Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text
Survivor of US Drone Attack:
Obama Belongs on List of World's Tyrants

Poisoning Black Cities: Corporate Campaign to Ethnically Cleanse US Cities Massive Marches in Poland
Against Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right
Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Land Rights Activists Kidnapped and Tortured

Global Perspectives Now Global Perspectives Now
Showing posts with label organized crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organized crime. Show all posts

The Bush-Clinton Mafia: Dynasties Merry-Go-Round - How Did It Come About?

From Left: The three Bushes - George, George and Jeb, and Bill and Hillary.
From Left: The three Bushes - George, George and Jeb, and Bill and Hillary.

By
If a space or a time traveler would set his time ship’s dial to 2015, with the United States as its destination, one could think that a mandatory preparation for the journey to understand the US’ political system would be an attentive study of the Constitution. After all, the document, drafted in 1787 by the so-called founding fathers and finally ratified three later in 1790 in its original form, is supposed to be the foundation of the US’ political edifice. Two hundred and twenty-five years later, the document has been so thoroughly gutted of its substantial original merits, at least in its spirit if not its letter, that the foundation of the building has become a superfluous architectural ornament. While the US Constitution was far from being revolutionary and granted equal rights only to white male landowners, it marked, in conjunction with the French revolution of 1789, a resolute break from the European kingdoms. No king or queen could ever claim this land again, under any circumstance. A republic, ruled by a meritocracy of well-educated Anglo-Saxon patrician men, was born. Since 190 years after the US Constitution’s ratification, however, which is exactly since 1980, the country has been ruled by two dynasties or their surrogates: the Bushes and the Clintons.

American royal mafia and co: organized crime as political model

To understand the undemocratic and extremely seedy side of US modern-day politics, it would be imperative for our time traveler, de Tocqueville in training, to watch two classics of American cinema: “The Godfather” and “The Godfather Part II”. Director Francis Ford Coppola, in his fictional, yet extremely well-researched and documented films, invited us inside the US’ underbelly. During the 19th century and up to the early 20th century, massive numbers of poor immigrants, mainly Italians, Irish and Jews from eastern Europe, were lured to the Americas largely to escape economic hardship. Those who landed in the US quickly understood that they were excluded from or at best marginalized in this promised land run by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The more ambitious ones, unencumbered by moral boundaries, developed their own form of government and social code of conduct in the form of a tightly knit family-like structure that usually strictly followed ethnic lines. The birth of organized crime in the US, either Italian, Jewish or Irish, was a direct consequence of the fight for survival of communities that were deliberately excluded from power or even any political discourse.

Mafia families had a strictly enforced code of conduct and precise hierarchy, with a don (boss) at the top; a consiglierie (adviser to the head of the family) directly picked by the don; an under boss who was usually groomed to be the don’s successor; capos (the lieutenants), and “soldiers”. In the 1930s, under the supervision of Lucky Luciano, the don of all dons, not only the five Italian mafia families worked together, but they also collaborated on many occasions with the Jewish and Irish mafia. In this parallel brand of power and economy, mafia families extracted contributions (a primitive form of taxation of usually 10 percent of income) from businesses, ironically to protect them from random criminal activity. By the mid-1930s mafia families controlled large sections of the US economy. The prohibition of alcoholic beverages, which spanned from 1920 to 1933, marked the apogee of the mafia families, either Italian, Jewish or Irish. The mob controlled the flow of liquor, and Americans were thirsty.

During the prohibition era, Joe Kennedy (father of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy), the patriarch of a family that passed for being true US aristocracy although he had been the grandson of a dirt-poor potato-famine Irish immigrant, substantially increased his vast fortune by importing, from the UK and Canada, and selling illicit liquor in association with Italian-American don Frank Costello and Jewish gangster Meyer Lansky. Joe Kennedy had an edge on the competition: he went into the prohibition era in 1920 with large stocks of booze from his father’s own stores. In what cannot be a coincidence, on the day prohibition ended 13 years later, Joe Kennedy had three exclusive deals to import British whiskey and gin, as well as an extensive network of retailers already in place. Kennedy understood that his political ambitions for his sons would require vast amounts of money. Like any mafia bosses, don Joe Kennedy wanted to start a dynasty at any cost and regardless of moral or even legal considerations. In the US, money meant power, and this notion was the motto for both supposed blue-blood patriarch Kennedy and don Lucky Luciano.

Bush mafia vs Clinton mafia: Defining US politics from 1980 to 2016

Arguably, the first term of George H. Bush, founder of the Bush dynasty, started in 1980 when he officially became Vice President or, to use the mafia term, super under boss to Ronald Reagan, an aging actor, perhaps already senile, hired to perform the role of global don: “Leader of the free world” and most powerful man on earth, according to US mainstream media propaganda. Bush Sr. had previously run the Central Intelligence Agency. During the two terms of the Reagan administration (1980 to 1988), it was common knowledge that Bush Sr was the boss who led US policy. He officially became the don in 1988, and ran his own operation with pretty much the same crew until 1992. James Baker was the key consigliere to don Bush Sr, but he also listened closely to the Talleyrand of US politics, consigliere extraordinaire Henry Kissinger. Bush Sr’s under boss was Donald Rumsfeld who picked his capo in the person of Dick Cheney. George W. Bush or Bush Jr, when his turn came, kept most of the old don’s crew with some minor changes and additions. Cheney became the under boss, while Rumsfeld took the vital Pentagon portfolio.

