Myanmar: Meet Aung San Suu Kyi's Saffron Mobs

Image: Monks mingle in the background with protesters marching against
attempts to recognize and empower stateless Rohingya refugees. Racism,
bigotry, and savagery are hallmarks of this street mob which also so happens
to be the same mob supporting "democracy icon," Aung San Suu Kyi. 
March 6, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Not unlike other US-backed "color revolutions" around the world, Myanmar's "Saffron Revolution" is sold as an ultra-liberal pro-democracy, progressive movement, with one of the West's most successful neo-colonial creations to date, Aung San Suu Kyi, portrayed and revered as a modern day, secular "saint" of neo-liberalism and Western democratic values.

Underneath the pageantry and spin, however, is harbored ultra-right racism, bigotry, misogyny, and unhinged violence that if ever truthfully reported on, would end the "Saffron" wave, and spell the absolute end of both Suu Kyi's political career and her legacy.

Most recently Suu Kyi's "Saffron" movement took to the streets, not to call for greater "freedom" or to defend "human rights," but to condemn the government's move toward giving hundreds of thousands of stateless Rohingya refugees citizenship.

Australia's ABC News would report in an article titled, "Myanmar scraps temporary ID cards amid protests targeting ethnic minorities without citizenship," that:
Myanmar's government says identity cards for people without full citizenship, including Muslim Rohingya, will expire within weeks.

The scrapping of ID cards snatches away voting rights handed to them just a day earlier (Tuesday), after Myanmar nationalists protested against the move.

The Rohingya, along with hundreds of thousands of people in mainly ethnic minority border areas, who hold the documents ostensibly as part of a process of applying for citizenship, will see their ID cards expire at the end of March, according to a statement from the office of president Thein Sein.
Some might call it strange for a so-called "pro-democracy" movement to take to the streets to specifically deny hundreds of thousands their right to be represented. Indeed, the move was instead entirely driven by Suu Kyi's political bloc and its attempt to skew upcoming polls with a large, well oiled political machine built with decades of support and billions of dollars funneled in from the United States and the United Kingdom, the latter having had colonized Myanmar and who still refers to the nation as "Burma," its colonial nomenclature under British colonial rule.

In a related incident, Australia's ABC News would also report in an article titled, "Myanmar monk who called UN envoy a whore 'could hurt Buddhism'," that:
A Myanmar Buddhist monk who called a UN human rights envoy a "whore" has violated his monastic code and could damage his religion, another prominent monk says, but he is unlikely to face censure.

Ashin Wirathu denounced Yanghee Lee, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, in a speech in Yangon on Friday, after she questioned draft laws that critics said discriminate against women and non-Buddhists.

Obama-Netanyahu "Fallout" is Theater - Planned in 2009

US and Israel attempting to establish feigned "diplomatic row" to justify "unilateral" Israeli attack on Iran.

March 2, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - In a 2009 US policy paper published by the corporate-financier funded Brookings Institution, it was made clear that the US was determined to provoke Iran into a conflict and effect regime change at any cost - up to and including an outright military invasion and occupation of Iran with US troops.



However, before it came to that, the Brookings Institution's policymakers explored other options including fomenting US-backed political unrest coupled with covert, violent force, the use of US State Department listed foreign terrorist organizations to carry out assassinations and attacks within Iran, and limited airstrikes carried out by either the US or Israel, or both.

In retropspect, 6 years on, all of these tricks have not only been attempted to one degree or another in Iran, but have been demonstrably employed in neighboring Syria to diminish its strength - which according to Brookings - is a necessary prerequisite before waging war on Iran.

And of particular interest - considering what appears to be a growing diplomatic row between the United States and Israel - is just how precisely the US planned to covertly back what would be made to appear as a "unilateral" Israeli first strike on Iran - an attack that appears to be in the process of being justified through a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign now unfolding.

From the Mouths of US Policymakers Themselves 

The Brookings Institution's 2009 policy paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," makes clear that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program is merely theater, and that it will be used to give the world the impression that the United States explored all possible "peaceful" options before resorting to violent regime change.  The report states specifically that:
...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context— both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Of course, Iran - as admitted to by Brookings themselves - is not governed by irrational leadership, and would not turn down a genuinely "superb offer." The Brookings Institution admits openly that the US pursues a dual track foreign policy - one for public consumption (making "superb offers") and another aimed at ensuring Iran looks as unreasonable as possible.

