Sunday, January 08, 2017

Interfering In Other Countries' Domestic Politics-- What Monsters Do That?


One of the excuses many of the Trump-Putin useful idiots give for dismissing Putin’s hacking of the U.S. elections is that governments do it all the time— especially the U.S. Well, they are certainly right about governments doing it all the time, but that doesn’t make Putin’s coup against America any more palatable than, say, the U.S.-British coup against Iran in 1953. Glen Yeadon's book, Nazi Hydra In America includes a chapter about how the CIA recruited a whole lot of Nazis after the World War II to work for it in various capacities, including that of helping overthrow governments that were deemed unfriendly to American corporate power. The CIA was busy all over Europe, of course (as were the Russians) but both countries’ spy agencies were super-involved in Iran as well.
Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy Roosevelt was the CIA's agent in Iran that installed the Shah and overthrew Mossadegh. The plans issued by Mossadegh for nationalizing the oil fields precipitated his removal. The reader should understand that Mossadegh had been elected to office. Once the Shah was in power he was persuaded to name Fazlollah Zaledi as Prime Minister. During WWII Zaledi was imprisoned for collaborating with the Nazis. Once firmly in control Iran completed a contract with an international consortium of oil companies. One member of that consortium was Standard Oil of New Jersey, a client of Sullivan and Cromwell. Jack Anderson reported that the Rockefeller family had helped arranged the coup that brought the Shah to power. Anderson had listed a number of ways the Shah demonstrated his appreciation. The CIA also provided training for the dreaded Savak or secret police of Iran.

...The result over the next two decades was the Shah enriched himself at the expense of his fellow countrymen using the brutal Savak to maintain control. Of course he remained a loyal ally of the US and corporate America such as Standard Oil of New Jersey got pricing breaks... The reader can now see the pattern, first the legally elected leader purposes reforms or maybe leaning to the left in a move that threatens corporate America. He is then dispelled and replaced with a hard right leader favorable to US [corporate] interests. The new leader enriches himself at the expense of his fellow countrymen and becomes an ally of the US. He maintains power through brutality and outright murder with a police force trained by the US. This then is the model that the US has followed since WWII, often times in the 1950s ex Nazis were employed as agents. The US press should be considered a co-conspirator in that they cover up the bloodshed by ignoring the killing as they did in Nicaragua. It is a model that has been repeated time after time in all corners of the globe from the end of WWII to the present time. Noam Chomsky terms the resulting state as subfascist. The resulting brutality and looting of the country by a group of elitists proceeds as it did in Germany under the Nazis.

The U.S. has interfered in the domestic politics of every country in Latin America, catastrophically in most, such as Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Venezuela, Guatemala, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Uruguay, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras… And the U.S. has a long sordid history interfering in the domestic politics of counties like Greece, Italy, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Hungary, Ukraine, Congo, Indonesia, Australia, Angola, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq… Did you know U.S., British, French, Japanese, Canadian, Czech and Greek troops invaded Russia in 1918? American troops occupied Vladivostok and Arkhangelsk. In fact, Russians aren’t completely paranoid to think the West has been interfering in their politics for over a century.

This past summer I visited Russia for the first time and one of my favorite lesser-known attractions was the Museum of Political History in St. Petersburg— great way to go through Russia’s rich history. I spent tike in a room devoted to Rasputin and just this week, the London Times ran a piece which seems pretty definitive about who— one of their agents— assassinated the monk and why. On January 7 Ben Macintyre wrote “Today The Times publishes a world exclusive — exactly a century late. On January 2, 1917, Robert Wilton, The Times correspondent in Petrograd, sent an urgent telegraph to head office with the news that Grigori Rasputin, the infamous ‘mad monk’ who had enraged members of the royal court by his intimacy with the tsarina, had been murdered four days earlier, and his bullet-riddled corpse thrown into the icy Neva River. Wilton’s detailed report did not appear in the newspaper. The Times decided to hold it back for reasons of diplomacy and good taste — and perhaps because the Foreign Office ‘hinted’ that it should do so.”
“Rasputin was shot in a room in the basement of the palace of Prince Yusupov,” wrote Wilton, whose words appear in newsprint here for the first time.

