Technology Turns the Tables on Global Hegemons

May 25, 2018 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Centuries ago, technology like sailing ships, guns, and steel armor enabled Europeans to appear on South American shores and appear godlike to the natives. Through a combination of spreading disease and wielding military, organizational, economic and of course technological superiority, Europeans subjugated the native populations and conquered an entire continent.

European and eventually American technological superiority granted each and every subsequent century to the West. As military and manufacturing technology began to proliferate more freely and more rapidly following the World Wars, nations found themselves finally armed, economically independent and organized enough to throw off Western colonization.

It is a process that is still ongoing, with brief instances of technological advances in the West providing an economic or military edge before quickly being mitigated by that technology's proliferation globally.

This decrease in lag time between Western technological breakthroughs and global catching up has put Western hegemony itself in danger. It is a danger Western policymakers have been spending greater amounts of time considering, and because of that, so should policymakers the world over on how to protect and even enhance the global balance of power this reduction in lag is creating.

RAND Fears the Future

In a recent paper published by the RAND Corporation, a US policy think tank funded by, and working for the largest military and economic interests in the Western Hemisphere, fears of how technology may further erode the West's technological and thus economic and military edge over a world it seeks hegemony over are explained.

RAND published an article titled, "Four Ways 3D Printing May Threaten Security," which focuses specifically on computer-controlled manufacturing and in particular, 3D printing.

The article begins by claiming:
3D printers already produce everything from prosthetic hands and engine parts to basketball shoes and fancy chocolates. But as with any technological advance, new possibilities come with new perils.​​​​​​​

The 4 ways include:

  1. Hackers Could Use Printers to Cause Real-World Damage;
  2. Printers Could Enable New Criminal and Security Threats;
  3. Printed Guns Are Not the Biggest Risk and;
  4. New Manufacturing Capabilities Could Endanger Jobs.
While some of the concerns RAND covers are legitimate, particularly the danger of computer code being altered to produce sabotaged parts, these are fears that already exist across existing manufacturing industries worldwide with strategies already developed to test manufactured parts before their use for critical applications. 

3D Printed Firearms are Not a Real Threat 

RAND cites the 3D printing of firearms by "terrorist groups," however as the ongoing gun control debate in the US and terrorist attacks across the world prove, determined terrorist groups often carry out attacks using explosives or hijacked vehicles that kill far more people than single or even coordinated gun attacks. And despite firearms being so ubiquitous in nations like the United States, homicide rates appear to be more affected by socioeconomic factors than merely access to firearms. 

A person with access to a 3D printer who is not a murderer will not suddenly be compelled to murder because they can now "print" a firearm.

Unemployment is also Not a Real Threat

The RAND report also waves the prospect of employment in front of potential readers to ratchet up fears. However while 3D printing will most certainly spell the end of factories in the intermediate to more distant future, what they have already proven is that localized manufacturing simply decentralizes manufacturing and the jobs that go along with manufacturing, as well as the profits.

How the "Skripal Effect" Was Stopped

May 22, 2018 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - A few years ago the story of former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal allegedly being poisoned with a deadly nerve agent in the UK supposedly by the Russian state, would have shook geopolitics and placed immense pressure on Moscow.

Today, while it certainly did shake geopolitics, it was more from the narrative hitting a brick wall than from its desired impact toward cornering the Kremlin.

While the United Kingdom's credibility unraveling played a major role in the UK's own narrative failing, it has been the growing global alternative media that has exposed and diminished the true nature of British credibility in the first place.

Analysts have linked the Skripal affair with a series of other Anglo-American geopolitical maneuvers including staged chemical attacks in Syria and the subsequent missile attack launched against the Syrian state.

However, all of these pretexts failed to find their mark, leaving Western capitals increasingly exposed without the cover of legitimacy they have manufactured and enjoyed in the past.

Russia's Own, Modern Media 

Russia's own international media played a significant role in publicly informing global audiences of alternatives to the UK's Skripal narrative, as well as challenging the UK directly.

The growing influence of Russia's international media helped provide balance to global discourse that was once solely dominated by US and European media organizations.

Long gone are the days of clumsy Soviet state media. Russia's modern media has performed an act of public relations judo, using the most effective techniques of the Western media, and directing them back against the West.

