Daniel Pipes, if this is a man

I've stumbled across the bloodcurdling article journalist Daniel Pipes recently wrote for the National Review Online website, "How to Save Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran," and I've spontaneously wondered how can human nature be so inhuman.

This sort of academic/journalist must be very proud of his latest breakthrough: in fact, since Obama, "a President whose election he didn't even support," is plummeting in the polls, he (Pipes), in a burst of patriotic zeal, has revealed the secret that would allow him to get back on track. For the sake of the country, of course, as this seems to have become everybody's favourite slogan.

Basically, the brightest solution this "man" has managed to come up with is to bomb Iran, nonetheless. Impressive. What a man, what a macho.

His astute suggestion, however, brings some questions to mind.

1. Has Obama asked him for his poorly researched opinion? Pipes is acclaimed by other stenographers of regime as to be a Middle East expert: I've read some of his work and I have no doubt saying that this is not true. His articles, in fact, are very superficial, mainly his personal opinions without providing readers with accurate and authoritative sources. This process, aimed at giving the public mind quick "slogans" and easy concepts to keep in mind, rather than a bigger picture of the geopolitical context to help the public understand what we are talking about, cannot be considered information but propaganda. Trustworthy information cannot ignore the historic, economic, social and political background of a news, while propaganda gains strength by ignoring these crucial facts, causing a partial information that prevents readers/spectators/listeners from truly understanding. The fact that pamphlets such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post define him as an "expert" is the evidence that the regime wants to make him an authoritative voice.

2. Is the United States a nation of warmongers? According to the polls Pipes mentioned in his essay, 57% of the American people supports a military intervention in Iran. Have US citizens not learnt from the Iraqi lesson? Have they already forgot what such a disaster this has been? Do they know that a war against Iran will be far worse than the one against Iraq? Do they remember that war criminals such as George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are still not in prison, where they should be kept for the rest of their lives? Do US citizens remember that they have elected President Obama because he was NOT Bush? Do they remember that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize and not the Nobel War Prize? If these polls are wrong, the US citizens have the right to claim that they do not agree with a military intervention in Iran and to report to justice the lies published in their national papers, because such publications have the goal to incite hatred against US people in the world, in order to justify the invasion of other countries. This has always been a widespread routine: Zionists promote anti-Semitism to have the popular support to carry on with the genocide of the Palestinian people. The same way, US governments promote anti-US sentiments in order to provoke attacks against unarmed US citizens in the world and gain the necessary support for a military intervention.

US citizens need to understand that if their country is unpopular is not because the world hates "them", but because it hates their dangerous foreign policy.

3. Why is Pipes considered an expert? Like Pipes in the US, many other so-called "experts" feel entitle to "suggest" moves to Presidents and Premiers, feel authoritative enough to give us their opinions without fact-checking, feel strong enough to write articles crammed with lies and with no supporting evidence. How is this possible in so-called "democratic" societies? It happens because Western regimes need such servants in order to gain the support of the public opinion, kept in ignorance of the crimes their governments carry out in the name of the biggest corporations. Usually, there is a majour advertising strategy behind the names chosen to be the "experts", and this involves inviting them to tv shows, that usually are very poor but considered "mainstream" because they appear in the public tv and publishing their articles on widespread daily/weekly/monthly publications that don't need to carry out in-depth research because their sole job is to keep people in complete ignorance.
There are many no-no topics that mainstream media cannot cover. However, if such topics come to light, media are somehow "forced" not to ignore them: their routine in this case is to debunk them or start another "media case" (often about sexual scandals involving politicians, sport stars, actors or singers), with the aim to distract the population.
Today's journalism, far from being honest information, is actually the guardian of the power, and its main tasks are: mind manipulation, managing popular support, protecting the crimes of their governments and diverting public opinions according to political needs. This leads to my third and last question.

