.
Dictatorships: as above.
Rogue state: one that has got entirely out of the West’s control. […]
* WAR ON TERROR FOREVER
By Pepe Escobar, InformationClearingHouse
[…] Algerian public opinion is immensely suspicious, to say the least, of all the players’ motives, including the Algerian government and especially France. Here is a fascinating sample. This perspective, by a political science professor, is worth quoting at length, as it neatly summarizes the French “lead” in the new GWOT chapter.
In an interview with the French-language daily Le Soir d’Algerie, political science professor Ahmed Adimi described the intervention as an attempt to “undermine Algeria” and a “step in a plan for the installation of foreign forces in the Sahel region”. Adimi’s thesis is that France has worked for years to destabilize the Sahel as a means of strengthening its geopolitical stance.
Asked whether the French operation in Mali was consistent with United Nations security council resolution 2085, Adimi states that the resolution “does not pose much of a problem in itself. Western powers have used it to intervene and adopt resolutions to justify their military operations. This has already happened in Iraq. In fact, the French operation may seem legal since it comes at the request of the Acting Present of Mali. However, it is important to remember that the current government came to power in a coup. Regarding the intervention, it was certainly predictable but the French have precipitated matters. [...] These terrorist groups are being manipulated by foreign powers,” continuing to argue that these groups were “allowed” to move south to Konna as means of justifying the French intervention.
Adimi argues that Algerians have “been sounding the alarm about the situation in the Sahel in general. Ahmed Barkouk and myself have organized several seminars on this topic. We discussed the role of France and its commitment to the region. It was France that was behind the creation of the movement for the Azawad, and I speak of course of the political organization and not of the people of Azawad, who have rights as a community. The French knew that their intervention in Libya would lead to a return of the pro-Qaddafi military Tuareg to Mali. They also planned the release of Libyan arms stockpiles across the Sahel band. The project is to transform the region into a new Afghanistan, the result of long-term planning.” […]