When this involves some of the most dishonest and aggressive agendas driven by Western special interests, they resonate with a global public increasingly disillusioned by the Western media.

For the time being, the global alternative media comprised of small independent media organizations and even individuals, have benefited from working with modern Russia media.

Despite claims of "Russian influence" and "Russian propaganda," it should be noted that citizens and organizations around the globe contributing to, being interviewed by and appearing on Russian media are no different than those appearing on American and European networks.

Attempts to portray it as being somehow different is based on the assumption that Anglo-American and European media is in some way morally superior to that of other nations, yet this assumption in and of itself is predicated on decades, if not centuries of exceptionalism bred from quite immoral hegemony.

Independent media organizations and individual journalists and analysts holding alternative views from the mainstream US-European media are systematically denied a platform to fairly air these views in the West. Contrary to the West's supposed values of "free speech" and objectivity among a "free press," the actions of the Western media promote anything but.

As long as Russia's media focuses on issues such as corrupt global corporations, global military aggression and other global issues barred from being discussed freely and honestly in the West, this partnership will continue to flourish.

The UK's attempts to frame Russia for a "nerve agent" attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter on British soil and thus dishonestly drag the British nation into a wider confrontation with Russia threatened not only Moscow's best interests, but those of the British public as well.

The Alternative Media 

While state media from Russia certainly helped counter the UK's narrative regarding Skripal, thousands of independent media organizations and individuals around the globe also contributed.

News personalities and analysts with large audiences across social media and video platforms like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have grown into an increasingly important counterbalance to the Western corporate media.

To illustrate how effective the alternative media has become, the Western media has intentionally and very dishonestly attempted to lump them in with Russian international media to undermine their credibility.

Extensive US Meddling in Malaysia's General Election Revealed

May 18, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - After now 2 years of accusations and constant headlines regarding allegations of still unproven "Russian influence" in the 2016 US presidential election, it is difficult to imagine that real political meddling or election interference anywhere around the globe could go unnoticed.

This is especially true regarding the Western corporate media who has portrayed itself as deeply aware of the unethical and undemocratic nature of one nation interfering in the elections of another.

Yet during Malaysia's recent general election - hailed by the Western media as a "historic win" for an opposition the Western media clearly favored - not a single story was written by media organizations like Reuters, AFP, CNN, the BBC and many others covering foreign interference during the elections.

Despite the lack of Western attention regarding foreign election meddling, it is revealed that Malaysia's opposition is almost entirely comprised of US government-funded fronts - ranging from opposition leaders themselves, to political street fronts and organizers, to media organizations posing as "independent" Malaysian journalists, and "rights advocates" leveraging human rights advocacy to support the opposition and compromise Malaysia's Barisan Nasional (BN) party.

Malaysia - a former British colony - faces the incremental expansion of US and European "soft power" within its borders - transforming it from a sovereign nation into a subordinate, modern Western client state.  As the US is attempting to do all throughout Southeast Asia from Cambodia to Thailand and the Philippines to Myanmar - the final goal is surrounding China with nations hostile to it politically, economically, and even militarily.

US-Funding and Support Propped up Malaysia's Opposition 

Malaysia's victorious opposition party - Pakatan Harapan (Alliance of Hope) - is openly headed by "de facto leader" Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar Ibrahim was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant for the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Conservative dominated and Wall Street-funded National Endowment for Democracy's (NED) "Democracy Award" and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony

His service to Western institutions and the corporate-financier interests that created them - including NED - explains the unanimous support he has received for years throughout the entirety of the Western corporate media.

Before his imprisonment in 2015, he led the Bersih street front, a movement Western media sources like the Guardian cited as being pivotal to unseating the ruling BN party.

In a 2012 Guardian's article titled, "Anwar Ibrahim's moment of truth looms," it reported that:
Elections are expected to be called any time in the next nine months, and even those who do not openly back Anwar often support what he stands for: relief from an autocratic and out-of-touch government they say has ruled Malaysia for too long. In April many tens of thousands of Malaysians took to the nation's streets to demand electoral reform at rallies organised by Bersih, an opposition-backed coalition of civil-society groups whose name means "clean" in Malay. 
In another 2012 Guardian article titled, "Malaysian police fire teargas at electoral reform protesters," it admitted Anwar Ibrahim's role in leading Bersih:
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who many hope will win the upcoming election, rallied the enthusiastic crowds as one of Bersih's leaders, Ambiga Sreenevasan, said: "We all want change today." 
The above mentioned Ambiga Sreenevasan - who has played a key role in this year's general elections in Malaysia - has received extensive US government funding for her activities, including US State Department money from NED subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), provided for training and support for Bersih specifically.