Before George W. Bush’s turn, the Clinton dynasty came along in 1992, courtesy of WallMart, and with the firm intention, as an obligation to their sponsors, to facilitate a global corporate imperialist agenda. With the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), don Bill Clinton went the extra mile for the benefit of his friends in transnational corporations. Bill Clinton became a favorite of Wall Street’s investment banks, such as Goldman Sachs, by being instrumental in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which was voted in 1933 during the Great Depression in the aftermath of the 1929 Wall Street crash. The Glass-Steagall Act limited commercial banks securities activities, and it clearly separated commercial banking from investment banking, to curtail speculation. The repeal of this Act allowed Wall Street investment banks to gamble money that was held in commercial banks, and this was arguably one of the lead systemic factors in the 2008 global financial-market crash.

Don Clinton’s consigliere was mainly first-lady Hillary, but he also took the advice of the other super-consigliere besides Kissinger: Polish-born Zbigniew Brzezinski. Consigliere Brzezinski started his career in 1966 when he advised Lyndon B. Johnson.

Read More


President Ronald Reagan Was 'Owned' by the Mafia — New Documentary Presents Plenty of Evidence

Mafia by Broken Fingaz - London Street Art. (Photo by MsSaraKelly)
Mafia by Broken Fingaz - London Street Art. (Photo by MsSaraKelly)
The mob was able to get an FBI investigation into its infiltration of the media powerhouse, Music Corporation of America (MCA), shut down while Reagan was president, according to a new documentary, Wages of Spin II: Bring Down The Wall.

By Jerry Oppenheimer
A shocking new documentary screened exclusively by MailOnline exposes the chilling connections between the Mafia, one of Hollywood's most powerful entertainment companies and its head honcho Lew Wasserman and President Ronald Reagan and his Justice Department.

Under Lew Wasserman's brilliant and often brutal leadership, MCA's hugely financially successful forms of mass entertainment have been popular for generations of couch potatoes and movie-goers: from Leave It to Beaver to Miami Vice on television; from American Graffiti to Jaws on the big screen.

But there was a dark side to Wasserman - and to Reagan - all of which is revealed in a shocking new documentary, Wages of Spin II: Bring Down The Wall, that, according to the film's producer and those interviewed, links both of them in darkly shadowed ways to the Mafia, and the killing of a U.S. Department of Justice organized crime Strike Force investigation into Mob influence and infiltration at the highest levels of MCA.

Richard Stavin, a former veteran federal prosecutor who was assigned to the Justice Department's Organized Crime Strike Force in Los Angeles and was an integral member of the MCA-Mafia probe team, declared in the film for the first time:
'It's my belief that MCA and its' involvement with Mafia individuals, Mafia-dominated companies and our inability to pursue those was not happenstance. I believe it was an organized, orchestrated effort on the part of certain individuals within Washington, D.C. to keep a hands-off policy towards MCA.
Read More















The FBI and Its Lethal Informants: A Long Tradition of Blowback — FBI Informants Have Murdered Many

Frazier Glenn Cross was a neo-Nazis who murdered Jews:
he was also an FBI informant.

By Peter Lee
Lot of talk about bad guys being FBI assets recently. Thanks to his lawyers, the Interwebs are a-hum with speculation that the FBI neglected to hoover up Tamerlan Tsarnaev a.k.a. the Elder before the Boston marathon bombing because the Bureau was already in touch with him and trying to turn him as an asset, not because the Russians withheld crucial information.


Yesterday it also transpired that Glenn Miller, the white supremacist linked to the shootings in Overland Park, had allegedly worked with the FBI as an informer. In CounterPunch, James Ridgeway quotes an aggrieved white supremacist outlet that accused Miller:
“In the 1980′s Glenn Miller was a self-styled KKK leader in North Carolina. He made contact with The Order, which was famous for armored car heists. Apparently he convinced The Order to make him part of an “above ground/legal” wing of the group. He then provided information to the FBI and testified against other members of the “legal” wing that were receiving money obtained from the armored car heists.”
This sort of risky business looks suspiciously like FBI standard procedure.