4. How can a civil society accept that men such as Daniel Pipes have a public voice? In the article I've mentioned at the beginning of this post, Pipes invites President Obama to bomb Iran in order to gain popular support. With this statement, Pipes, in a civil society that truly deserves this definition, would be considered a monster. In fact, bombs, no matter how "intelligent," kill, and Pipes is encouraging President Obama to commit murder. After having planned and carried out the deliberate genocide of the Iraqi population, in order to invade, destroy, divide and sell the country to big corporations, now the US administration is getting ready to destroy other Middle East nations, and since Iran doesn't want to blindly abide by US orders, it will be the first one to be attacked.

The United States have a very long history of terrorism: a) They put the whole South America on its knees, provoking the genocide in Guatemala, instigating coups d'état against democratically elected regimes to establish fascist dictators and imposing economic sanctions against unarmed civilians; b) Through big corporations they managed to destroy most of the African Continent. When their newspapers say that Africa is a poor country because of climate conditions, they lie: Africa is extremely rich in natural resources, and this is why it's constantly sacked and its population exterminated; c) From 1990 to 2003 the US administration planned and carried out the genocide of the Iraqi population: Jean Bricmont, in his book "Humanitarian Imperialism. Using Human Rights to Sell War" (which I strongly recommend), reports Marc Bossuyt's words:

«The sanctions regime against Iraq has as its clear purpose the deliberate infliction on the Iraqi people of conditions of life (lack of adequate food, medicines, etc.) calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. It does not matter that this deliberate physical destruction has as its ostensible objective the security of the region. Once clear evidence was available that thousands of civilians were dying and that hundreds of thousands would die in the future as the Security Council continued the sanctions, the deaths were no longer an unintended side effect - the Security Council was responsible for all known consequences of its actions. The sanctioning bodies cannot be absolved from having the "intent to destroy" the Iraqi people. The United States Ambassador to the United Nations [Madeleine Albright] in fact admitted this; when questioned whether the half-million deaths were "worth it," she replied: "We think the price is worth it." The States imposing the sanctions could raise questions under the genocide Convention.»

With all this in mind, it appears very clear that Pipes knows very well the consequences of bombing a country and that he does not care if children, women, old people, men will be slaughtered during the massacre he's advicing President Obama to carry out.

As children are usually genuinely creative and don't have the desire to kill other human beings, I think Pipes became what he is now after being heavily brainwashed and promised a bright and successful future. He traded his soul and his personhood for money and wealth, and in order to comply to his contract, he writes such disgraceful atrocities, that have no other goal than prepare the public mind to a future war.

A war against Iran will cause massive destruction in Mideast and immediately near European and African countries. Since Pipes has no human sentiments, I think he doesn't even feel scared, so I would suggest him to go to live in Gaza, constantly under the risk of being slaughtered by his friends' bombs. From there he could keep advising President Obama to further destabilise the region. So far, the United States and Israel are the most dangerous nations in the world, I do not feel safe knowing that they can freely dispose of nuclear weapons, because they use them indiscriminately and put in danger us all. Their political leaders do not care about world's peace but only about their personal interests, unlike what the press releases published in their papers say.

Pipes is encouraging a behaviour against humanity: we, as human beings who share the same planet, have the right to feel in danger by his attempts to manipulate the public mind and support terrorist ideas, and must demand that such journalists are forced to provide correct information. If we don't, we cannot claim we live in a "civil" society.

Are WE our government? Illusions and disillusions of democratic regimes

I have read an article written by Acharya S., What about 9/11?, and although I agree with most of this author's articles and research, I can't do the same with this statement of hers.

Leaving aside the debate of whether the 9/11 was an inside job or a terroristic attack carried out by islamic integralists, what struck me in this article is the phrase "We are the U.S. government". Supporting the official theory of the attack with the explanation "To say that "the American government" committed this crime represents a broadstroke generalization that essentially condemns all Americans - and makes us as unsafe as Muslims feel when people do say, "It's the Muslims," etc." is naive and weak.

First of all, I think the debate around 9/11 needs to be supported by strong evidence and not just with opinions, as it involves massive scientific research and in-depth geopolitical analysis. However, here I don't want to talk about this, but instead would like to investigate the "We are the US Government" statement.