The NDI on its own website would describe its funding:
In July 2005, NDI organized a national-level workshop for party leaders on election reform. NDI has since conducted workshops across Malaysia to promote electoral reform in collaboration with Research for Social Advancement (REFSA), the secretariat for BERSIH. In 2006, NDI conducted a workshop for BERSIH that focused on pimproving the action plancs of each participating organization or political party. In 2007, NDI and BERSIH conducted a series of workshops in the politically neglected provinces of Sabah and Sarawak to educate previously disenfranchised political aspirants. 
In other words, the US State Department worked with Malaysia's opposition to build up its support base in an obvious effort to influence elections in their favor.

US-funded NGOs and Media 

NED's official website often erases, deletes, and replaces financial disclosures regarding its political and election meddling around the globe. During the recent Malaysian elections, its disclosure for activities in Malaysia was coincidentally offline and instead, an ambiguous "search" page was offered.

However, NED's activities in Malaysia are extensive - ranging from direct support for opposition parties as illustrated through its support of Bersih, to the funding of pro-opposition media fronts, legal firms dedicated to protecting opposition members and targeting BN politicians, and fronts posing as "human rights" advocates.

Israel Baits the Hook. Will Syria Bite?

May 12, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Israel has repeatedly struck Syria with missiles and rockets - the most recent exchange taking place after Israel claims "Iranian rockets" struck positions the Israeli military is illegally occupying in Syria's Golan Heights.

Headlines like the UK's Independent's, "Israel and Iran on brink of war after unprecedented Syria bombardment in response to alleged Golan Heights attack," attempt to portray the Israeli aggression as self-defense. The Independent, however, failed to produce any evidence confirming Israeli claims.

At face value, for Iran to inexplicably launch missiles at Israel, unprovoked and achieving no conceivable tactical, strategic, or political gain strains the credibility of Israel's narrative even further.

But it is perhaps published US policy designating Israel as a hostile provocateur tasked with expanding Washington's proxy war against Damascus that fully reveals the deadly and deceptive game Israel and the Western media are now playing.

For years, US policymakers admitted in their papers that the US desired regime change in Iran and sought to provoke a war to achieve it.

Israel Baits the Hook 

The corporate-funded Brookings Institution - whose sponsors include weapon manufacturers, oil corporations, banks, and defense contractors - published a 2009 paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," and would not only spell out the US desire for regime change in Iran but devise a number of options to achieve it.

These included sponsoring street protests in tandem with known terrorist organizations to wage a proxy war against Iran as was done to Libya and Syria. It also included provoking Iran to war - a war Brookings policymakers repeatedly admitted Iran seeks to avoid.

In regards to provoking a war with Iran based on a number of contrived cases, the paper would admit (emphasis added):
The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
The Brookings paper even admits that Iran may not retaliate even to the most overt provocations, including US or Israeli air raids and missiles attacks. The papers notes:
...because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missiles attacks.
Brookings also admits that even massive airstrikes on Iran would not achieve US objectives, including regime change and that airstrikes would have to be part of a wider strategy including either a proxy war or a full-scale war led by the US.

More recent Brookings papers, like the 2012 "Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution," would admit that Israel's role - particularly from its occupation of the Golan Heights - is to provide constant pressure on Syria to aid in regime change there. 

The paper notes (emphasis added): 
Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.
We can assume that the 2012 objective of taking pressure off "the opposition" has failed - since US-NATO-Gulf sponsored terrorists have been all but defeated everywhere inside Syria, save for border regions and territory occupied by US forces to the east. 

Instead, Israel's role now has switched - both from pressuring Syria, and from attempting to provoke Iran with attacks on Iranian territory - to provoking a wider war with Syria and its allies - including Iran - by launching provocations against Syria as described in the 2009 Brookings paper, "Which Path to Persia?" 

