George Galloway Running For Mayor Of London.

by Jerry Alatalo

 CITY OF LONDON (Photo: Leftfootforward.org)
CITY OF LONDON
(Photo: Leftfootforward.org)

Alphabet At 60-years old, George Galloway is running for Mayor of London as a member of the Respect Party. His top priority should he become elected is creating affordable housing in the city, where rapidly rising real estate prices and rents have forced many middle and low-income people out of now too-expensive areas. Another of Mr. Galloway’s top agenda items in the event he became elected is cleaning up corruption in the City of London’s financial/banking sector. From his perspective, London’s financial district is a “…hotbed of vice, a hotbed of criminality. It’s an organized crime racket of the kind that Al Capone (mafia figure) used to run in Chicago (Illinois), and we intend that some of the people involved  should end their days like him – behind bars, however we can get them there”.

Talk show host and financial commentator Max Keiser introduced George Galloway in June before Galloway announced his run for Mayor, so, seeing Keiser’s popular show on RT “The Keiser Report” focuses on white-collar crimes of the “banksters”, the race for London’s top political position should certainly have more than enough fireworks. Combine that with the fact that London is the world’s foremost center for the global multi-trillion dollar tax haven industry, and there’s no question the mayoral race in London is THE political campaign to watch.

MintPress News’ Mnar Muhawesh asked George Galloway for his thoughts on the situation in Greece:

“Greece is merely the latest victim of that grim financial orthodoxy, which is contradictory of course, because the same people who tell us how orthodox they are, and how debts simply must be paid, are the same people who through quantitative easing have created out of thin air – out of nothing – hundreds of billions of dollars to give to banks. Not to give to the ordinary people who might have used it to kick-start the economy, but to give it to the banks who brought the economy to its knees in the first place”.

The people of Greece, in Galloway’s view, democratically voted and said “enough is enough.”

George Galloway has said prosecuting white-collar financial criminals will be one of his major agenda items if elected Mayor of London, with a population of 8 million – of which he believes 1 million voters will push him to victory. But it’s not just City of London/Wall Street criminals Mr. Galloway seeks to prosecute. Galloway has been one of the forces behind producing an opening-soon documentary “The Killing of Tony Blair.”

Ms. Muhawesh asked George Galloway “Will Tony Blair see the Hague?”

Galloway responded by saying that in the film’s title the word “killing” represents former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s killing of Britain’s Labor party, the killing of a million people in Iraq, and the personal financial killing Blair has been accumulating out of the first two “killings”.

Galloway had envisioned three goals for the film, and one has already been accomplished: Blair being sacked as so-called “peace envoy” to the Middle East. The two remaining goals for the Galloway and the makers of the film are: (1) making Tony Blair “so toxic that no respectable state” will ever again associate with him, and (2) prosecuting Blair at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The short interview then concludes with discussion of the current situation in the Middle East, where Galloway sees highly contradictory policies emanating from the United Kingdom, United States and other nations. The contradictions are presented with the recent signing of the P5+1 nuclear deal/siding with Iran in Iraq’s battle against ISIS, working against Syria in its battle with ISIS terrorists, and maintaining friendly relations with the region’s biggest financial backer of extreme terrorism – Saudi Arabia.

If George Galloway wins the race for Mayor of London, he will take office in May 2016. American presidential “fireworks” starts heating up a few months after May 2016, so the coming mayoral race in the City of London should receive a great deal of international attention and press coverage. Then again, maybe not. Who on Earth would have any interest in following boring stories about going after the world’s most notorious white-collar criminals, and holding Tony Blair accountable for crimes against humanity? Perhaps only George W. Bush and Dick Cheney…

Thank you, Mayor Galloway. 

****

(Thank you to MintPressNews at YouTube)

Advertisements

Syrians, Ukrainians Search For Peace. Why They Won’t Find It On American Media.

Posted April 26, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

thCACHL51Q-1After coming up with this writing”s title, the thought/question came to mind: “has any American television corporation ever – repeat ever – devoted any weekly program, or significant amount of air-time, to peace?”  If there are any elders in the age range of their 60s, 70s, 80s, or 90s reading this, please enter your answer or thoughts regarding that question below.  Because peace on Earth is a really, really big deal for people all around the world, one would think that major media companies might consider – because peace is such a huge issue – the viewership they would garner from such a project.