What is the "government"? This word is usually employed to define a political body formed according the results of popular elections. When the author says "We are the government" maybe she means "We are the State."

Is the population "the State"? It would certainly be right for the people to be considered as being "the State," to have the possibility of strongly influencing their government's decisions and to enjoy all civil liberties legal papers such as the Constitutions guarantee. This would be called "direct democracy": it's by all means something worth working for, but unfortunately it's certainly not the case of today's regimes, be them in Europe, America, Africa, or Asia.

There is a large confusion over terms such as "democracy," "freedom," "civil liberties," and this is mainly due to distorted media coverage, controlled education systems and repressive acts aimed at undermining our rights to be informed and safe.

Does implying that the US government is not behind the 9/11 attacks *because* US citizens ARE the government mean that ALL U.S. citizens were responsible for the Chilean coup in 1973 staged by the CIA and the White House? Does that mean that all US citizens were responsible for the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953? Does that mean that all US citizens are responsible for the mass murders in Afghanistan and Iraq ordered by the US government?

Many people work in agencies and institutions related to the US government and, as they are simple employees, they of course have, nor have had, nothing to do with the crimes carried out by the US administrations throughout the last decades since the end of World War II up to now.

Like many countries, the United States has a Constitution, meaning by this, "both the formal constitution, the written document along with its various amendments and legal apparatuses, and the material constitution, that is the continuous formation and re-formation of the composition of social forces." (From Empire, by Antonio Negri and Micheal Hardt). Formal Constitutions are usually very enlightened, but this doesn't mean that such primary codes are followed, nor respected by the countries' ruling powers.

The idea (or better, the hope) that citizens are the State is the system our ruling powers want to make us believe we live in. But there is nothing more false than that. Governments, parliaments, political parties and organizations are bodies aimed at giving the illusion that we, the people, have power over our lives. With the practice of "free" elections, we are led to think that we choose the candidates we actually prefer. However, what is the choice? Two, three or four options to choose from? And who decides what the options have to be?

What actually happens in our "free" elections is that we tick a name belonging to a pre-packed coalition, by no means stemmed from popular choice, but all reflecting the same corporate interests that today have the main power. Whether we choose one coalition or the other, the result doesn't change much: right-wing parties will carry out what are to be considered right-wing policies and left-wing groups will bring about what we have to think are left-wing ideals.

When we read news that apparently criticise the government representatives it can mean that some news has leaked out or that a change in the political scene is necessary, and that particular movement or person is not entitled to popular consent anymore. This is when the mind-control machine of corporate media starts working in a specific direction.

Just to come back to government actions, can we believe politicians always work in order to ensure our safety and well-being? Here are some telling examples that show how governmental insitutions can be disrespectful towards our civil liberties:

Justice Dept. Asked For News Site's Visitor Lists: in this article, journalist Declan McCullagh reports an attempt by the US Department of Justice to literally spy on citizens who read Indymedia website, with clear and shameless violation of those citizens' privacy in order to obtain their details such as the IP address, therefore their location.

A careful observer will immediately notice that this action by the US Department of Justice is in striking contrast with the First Amendment of the American Constitution that aims at defending the freedom of speech.

On the same line, the UK government, rather expert in Big Brother matters, seems to have rebranded national activists "domestic terrorists," since the police "are gathering the personal details of thousands of activists who attend political meetings and protests, and storing their data on a network of nationwide intelligence databases," the Guardian reveals.

The truth is that if in the past it was more difficult to monitor our government's actions, therefore to spot their crimes, now with the spreading of modern technologies available to an always increasing number of people, the news travel quickly, reach all corners of the globe and are able to provoke general indignation.

With the excuse of international terrorism and the need to "protect" our countries, western governments are enhancing security measures to absurd levels. In an enlightening article titled "Her Majesty's Big Brother: Britain's Protesters Rebranded 'Domestic Extremists'" Tom Burghardt notices:

"Why would British police target law-abiding citizens exercising their right to protest the depredations of the capitalist order?