“Prince Yusupov did the shooting. Conjointly with other young Princes of the Blood . . . they had decided some time ago to ‘remove’ Rasputin because they regarded him as the cause of a dangerous scandal affecting the interests of the dynasty.”

But what Wilton did not report (and may not have known) was whether MI6 was involved in the death of Rasputin.

Was Prince Felix Yusupov, an Oxford-educated aristocrat married to the tsar’s niece, aided in the assassination by British intelligence in order to keep Russia fighting in the First World War?

Was the fatal bullet fired by an MI6 officer?

These questions will never be answered, and the mystery of Rasputin’s death will never be completely solved, until and unless MI6 opens up its files. A Siberian mystic, Rasputin insinuated himself into the Russian royal family, exercising particular influence over Tsarina Alexandra, to the fury of other family members — notably the hot-headed, flamboyant, cross-dressing and fabulously wealthy Prince Yusupov, the only member of Oxford’s Bullingdon Club to admit murder.

Alexandra was German by birth, and it was rumoured that she and Rasputin led a faction intent on making peace with Germany and pulling Russia out of the war. Britain, desperate to keep its Russian ally fighting, had the motive to want Rasputin dead.

The authorised history of MI6 is silent on the subject of British involvement in the killing, but there is no doubt that Samuel Hoare, the MI6 station chief in Russia, believed that Rasputin was sabotaging the war effort.

Hoare told the MI6 chief Mansfield Smith-Cumming, the original “C,” that if Rasputin were to be liquidated “the country would be freed from the sinister influence that was . . . endangering the success of its armies.”

A key suspect in the murder is Lieutenant Oswald Rayner, a 28-year-old MI6 officer and close friend of Prince Yusupov from their time at Oxford. Tsar Nicholas II told the British ambassador that he suspected “a young Englishman who had been a college friend of Prince Felix Yusupov, of having been concerned in Rasputin’s murder”. Rayner’s chauffeur later confirmed that the two men had met several times at the Yusupov palace in the weeks leading up to the murder on December 30.

The post-mortem examination carried out by the professor Dmitrii Kosorotov indicated that Rasputin had been shot three times, with different weapons.

The forensic evidence suggests that the final shot to Rasputin’s head could only have come from a revolver firing a lead, non-jacketed bullet at close range, most likely a British .455 Webley — the gun favoured by Rayner.

A letter from a second MI6 officer, Stephen Alley, also points to direct British participation in the murder plot: “Although matters have not gone entirely to plan, our objective has clearly been achieved. Reaction to the demise of Dark Forces [an obvious allusion to Rasputin] has been well received by all, although a few awkward questions have already been asked about wider involvement. Rayner is attending to loose ends . . .”

Back in England, Rayner reportedly confided to family members that he had been present at the murder, and retained a bullet he said he had acquired at the scene. After the war, he helped Yusupov to write a graphic, self-serving and largely fictional account of the assassination, named his son after the prince, and died in 1961 after burning all his papers.

Lies, half-truths and uncertainties have long lingered around the murder of Rasputin, as reluctant to die as the monk himself, who allegedly survived both poisoning and shooting, and may even have been half-alive when he was dumped in the frozen river.

But the mystery surrounding Britain’s role in his death is the most enduring, and the most important factor, since it underpins a century of Russian mistrust of Britain.

If Rayner was involved, he may have been acting in a personal capacity, or as a British agent, or both. He may not have been involved at all, with the allegations against him just being the result of Russian propaganda and anti-British feeling.