Let’s just imagine if, say, CNN or ABC or CBS or NBC or FOX produced a two or three-hour Saturday or Sunday night prime-time program with the title “Search For Peace”, featuring guests from all nations and regions where war and violence were occurring. Now, these guests would consist of men and women who are actively involved in bringing about conditions to bring peace to their areas and, because the program is two or three hours, those men and women would represent the entire range of economic, political, and religious/spiritual viewpoints.

Now, let us think about what goes through the minds and hearts of those who have the literal power to make such a programming decision at these companies. We’re talking about John Smith or Susan Jones “Network Vice-President of Programming” or, even better, – Network Chief Executive Officer John Smith or CEO Susan Jones. Can we think about what has gone through all the minds of all the Vice Presidents of Programming and CEOs of every major television corporation since television first existed – regarding peace programming?

Can we imagine all of those separate corporate entities and their “deciders” of what shows to air and which become turned down – what went through their minds and hearts – when there were instances of men and women lower on the corporate hierarchy walking into their offices and proposing various formats for programs focusing on world peace? Evidently, because no such program has ever made the airwaves, those creative and idealistic underlings had their proposals kind of blown out of the water. Why?

Maybe the “deciders” came to conclude innocently enough that such a program “wouldn’t get any viewers”, and so the company’s profits would surely suffer, and then went back to the tried-and-true template many have called “if it bleeds, it leads”. But you’d think that, since television first became invented and came to the living rooms of more and more American homes since the 1950’s, at least one, just one, of those “deciders” would have gambled on such a TV program new genre. But, it’s never happened, with all those CEOs and VP’s of Programming over the decades even once. Again, why not?

It is very and extremely interesting that these mass media corporations have through the decades and all the wars devoted millions of hours to reporting on killing and violence occurring in nations and regions around the world, but have never devoted anything more than a miniscule – microscopic – fraction of that same air-time to ending or preventing war. No man or woman can deny that there have been an overwhelmingly large number of people on Earth all during the decades after television was born who’ve had legitimate ideas for making the world a more peaceful place. So, it’s not as if the “deciders” didn’t have any persons available to fill up the peace program(s) with talk and creative ideas.

For some very odd reason the men and women who had ideas to present on-air about war have through those decades been omnipresent on programming dealing with history’s wars, but those with ideas on peace have been virtually, and literally, absent. So in the history of television, on issues of war and peace, the voices of war have received air-time in a very unbalanced ratio – perhaps 1,000,000 to 1? No empirical studies/work has been done on this issue of war-speak and peace-speak TV time comparison, yet even without any scientific, mathematical analysis it could be said that there is essentially no – zero, nada, zilch – peace programming in the history of American television.

When one really thinks about this, it’s truly, truly amazing – no?

Peace programs are bad for television corporations’ business. Because the owners of those corporations profit from war.

From Ben H. Bagdikian’s book “The Media Monopoly” pages 22-28:

Louis Brandeis, before joining the Supreme Court wrote: “The practice of interlocking directorates is the root of many evils. It offends law human and divine… It tends to disloyalty and violation of the fundamental law that no man can serve two masters… It is undemocratic, for it rejects the platform: ‘A fair field and no favors’.

Members of corporate boards have impressive power over their corporations. They hire – and fire – the corporate leaders. They set corporate policy. They decide if the corporation will borrow money (or lend it) and for what purpose. They decide how the corporation will deal with the public and with the government.

In 1978 when the Department of Justice wanted to use its computer to show the number of interlocks among major American corporations, business leaders were powerful enough to prevent it. Through more tedious methods the department found that in 1976, of 130 major corporations, the largest interlocked through their directors with 70 percent of the others. Exxon, for example, interlocked with its leading competitors, Atlantic Richfield, Mobil, Standard Oil of California, Standard Oil of Indiana, and Texaco.

Brandeis called this the “endless chain”. The corporations from which Americans get most of their news and ideas have now entered the “endless chain”.