Because they can! With a logic that only a policeman's mother could love, Setchell told The Guardian: 'Just because you have no criminal record does not mean that you are not of interest to the police. Everyone who has got a criminal record did not have one once.'"

Antifascist Calling rightly reminds that this situation is certainly not new:

"Since the 1970s, the federal grand jury system where the prosecutor reigns supreme, has been an instrument wielded by the secret state to target dissent and to ensnare left-wing government critics in open-ended 'investigations' whose sole purpose is to harass if not prosecute alleged 'troublemakers.'"

It's easy to understand here how misleading and populist can be to clear a priori the government of any accusation by saying that WE all are the government.

WE (the people) are certainly NOT the government, nor we live in a direct democracy, as we don't have any possibility to influence the government's decisions in crucial matters such as war, taxes, health system.

We are absolutely the most important element of a State and we must demand to participate in all public matters, as those laws rule our lives and the spaces we share with other human beings. By monitoring and never belittling the governments' crimes we can contribute in making our political leaders (really) work for us in the total respect of our rights.


Highly recommended further reading:

- Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri, Empire, Harvard University Press, 2001

- Blum William, Killing Hope. US Military & CIA Interventions since World War II, Zed Books, 2003

Corporate human rights: the joke of our times

The 4th of November in Italy is the Remembrance Day, namely a day when we remember and cry for our men who died at war "for the sake of the country."

For the sake of what?

Ok, so here is the concept our governments want us to buy: "We send our men to oil-reach and strategic Middle East destinations because they also happen to be terrorists' hometown and we have to be proud of our compatriots because they are willing to die for the sake of their own country and to export democracy to those desolate lands."

Here is the same concept but made it real: "We send our men to oil-rich and strategic Middle East countries because they also happen to be so arrogant for wanting to keep their independence, while we (the West) are committed to conquer and impose our greedy ideals all over the planet."

It might sound a bit pessimistic, but come on, what exactly are the benefits we enjoy when our soldiers die in wars aimed at destroying other countries? None.

Islamic terrorism is a big lie, the clash of civilisations, so cherished by brainwshers Samuel Huntington and Zbigniew Brzezinski, doesn't exist, people do not want to live at war but at peace, wars are not inevitable and are only useful to make the rich richer. Period.

Personally, I find official Presidents' speeches quite offensive: do they really think we are all stupid? Or do they just hope that?

Everytime soldiers come back home inside a coffin the babble begins: high-flown speeches to say how grateful we are they died for us, state funerals, and other rhetorical rubbish. From the exact following day the soldiers' families are alone again to cry for their dead and to make their ends meet. The rest of the population doesn't even have a clue of what the dead soldiers' names are and are busy working to survive, because those wars are bringing more and more poverty and world's instability.

Of course, they never miss mentioning the "human rights" fairy tales: we are dying to defend other people from their dictators. Exactly how the US government did for Chile in 1973: they organised the military coup to protect Chilean people from democratically elected Allende and support criminal Fascist Pinochet. "Democracy" had won then and democracy keeps winning nowadays, when innocent people die under our democratic bombs, or are the victims of our democratic depleted uranium or see their houses destroyed for the sake of our democratic corporations.

I'm reading a very thought-provoking book, "Humanitarian Imperialism. Using Human Rights to Sell War." Its author, Jean Bricmont, quotes Harold Pinter's speech at the Nobel Prize Lecture in 2005, perfectly in line with the hypocrisy of our governments.

I will quote here parts of the same speech as it appears on the official Nobel Prize site, it desperately calls for an in-depth look and analysis and targeted action:

The United States supported the brutal Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua for over 40 years. The Nicaraguan people, led by the Sandinistas, overthrew this regime in 1979, a breathtaking popular revolution. The Sandinistas weren't perfect. ... But they were intelligent, rational and civilised. They set out to establish a stable, decent, pluralistic society. The death penalty was abolished. ... Over 100,000 families were given title to land. Two thousand schools were built. A quite remarkable literacy campaign reduced illiteracy in the country to less than one seventh. Free education was established and a free health service. Infant mortality was reduced by a third. Polio was eradicated. The United States denounced these achievements as Marxist/Leninist subversion. In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. ...