US State Department Admits Russia had Nothing to Gain from Killing Boris Nemtsov

Which leaves exactly who as a possible suspect? Cui bono? 

February 28, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) Perhaps believing by virtue of having admitted the murder of Russian opposition member Boris Nemtsov in Russia's capital of Moscow Friday evening in no way served the Russian government's best interests, the US State Department believes it can deflect guilt from being shifted towards its direction.

Indeed, the US State Department through its Voice of America media network - chaired by the US Secretary of State himself - would state in an online article titled, "Could Nemtsov Threaten Putin in Death as in Life?," that (emphasis added):
With the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, gunned down on a Moscow street, the fiercest critic of President Vladimir Putin has been removed from the political stage. But it remains to be seen whether, in death as in life, Nemtsov will remain a threat to Putin’s rule. 

Already, city authorities have approved a mass march for up to 50,000 people in central Moscow on Sunday. The march, expected to be far larger than the scheduled protest rally it replaces, will provide a powerful platform for Kremlin critics who suspect a government hand in Nemtsov’s death. 

Even officials in Putin’s government seem to sense the danger that the former first deputy prime minister’s martyrdom might pose, hinting darkly that Friday night's drive-by shooting may have been an deliberate "provocation" ahead of the planned weekend rally. 
While this logic has clearly not escaped the US State Department's media network, it stops short of clearly implicating the Russian opposition and its foreign backers (the US State Department itself) as the chief suspects in Nemtsov's murder - though the article clearly states only the opposition (and in turn, their foreign sponsors) stood to benefit from his death.

The diminutive and previously ineffective protests carried out by the opposition will now be "far larger" and serve as a "powerful platform for Kremlin critics," a reality that simply would not have existed had Nemtsov not been murdered.

One must also factor in the United States' various proxy conflicts it is waging against Russia, and seemingly losing - including in Syria and Ukraine. The opportunity to spread chaos in the streets of Moscow would not only benefit the US and its agenda beyond its borders, but is in fact America's stated foreign policy.

Despite attempts to frame it otherwise, even the US State Department cannot escape the fact that Russia lacked any motivation at all to murder a fading opposition leader, let alone incriminatingly murder him practically on the doorstep of the Kremlin itself.  Whoever killed Nemtsov meant for the uninformed general public to think it was the Kremlin, however.



Ironically, the US State Department's media article in Voice of America, echos facts pointed out in the direct aftermath of the murder by many independent analysts. In the previously published article, "Russia: US-Backed Opposition Leader Gunned Down in Moscow: Martyrdom on demand: if not of use alive, perhaps of use dead?,"for example, it was stated explicitly that:
Regarding Nemtsov's murder, any good investigator would be tasked with the question, "to whose benefit?" Surely it would benefit the Kremlin to rid themselves of an opponents, but not in this manner. In fact, the only party that stood to benefit from his high-profile execution in the streets of Moscow were his own compatriots and his foreign backers who faced the prospect of yet another failed protest. Sympathy, they hope, will spur Russians who are on the fence politically to take to the streets, joining others who may have previously avoided protests because of Russia's economic strength before US sanctions sank in.

The US State Department's concession not only raises considerable doubt over the involvement of the Kremlin in Nemtsov's death, but also shifts suspicion primarily onto his own opposition movement and the extensive foreign interests backing it. Of course, the US State Department will never publish an article pointing out the obvious fact that it itself stood the most to gain from Nemtsov's murder, but this recent concession all but states this obvious reality, nonetheless. 

Russia: US-Backed Opposition Leader Gunned Down in Moscow

Martyrdom on demand: if not of use alive, perhaps of use dead? 

February 28, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) US-backed opposition groups in Russia have so far failed utterly to produce results. Their transparent subservience to Washington coupled with their distasteful brand of politics has left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth of most Russians. Each attempt to spread the "virus" of color revolution to Moscow, as US Senator John McCain called it, has failed - and each attempt has fallen progressively flatter.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never been more popular. His ability to weather serial provocations aimed at Russia by NATO has made him a champion against the perceived growing injustice exacted against the developing world by an increasingly militaristic and exploitative West.

So when US-backed opposition groups in Russia decided to gather again this coming March 1, Sunday, many wondered just exactly what they expected to accomplish.