For example, Exxon, the world’s largest corporation, has two directors on the board of Citibank, alongside directors of Mobil and Standard Oil of California, General Electric, Westinghouse, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, DuPont, AT&T, IBM, and RCA. RCA and Westinghouse, two major media companies, are interlocked competitors and both are interlocked with Exxon, whose news they report.

Today the country’s major organs of public information are no longer local. Consequently, any conflict of interest is on a national or global scale, as are the consequences.

A 1979 study found Gannett, the largest seller of newspapers in the country, shared directors with Merrill Lynch (stockbrokers), Standard Oil of Ohio, 20th Century-Fox, Kerr-McGee (oil, gas, nuclear power, aerospace), McDonnell Douglas Aircraft, McGraw-Hill, Eastern Airlines, Phillips Petroleum, Kellogg Company, and New York Telephone Company.

Times Mirror of Los Angeles has on its board directors from Bank of America, Norton Simon, TRW, Rohr Corporation, Kaiser Steel, Ford Motor, American Airlines, Colgate-Palmolive, and Carter Hawley Hale Stores.

The New York Times interlocks with Merck, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Bristol Myers, Charter Oil, Johns Manville, American Express, Bethlehem Steel, IBM, Scott Paper, Sun Oil, Ford Motor, and First Boston Corporation.

The Washington Post interlocks with CBS, Allied Chemical, Blu Chip Stamps (which controls Berkshire Hathaway textiles, Buffalo Evening news, Pinkerton’s, and Munsingwear), IBM, Ford Motor, Levi-Strauss, TWA, Utah International, and Wells Fargo Bank.

Another study of interlocking directorates found that an even greater concentration of international industrial and financial figures dominates other media. American Broadcasting Co., for example, has on its board executives from the oil and gas industries, major banks, insurance companies, IBM, General Motors, and General Dynamics. CBS share directors with major international banks, Aerospace Corporation, Institute of Defense Analysis, Eastern Airlines, Gannett Co., Trilateral Commission, Memorex, Aluminum Company of America, Pan American Airways, and the Asia Society.

Almost every major industry whose activities dominate the news of the 1980s – the leading defense contractors and oil companies – sit on controlling boards of the leading media of the country.

There is hardly a major international bank or insurance company, or investment company, that is not represented on boards of directors of the major media that control most of what Americans learn about the economy.

It is not always easy to discover who, in reality, holds and votes on stock in media corporations. The law permits some shares to be held by “street name” firms whose real beneficiaries remain secret, an invisible hand with special significance when it has influence over the mass media.

The concentration of giant media firms that control American public information is troublesome by itself. The interlocking directorates with each other and with major industries and banks, insurance companies, and investment firms make it more troublesome still. The relationship of the news media and leading world bankers is corporate incest within corporate incest: The controllers control each other. A cluster of New York banks and life insurance companies held controlling shares in the New York Times; Newsday; McGraw-Hill; Dow Jones; Time, Inc.; ITT; CBS; ABC; Prentice-Hall; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; ABC; Doubleday; Knight-Ridder Publications; RCA; Thomson Newspapers; Westinghouse; Cox; Reader’s Digest; Harper&Row; the Washington Post; Xerox; and the Tribune Company.

The “summits of American business” now control or powerfully influence the major media that create American public opinion.

Since Ben Bagdikian wrote “The Media Monopoly” in 1983, media ownership has only concentrated, till in 2014 only a handful of media ultra-mega-conglomerates dominate the communications industry landscape around the Earth.

Interlocking directorates have only become more systemic and problematic an issue since 1983 as well, evidenced by the world’s extreme wealth inequality – the greatest inequality in history.

We can connect the dots now and fully understand why major media corporations, with their “summit of American business” controllers – and international markets to capture before they sleep – have “deciders” who feel peace-oriented programming may not make the men and women on the “board” too satisfied.

Connecting the dots helps men and women understand why people such as those talking here to George Galloway – Julian Assange’s father, Syrian peace activist Father Dave Smith, and a journalist critical of America and western nations’ actions in Ukraine – will not be seen any time soon – talking about peace on major media in America.

Marine Major General Smedley Butler (1881-1940) wrote a book titled “War Is A Racket”:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscleman for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short I was a racketeer – a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking-house of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American Fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated in three continents.” 