I doubt Putin cares about a 28 year old British spy shooting Rasputin in 1917. He’s probably more interested that many Russians believe the CIA somehow persuaded Gorbachev and/or Yeltsin to sell out the Soviet Union. And he’s not thrilled about NATO’s policy of encirclement or about how the West overthrew his ally in Ukraine and replaced him with their own puppet. Does this make it “right” that Putin got even by installing Trump as president of the U.S.? Of course not— but it makes it easier to understand some of the chit-chat about it.

Labels: , , , , , , ,


At 6:21 PM, Blogger Gadfly said...

You've only scratched the tip of the iceberg. We made an informal agreement with Yeltsin in 1990 not to expand NATO. Of course Putin is pissed. Yeltsin was too drunk, too incompetent, and with his hands too full of internal problems to be publicly pissed, let alone to take counteraction.

Of course, that's if Putin actually did this. So far, the "evidence" doesn't stand up.

At 8:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

two augmentations:
1) Clinton also sent the Chicago boys over to Moscow to "help the Russian economy" (to be raped by western corporations). And, yes, Yeltsin was paid off and was chronically blotto, so he probably never knew. But Clinton did.

2) In the above piece, Indonesia was only mentioned. But I thought I'd remind folks that the cia-trained enforcers over there are credited with killing a million.

a million. and not even any ovens.

At 1:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To what do we owe this objective national self-examination?

Here's my standard list of references on US "involvement" in the governments of other countries.

What's next? If we can stay away from "Putin did it" for another day or so, can we expect an expose on the Crosscheck system of (likely Dem voter) suppression that has prevented an estimated 7 million people from voting in the recent presidential election?

It is the brainchild of Kris Kobach, Herr Hair transition team member whose proven database "skills" will apparently be applied to the promised Muslim registry.

John Puma

At 5:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John: The crosscheck victims also could not vote in the primary. No idea if Bernie was a victim of this and that is why the Democraps have been so deafeningly silent about it. The easiest conclusion is that the Democraps just don't give a shit if black folks can vote or not.

At 6:07 AM, Anonymous Hone said...

And it goes on and on, as it has since the Year One. Yada yada yada. Not just us, anyone in power anywhere from the beginning of civilization and even before has participated in these assaults against other peoples. If you walk down the Hall of War at Versailles, there are gigantic paintings about so many wars it is dizzying, with not a clue about what they were even about. This is man's way, unfortunately. Yes, the good ol' USA is quite guilty of interfering with politics and committing many crimes against other countries all over the globe. As is Russia, no denying their interference in our current election.

Surely baby boomers recall Vietnam, not so long ago, our interference extraordinaire? The draft was what led to the wake up call of young people and their parents, as over 50,000 American kids died. Remember that old Country Joe and the Fish song, "Be the first one on your block to have you boy sent home in a box?" (This was actually one of my first memories of Howie, standing in G Lobby with a rag tied around his head swaying to the tune as it played on an old victrola!)

If only we had to actually sacrifice our own children each time we sought to interfere, that would surely end any misadventure real fast! The Iraq War would have been over pretty quickly if there had been a draft, which would have included women. We would have heard many thousands of Moms marching and screaming in the streets, "Not my girl!" Yet now we are horrified and morally offended that foreign interference happened to us. Americans have been way too complacent for too many years, with our heads in the sand. And what about all that money we spent on Iraq that went totally down the drain? Hundreds of billions gone on a trumped up war. Not one Republican screamed about that! They think our government money should only come from working people and only be spent on adventures that enrich corporations and their own pockets. They act like as little as possible should be spent on the people themselves, like on Social Security and Medicare. Why should the people's money be spent on the people? Imagine if the money for the Iraq war (close to a trillion dollars??) had been spent on infrastructure, education, retraining workers and health care! No worries about budget deficits for war and other Republican activities, but they scream like hell about spending one cent on anything that would help people and better their lives. Crooks and liars, all of them! Now we are seeing it all right in our faces. The mask is off. The swamp is gilded. Fuckers all, and we are fucked big time. The next 100 days will be horrifying.