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed. ...

The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. ...

The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.

Stefano Cucchi, a case of violence in an Italian police station

"He was well when I put him in the State's hands. They gave him back to me dead. I want the truth." These are the words of Stefano Cucchi's mother. Stefano was 31 and on October 16th was arrested because found with 28g of hashish. He never got back home.

His family was never allowed to see him, and the young man died alone in a prison of the Carabinieri (Italian military police) in Rome. "He fell off": this is the Carabinieri's official explanation. There are many jokes in Italy about the Carabinieri's stupidity, so maybe they think we are all as stupid.

This is Stefano before being arrested


This is one of the images the family has released to the press: Stefano's body after he was murdered in the police station.


Unfortunately, this is not the only case of violence involving the public service of the Italian police. All other cases were dismissed with pathetic excuses, no explanations and the loneliness of the victims' families.

The psycopaths working for the police in Italy are in charge of "protecting" us. From who exactly? Who are the criminals? Police officers are trained and brainwashed to be violent and, as brave as they are, when they have in their hands a young man, unarmed, alone and with no "important" lastname, they take the liberty to do whatever they want, nevermind if humane or not.

Stefano Cucchi's case, as well as Federico Aldrovandi, as well as the massacre carried out by the police in the school Diaz during the G8 of 2001 in Genoa, are some of the darkest pages of Italy's recent history.

Possible effects of the swine flu vaccine

The swine flu shot has been denounced as dangerous by many doctors and experts. We need to take an extra care when it comes to our health, and be aware that the Big Pharma industry is only seeking to make money, not to make us feel better.

Why won't the Obamas take the swine flu vaccine?

That's an interesting question, I think. If the swine flu is so dangerous, and apparently it is if national emergency has been declared, why on earth President Obama is so careless when it comes to his daughters' health?

And what's even more unbelievable, why are doctors and nurses all over Europe refusing to get the vaccine? Aren't they afraid? Or they know that the vaccine is way more dangerous than the mild flu it's supposed to prevent? In France they have even launched a lawsuit against the vaccine campaign because it's deemed as a "real attempt to poison the population."

But this flu must be really deadly if the U.S. GAO foresees a congestion on the Internet, to the extent that it will probably be necessary to close the net for a while, to allow broker-dealers to keep working, and to prevent normal people from getting uncensored information, so that governments can control the population much more efficiently through their media, such as TV, or mainstream papers.

Here an extract from the GAO pandemic emergency declaration:

"Concerns exist that a more severe pandemic outbreak than 2009's could cause large numbers of people staying home to increase their Internet use and overwhelm Internet providers' network capacities. Such network congestion could prevent staff from broker-dealers and other securities market participants from teleworking during a pandemic. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for ensuring that critical telecommunications infrastructure is protected. GAO was asked to examine a pandemic's impact on Internet congestion and what actions can be and are being taken to address it, the adequacy of securities market organizations' pandemic plans, and the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) oversight of these efforts. GAO reviewed relevant studies, regulatory guidance and examinations, interviewed telecommunications providers and financial market participants, and analyzed pandemic plans for seven critical market organizations."

Well, as long as we have free information, and are not left with the only subservient gazettes such as NY Times or Washington Post, let's enjoy Ron Paul's latest video and let's demand an answer for his questions.

Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to the Moulin Rouge!

Or the brothel better known under the name of "mainstream media." To put it mildly. To put it rightly, on the other hand, the compelling question is: WTF are you doing?

The hysterical assaults of the international press against Berlusconi are reaching impressive levels of idiocy, and in my recent article I've tried to explain why the current Premier is not the only one to blame. From the Washington Post to Newsweek, to the Times, much of English and US media are proving very much loving and caring for Italy's destiny. How touching.