****

(Thank you to Gallowayist at YouTube)

Ukraine: The Time Has Arrived For United Nations Truth Commission.

Posted March 10, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

Attention: United Nations Secretary General, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon

The time has arrived for the end of propaganda and half-truths about the Ukraine situation. This is a proposal to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to arrange and convene a Truth Commission on Ukraine at the United Nations as soon as humanly possible. The Truth Commission on Ukraine would film and record any United Nations (UN) member state’s representative who wishes to speak for one hour about ideas that would resolve the situation truthfully and, most urgently, peacefully.

The list of those men and women representatives would be arranged on a first come, first speak basis. Men and women who represent their nations at the UN have been chosen by their people for their qualities of honesty, altruism, humanitarianism, and desire to help build a peaceful world. The concept of a truth commission may eventually become a permanent fixture at the UN where any nation’s representative can talk freely, at any time, about any issue of concern.

Establishment of such a truth commission and making it a permanent part of the UN is an issue that can be focused on at a later date. At this time, the most important step the UN can take is to allow the truth to emerge regarding events in Ukraine. The number of people around the world who have come to be concerned about the situation there are looking for the wisest, most reasonable men and women on Earth to come forward with rational ideas which result in the best actions offering the greatest possibility of good outcomes for all the people of Ukraine and the world.

A UN Truth Commission on Ukraine offers humanity the best opportunity for results that most of the Earth’s people will agree on.

The people from all nations in the world, because of their natural concern about events in Ukraine, are searching for the truth in a variety of ways. Some are getting their information from televised news broadcasts, while others are getting their information from the so-called alternative press or the many websites reporting on events in the Ukraine, including the UN’s official website.

The essential problems which a UN Truth Commission on Ukraine would solve is the world’s people basing their perceptions on misinformation, disinformation, outright lies, and other biased information which is being produced by people and groups which do not have absolute truth as the highest priority. Information about Ukraine is being directly attached to agendas not in line with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

A UN Truth Commission on Ukraine would first defeat those who are putting out disinformation and lies, while giving the concerned people of the world a place to go for truthful representation of facts. This is urgent because people may take regrettable actions based on false perceptions, at the same time passing the same false assertions to others, who may then take regrettable actions based on those same false perceptions. There is an urgent need to eliminate as much as humanly possible any possibility of people taking actions based on falsehoods.

Secondly, a UN Truth Commission on Ukraine allows the UN member state representatives to offer their most heart-felt, benevolent, and wisest ideas to become shared with their fellow UN representatives, and the world’s people. This action allows for the wisest, widest, most thorough, and most focused examination of the Ukrainian situation, and is the road most likely to bring forth a good outcome for humanity, especially the people in Ukraine and that region.

A UN Truth Commission on Ukraine offers humanity the best chance to get important questions answered, and sincere concerns to become genuinely addressed. Good ideas and good solutions will come forth and allow for further discussion, leading to a further distillation of ideas until the best solutions are obvious and certain to be agreed upon by the majority of the human race.

Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, please view the following video which is but one example in thousands of humanity’s information sources containing questions and concerns about Ukraine that a UN Truth Commission on Ukraine would answer and address.

Very truly yours. Thank you for every consideration.

****

From World Competition To World Cooperation.

Posted January 30, 2014

by Jerry Alatalo

gaswell“The trouble today is that the communist world understands unity but not liberty, while the free world understands liberty but not unity. Eventually the victory may be won by the first of the two sides to achieve the synthesis of both liberty and unity.”

– Salvador de Madariaga (1886-1978)

On George Galloway’s “Sputnik” program on RT, he talks with university lecturer Dr. Sami Ramadani about the current Syria Peace Talks – Geneva 2. The second half of the show occurs with the absence of a British MP – who cancelled his scheduled appearance to speak about his view that Edward Snowden is a criminal.

Dr. Ramadani shares his views on Geneva 2 which point out that those who have supplied arms, money, and training to the military opposition, whether moderate or mercenary, need to withdraw that support or the situation will turn into protracted war. He notes that a report originating from Qatar about Syrian government torture, released shortly before the start of Geneva 2 talks,was an effort to derail or sabotage any chance of success and ending the military conflict.