Despite Israel's serial provocations going unanswered for years by Syria, each attack is depicted by the Western media as defensive in nature. At the beginning of May when Syrian forces finally did retaliate, the Western media attempted to depict it as an unprovoked attack, citing Israeli military officials who claimed "Iranian missiles" were fired at the Golan Heights - rather than on-the-ground sources - both Israeli and Syrian who said otherwise.

Syria Isn't Biting 

Retaliation by Syria, however, has been proportional and reluctant.

US Regime Change Targets Thailand

May 12, 2018 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - While US-led regime change in Syria continues to make headlines, it is important for the public to be aware and stay ahead of other US-led campaigns to target, destabilise and overthrow the political orders of other nations around the globe.

Observers of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine have warned about potential violence as the US continues arming its proxies and their dangerous ultra-right militant groups in Kiev. Analysts have also been covering US-sponsored political destabilisation being fomented in Armenia.

US funding and support alongside its Canadian and European allies in Southeast Asia is also on the rise. Protests planned throughout May in Thailand's capital Bangkok are openly aimed at regime change.

US regime change operations can be broken down into several categories; Western media operations, US-funded local media operations, US-backed political parties, US-backed street fronts, US-funded academia and US-funded "human rights" advocates. Identifying them before Thailand's political crisis grabs international headlines provides analysts and commentators with a guide to facts that will almost certainly be omitted from mainstream reporting.

Western Media Operations in Thailand 

The centre of Western media operations in Thailand is best represented by the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT). It serves as the physical headquarters of many of the West's most prominent media organisations including:
British state media front, the BBC;
Qatar state media outlet Al Jazeera;
the Financial Times;
ABC and;
many others.  

Reuters and the BBC in particular pursue a transparently bias agenda in support of political destabilisation and regime change in Thailand. Their narratives are unquestioningly repeated throughout many other US and European media platforms, big and small.

Their role in covering up the abuses of the previous and now ousted Thai regime of Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck Shinawatra while attacking and undermining the institutions that finally began dismantling their political machinery has played a central role in perpetuating Thailand's ongoing political crisis.

In particular, the BBC's Jonathan Head and Reuters' Panu Wongcha-um openly and regularly consort with and promote opposition figures while denying critics and opposing views from being featured within articles and reports appearing on their respective networks. Many other members of supposedly reputable Western media organisations, while less obvious and less prolific, follow a similar and predictable pattern.   

In addition to serving as a central hub for these organisations' offices, the FCCT includes a swank downtown club and bar where events are hosted primarily to promote US and European interests and impose supposed Western values upon the Southeast Asian region, often done under the guise of promoting "human rights" and "democracy."

The club regularly conducts training and indoctrination activities, many of which are funded by Western governments and Western corporate foundations like convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society.

Despite the FCCT categorically denying accusations that it has received extensive funding from Open Society, evidence has emerged that years of training programmes helped stand up cadres of pro-Western propagandists to help dominate public perception and narratives both in the region and around the world.

At least one alumni of this Soros-FCCT training programme now holds a senior position in Myanmar's new government.

The FCCT also regularly uses its prominence and well-funded domination of public discourse to promote US and European-funded opposition groups ranging from foreign-funded fronts posing as "nongovernmental organisations" (NGOs) to political parties and opposition groups working with foreign money and support to overthrow the current Thai political order.

US-funded Local Media Operations and "NGOs" 

The US State Department through organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its many subsidiaries and partners (including Open Society) fund myriad fronts posing as "local" and "independent" media organisations and "rights" advocates in Thailand.

These includes:

Isaan Record;
Thai Netizens Network;
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR);
Human Rights Lawyers Association;
Cafe Democracy;
Book (re)Public;
Media Inside Out;
Makhampom Foundation;
Fortify Rights;
Human Rights Thailand;
Amnesty International Thailand;
Thai Poor Act and;
Cross Cultural Foundation 

These organisations have in recent months coordinated together to organise and promote anti-government protests. And as their activities continue to increasingly shift into open sedition, NED's website has been redesigned to further conceal US government funding to these fronts.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, funded by the US NED and whose co-founder Sirikan "June" Charoensiri was recently awarded the US State Department's "Women of Courage Award" presented by US First Lady Melania Trump, not only promotes and defends members of anti-government protests, its own members help organise and lead them.

TLHR's Anon Nampa is one of the core members of recent anti-government protests demanding regime change in Thailand, begging the question of whether or not US funding is also being channelled directly into the protests themselves.