Anne Applebaum, in her thoughtful essay for the Washington Post, shows how nothing knows about Italy, but it's ok, because our own Indro Montanelli used to say: "The job of the journalist is to write about things he doesn't know." Apparently Anne Applebaum is his best student. Her masterpiece culminates like this:

"There has to be something appealing about Berlusconi himself as well. Severgnini [nonetheless] has called him a 'mirror' of modern Italy, and one sees what he means: Nouveau rich (like almost everyone in the country) [uhm...who??] and not afraid to show it off (remember that Sardinian villa); a lover of women and soccer (he owns the team A.C. Milan); loyal to his friends (even protecting them from the law); and clearly enjoying himself at those parties on his yacht, Berlusconi leads a kind of caricature version of the ideal Italian life. And precisely because he is a caricature, he gets away with things that other people can't. One hears Italians regale one another with Berlusconi stories and then howl with laughter.

[Hang on, here starts the best part]

Besides, with Berlusconi as your prime minister, you don't have to take yourself too seriously. You don't have to trouble yourself with geopolitics or the state of the planet, or poverty and failed states. You can stay at home, remain unserious and argue about the latest legal scandal. Anda maybe that, too, is part of the Italian prime minister's appeal."

How cool was that? Yes, I couldn't restrain myself, the unorthodox comments are mine. Dear Ms Applebaum, first of all, how dare you speaking about Italian mentality when, among all excellent thinkers Italy has had, the best example you could bring up is Beppe Severgnini? Second, what kind of brass neck do you have to say such a thing like "You don't have to trouble yourself with geopolitics or the state of the planet, or poverty and failed states"? Why? Are you telling me you are concerned for such plagues? Are you at least a little (yes, a little would be enough) aware that your bloody government is directly responsible for poverty, international terrorism, dictatorships, overthrowing democracies, genocides, wars and suffering all over the world?

Let's fly over to Newsweek's land. Another caring outlet, so concerned about Italian democracy that friendly whispers in "Silvio's" ear: "Silvio, it's time to go." And then dishes out advices to Italians on how to dump Berlusconi.

But the real jewel is our own home-made, genuine Beppe Severgnini, the best, the original, the Voice. Guest blogging in the Time, for the occasion. And what's better occasion to faithfully persist with the smear campaign against Berlusconi? At the end of the day, US troops are used to shoot against the Red Cross, why shouldn't their media do the same?

For that matter, Severgnini sports his best idea: Berlusconi mirrors Italian people. So Severgnini himself is included, phew, I was starting to worry. In a desperate effort to say something new about the already widely bad-mouthed Mr President, he lits up our days with an anthropological blurb about Italians' nature and goes deep into the disgraceful flaws of Italian people. I'm puzzled: he's still Italian, right? Does he still work for Corriere della Sera, right? Being the Corriere the main national newspaper in Italy, that in its heyday was completely controlled by former Masonic Lodge P2, very much praised by its own journalists when Licio Gelli was the boss, and very much criticized now that Berlusconi (former P2) is the Premier. How much hypocrisy Italians have to hear, almost the same level US citizens have to bear from their own media, in a time that sees them just out of the dark Bush era and just in the phony Nobel Peace Prize Obama age.

Tell me, Beppe, (can I call you Beppe? We are colleagues, after all) in your article, instead of trivialities such as food, soccer, church and Obama's suntan, why didn't you write about the sack of Italy happened in 1992? Or the relations between Prodi and Goldman Sachs? Or how Italy is a US colony, economically and politically manipulated, let alone militarily occupied? It doesn't pay off to say the truth as it is, right Beppe? So you prefer writing trivialities for the Time, to feed the needs for morbid gossip and promote the increasing mental laziness, in the umpteenth effort to foment the cultural brutalization media and school system are contributing to spread, to keep minds sleepy and elites well-heeled, on our shoulders.

This system is sickening, banks are the real ruling powers, politicians are their waiters and journalists are their prostitutes.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Moulin Rouge.