He shares that Qatar has supplied over $3 billion in aid to mercenary forces fighting against the Syrian government army, and that the Syrian people don’t want any more fighting, warring, and destruction in their country. Dr. Ramadani has his doubts about United States resolve to end the over three-year crisis – that along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, and Turkey – he thinks the U.S. intends to sabotage the state of Syria.

His view is that both Iran and Saudi Arabia need to be involved in the talks at Geneva 2, as both are deeply involved in the situation and crisis in Syria. Because of Saudi Arabia’s backing of mercenaries from many nations and regions around the world in the war – and because Saudi Arabia’s political system is totally opposite of a democracy – most people in Syria are against foreign-backed intervention which has blocked chances for true democratic reforms.

Mr. Ramadani explains that there is a genuine democratic opposition of Syrians, that they are not involved in Geneva 2 while the military opposition is, and that the genuine democratic reform group is against any further destruction of their country. He accurately describes the complexity of the present situation, where a number of groups consists of Saudi/Qatar-backed mercenaries who are committing atrocities, U.S.-backed so-called “moderate” anti-government military forces who have fought with other anti-government groups, and anti-military-solutions Syrians seeking democratic reform through non-violent means.

As the Middle East region is the most important geopolitical, natural resource/energy region of the Earth, it has come as a surprise that few reports coming from Geneva 2, whether directly from the conference and its participants or from news programs and interviews/commentary, get to the source or genesis of the Syrian conflict. To the point, analysis of the humanitarian crisis in Syria rarely includes examination of the factors and significance of natural resources like oil and gas reserves.

Rarely mentioned as well is the competition between western financial systems and the emerging BRICS alliance’ proposed development banking system – competing directly with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other international financial institutions located in western places like Wall Street and London.

Many analysts consider the conflict in Syria a proxy war between western nations led by the USA, Britain, France, Israel and others against Syria, Iran, Russia, China, etc. These analysts assert that the war is over oil and natural gas, pipelines’ competition between Iran and Qatar who share access to a giant natural gas reserve, and control of routes and distributions and market shares for very large sales to Europe.

So, the basis of actions both military and financial during the past three years in and around Syria – the real reasons for the conflict – are not being discussed in ways that are necessary for a true, just, and concrete resolution leading to peace in Syria, the Middle East, and other nations on Earth.

Until the views held by the most very powerful military, business, and financial entities around the world changes from “us and them” to “us” – the entire human race – the major source of war/conflict will never be completely eliminated. In essence, this means converting the world from one of competition to one of coöperation.

Edward Snowden’s revelations in 2013 are directly related to world competition which has led to wars and conflict up to this day – shown by the current Geneva 2 peace talks. Mr. Snowden’s actions revealed NSA eavesdropping of America’s allies, prime ministers, United Nations officials, and others. In a world where coöperation between people and nations is regarded as more important than continuing to compete – with many resulting negative consequences – Edward Snowden’s actions would never have been felt necessary by him.

George Galloway describes how Ed Snowden is under consideration as a nominee to become Rector of Glasgow University in Scotland, a position which, if Snowden gets nominated and named, would allow him to travel to Scotland without arrest by British law enforcement, because of separate legal systems operated in Scotland and England. Mr. Galloway talks about years past when Yassir Arafat, Winnie Mandela, and Mordecai Vanunu were nominated for Rector at Glasgow University.

Arafat was nominated but didn’t get the position. Winnie Mandela was named Rector but was unable to travel to Scotland – although the publicity overcame laws which disallowed media from publishing her views or photos and helped increase awareness of apartheid in South Africa and sped up its ending. Mr. Vanunu of Israel was named Rector and, although his jaw was wired shut, he was able to write/tell the world about Israel’s development of nuclear weapons.

Perhaps Edward Snowden will be moving to Scotland.

Competition and coöperation have one thing in common: they are both long words beginning with the letter “c”. Whether the most powerful nations, businesses, political and military leaders, and individual citizens choose one or the other as their most powerful motive for actions will make all the difference in the world.

****

(Thanks to Moluca Media @ YouTube)