It would be nice if all high school students read Howard Zinn's history of America rather than the distorted history books in most classrooms that come out of Texas.

At 9:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent points, Hone. I recommend a podcast I recently heard:

He makes the case that since we now have an "all volunteer" military, we are creating (or have created) a warrior class such that the vast majority of people in this shithole no longer have any skin in the game. That's one reason we no longer give a shit about war.

I turned 18 just at the end of the viet nam draft (luckily had a high lottery number) but I was sweating what to do if I got the notice. I couldn't afford college and didn't know anyone in Canada. I came close to enlisting in the air force so I wouldn't be drafted into the marines.

And the money? Suffice it to say that none of the money spent on wars since poppy bush came from regular americans at all. It came from INVESTORS in the form of loans to uncle sugar, to be paid off in the future by other loans from more investors. Of our $20 trillion federal debt, about a quarter is from wars, proto wars and other acts of war around the world.

But the point of it is that the profits always go to the big corporate donors to the money party, so those who are elected by donations from those corporations have a vested interest in more, bigger, more expensive war for the sake of their donors.

That's why ryan can bitch about SSI or Medicare having a funding sunset while he will always rubber stamp wars. SSI and Medicare don't give him bribe money.

At 9:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 5:00 AM

Thanks for the reference to the Dems deafening silence*** ... in the face of roughly sixteen years of increasing election fraud by the GOP.

I'd suggest for this cycle, however, it was not the customary silence but the full blown cacophony of the Obumma administration's Russia hack hysteria.
*** along with essentially total inaction ... except for being completely duped & intimidated like a pack of second graders over the ACORN scam.

John Puma

At 2:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

John, you forget that the Democrap party USED strip/flip/cage tactics to force $hillbillary onto us as their candidate instead of Bernie.

With most of those 7M "crosschecked" voters being minorities, would Bernie have won another primary or 2? I know black voters, in particular, were pavlovian in their support of the distaff monster. Were enough Hispanics stripped in FL and even WI to change things? I just don't know.

The media abdicated decades ago. And even the few sources who still investigate seem to have given this a pass. No way to know why the DNC bent over.

But I can infer. And I do often. Democraps don't care if minorities vote or not.

The hack supposedly occurred a year ago or more. But obamanation was mute about it until AFTER the election. $hillbillary was mute because her duplicity and crimes were *IN* the hacked stuff and $he didn't want anyone to pay attention. Was obamanation's silence an attempt to keep the stupid masses ignorant for her sake? Once it didn't matter any more, then they made a thing about it... to a largely comatose public.

What about comey's obvious meddling? Either comey is a total dipshit or he cleverly tilted the table just a skosh for that ghastly orange ghoul. I'm 50 - 50 on that question.

Again, the comey thing was offered to a largely comatose public.

No matter what outrage emanates from the .01% and their tools in DC, it is *WE* who must take blame for not giving a flying fuck about any of it.

At 12:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 2:40 PM:

Because I do not mention a point does not mean I have forgotten it.

But I have restricted my comments to the Dems' behavior since the election not during the primaries.

But, if you insist. As to Crosscheck's effect on the Dem primaries: Sanders was presumed to be essentially unknown to minority voters and, as you say, "black voters, in particular, were pavlovian in their support of the distaff monster."

Since Crosscheck targeted minority voters specifically, a case could be made that Crosscheck HELPED Sanders. I'm not saying he had anything to do with it and I am not referring to the HRC/DNC's own "signature" election fraud techniques.

John Puma

At 5:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TY John. I've never seen any kind of breakdown on how many of the 7M or so were black vs. Hispanic, so I'm still unsure of whether it helped or hurt Bernie.

Of course, Bernie himself betrayed his own campaign by eating the DNC shit taco and endorsing the anti-Bernie candidate. So maybe it's all moot.


Post a Comment

<< Home