Bloomberg just a day ago, would report in an article titled, "Anti-Putin Opposition Looks to Russian Spring for Revival," that:
Just before he was jailed for handing out leaflets at a metro station, Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny used his last moments in a Moscow court to record a video urging supporters to join a March 1 protest against President Vladimir Putin. 

Navalny’s removal from the “Spring” rally by a 15-day sentence underlined the beleaguered state of an opposition movement that brought 100,000 onto Moscow’s streets three years ago as well as the Kremlin’s unease about the potential for unrest in Russia.

Squeezed by government persecution and Putin’s near-record approval rating, Russia’s opposition is betting that an unfolding economic crisis will spark a spring revolt on a scale last seen at the winter protests of 2011-2012, the largest since the collapse of Communism 20 years earlier. It seeks to draw as many as 100,000 people to the “anti-crisis march” in Moscow, with protests also planned in 15 other cities. They’ll highlight declining living standards and the conflict in eastern Ukraine that triggered U.S. and European Union sanctions against Russia.

The article however, also stated that:
The opposition “hasn’t been this weak for many years,” Stefan Meister, an analyst at the German Council of Foreign Relations in Berlin, said by phone. “Even when we have a growing economic crisis in Russia, there’s still high support for Putin.”
Clearly to match the expectations the "spring" rally was meant to have, to infuse the "virus" US Senator McCain had claimed was intended for Moscow, something drastic would have to be done to change the current calculus.

The prospect of triggering sustainable unrest aimed at the Kremlin was beyond impossible - that is - until the leader of the planned protest was shot dead, practically on the steps of the Kremlin itself in the heart of Moscow.

Boris Nemtsov, was reportedly shot four times in the back on Friday night in a drive-by shooting. His body laid conveniently for media photographers to capture the Kremlin looming in the background.

Russia immediately condemned the killing, with President Putin noting it was an act of "pure provocation."


Science as the New Religion

Irrational faith in corporate R&D is not science, it is a modern day cult built on old, shameless tricks. 

February 26, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LocalOrg) - When money and power are involved, those standing to gain the most will say and do anything to push their agenda forward. Five centuries ago, saying and doing anything involved exploiting people's superstitions and their faith in religion. Today, saying and doing anything means also exploiting science.

Science, engineering, and design are amongst our most practical and effective tools to make real and meaningful change. But because they are so powerful and appealing, the potential for their abuse in the wrong hands is immense. Compounding this is the naivety of those who are fascinated by science's promise but blind to its potential abuse.

It wasn't long ago when big-tobacco had armies of "scientists" citing the latest "studies" confirming the health benefits and safety of smoking. Of course these were paid liars, not scientists, even if many of them had PhDs. And it was lies they were telling, even if mixed with shades of science. Today, special interests have refined this practice of filtering lies and exploitation through the lens of science regarding everything from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to the false debate on climate change, to the questionable interests behind global vaccination programs.

The latest example of this comes via National Geographic which recently published an article titled, "Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?," which claims:
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change—faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts.
Indeed, just as religions claimed a monopoly on morality and spirituality, National Geographic condemns those "empowered by their own sources of information" and "their own interpretations of research," maintaining that the only truth to be found is amongst the "consensus of experts."

The Consensus of "Experts" 

The article goes on to claim:
The idea that hundreds of scientists from all over the world would collaborate on such a vast hoax is laughable—scientists love to debunk one another. It’s very clear, however, that organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry have deliberately tried to undermine the public’s understanding of the scientific consensus by promoting a few skeptics.
National Geographic never explains why "organizations funded in part by the fossil fuel industry" are conspiring to lie, but the notion that "scientists" would conspire to lie is "laughable." After all, scientists work under various organizations funded by special interests as well, including immense corporate-financier interests - many of which overlap with big-oil, ironically. If the billions to be made by big-oil is motivation enough to lie and say the Earth isn't getting warmer, aren't the billions to be made in a "carbon credit" pyramid scheme also motivation enough to lie that it is?

Images: The "science" of smoking. Images collected by the New York Times for their article, "When Doctors, and Even Santa, Endorsed Tobacco" depict "scientific studies" assuring consumers of the safety, even benefits of smoking cigarettes commonsense told everyone else were literally killing people.  Those today who think they are ahead of everyone else by parroting "scientific studies" regarding big-ag's GMOs, big-pharma's vaccines, and big-oil and bankers' climate change racket are ahead of nothing. They are being duped by an old trick practiced shamelessly for at least 100 years.