Reading Kevin Cullen and Shelley Murphy’s biography of Whitey Bulger, the notorious—and notoriously protected—Boston gangster who parlayed his FBI relationship into legal impunity and a municipal crime empire, one learns that this sort of arrangement spanned generations in the Bureau:
[Boston crime figure Frank] Salemme claims [FBI agent Paul] Rico’s animosity toward the McLaughlin gang stemmed from the McLaughlins’ typically careless and insulting ways—specifically their bawdy claims that Rico and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover were lovers…Rico…got even by helping [rival gang] Winter Hill pick off the Mclaughlin gang, one by one. He helped Winter Hill set up the 1964 murder of Ronnie Dermody….But Dermody was small change.


Read More

Kleptocracy: Final Stage of Soviet-Style Socialism

Corpy The Pig (Illustration by DonkeyHotey)
The tumult in Ukraine marks a wider crisis of the corrupt post-Soviet model. The impact will be felt most acutely in Russia itself, says Krzysztof Bobinski.



By Krzysztof Bobinski
Viktor Yanukovych’s fall in Ukraine marks the beginning of the end for the post-Soviet mafia-style kleptocracies which emerged from the collapsing communist system after 1989. The rulers of these kleptocracies have shown that they are ready to murder and lie to defend a system which allowed them to build fabulous fortunes by stealing from their people.

The irony is that these kleptocracies mark the final stage of the Soviet path to communism. A very different outcome to the classless nirvana which Soviet ideologists long said would arrive once the new system was put into place. Indeed, their derivations gave rise to the Czech joke about the man who, when he heard at a party meeting that the final stage of communism was approaching, muttered: “I’m not worried, I have cancer”.

In light of unfolding events in Ukraine, the question now arises whether anyone in the Kremlin is thinking of how Russia’s own kleptocratic regime will fare once the population begins to question the right of their rulers to loot their country in the way that Viktor Yanukovych and his cronies have been doing.

It may be that there is such a person. The Financial Times on 27 February quotes a contact with Kremlin officials as thinking: "Ukraine needs to find a new economic model which can help distribute wealth more evenly and put an end to endemic corruption". The comment might just as well have referred to Russia itself, which instead of criticizing the new authorities in Kiev should be contemplating how to implement such a model at home.

None of the dreary pre-1989 Soviet ideologists could have imagined, even in their wildest dreams, that the finality of the struggle to build socialism in their country and its constituent parts would be a kleptocracy - a political and social formation where the entire system is designed to uphold a mafia capture of the state.

That outcome was also unimaginable to people from the west who greeted the fall of the Soviet system after 1989 with enthusiasm and looked forward to happy times as the Soviet successor-states embraced the free market, the rule of law and a democratic regime.

As the stream of advisers from the west sought to acquaint the (by then) post-Soviet populations with the rules of the western system, the brightest among the Soviet natives - abetted it might be said by western financiers - moved swiftly to gain control over large chunks of the economy. They established a new system under which soon-to-be-fabulously-rich oligarchs ran their businesses under the watchful eye of their politicians, with whom they shared their ill-gotten gains.

An end and a beginning
Then, in 2009, came the European Union’s Eastern Partnership programme. It was a quixotic project which sought once again to try and reform six of the post-Soviet states - Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine - with the aim of re-establishing the free market, the rule of law and a democratic regime, and thus bringing these countries closer to the EU. But the EU officials failed to realize that a programme which emphasized the rule of law and the empowerment of the people would also threaten the current rulers, by ending their ability to steal with impunity from the people.

Under the programme, four countries negotiated association agreements with the EU - Ukraine, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova (Belarus is beyond the pale thanks to its bad civil-rights record, and energy-rich Azerbaijan doesn’t need this kind of relationship with the EU). Of the four, only Georgia and Moldova are moving ahead with implementation of the agreements. Armenia was scared off by Russia and Vladimir Putin bribed and cajoled Viktor Yanukovych to drop plans to sign the association agreement, which it is now clear that the Ukrainian president had no intention of implementing. However, Yanukovych went along with the programme, convinced he could get the EU to accept his failure to pursue reforms even as the EU continued to provide financial support for his country’s ailing economy.

This was happening as Yanukovych and his allies such as Viktor Pshonka, Ukraine’s (now ex-) prosecutor-general were amassing fortunes and building private mansions in excruciating bad taste to show off their new-found wealth. It was Pshonka, according to documents published by the internet publication Business New Europe, who in the final days of the Yanukovych regime urged the ousted president to impose a thirty-day state of emergency and crush the Maidan revolt in Kiev. And it came as no surprise that the Ukrainian authorities turned to criminal thugs to terrorize the protesters, and that Yanukovych himself used mafia-style threats to keep his party’s deputies in the parliament in line when they threatened to desert.

The Russian people have been watching and reading this on the internet. The reason they have not already come out onto the streets in protest against their rulers is probably because they agree with President Putin who argues that Ukraine must stay closer to Russia than the EU. But at the same time the dominant feeling throughout the Eastern Partnership region and Russia is anger at corruption, which is at the base of the system in these countries and the massive inequalities it engenders.

It is impossible to tell when Russians and the other countries in the region will rise up against their rulers but there is a more than even chance that they will rebel sooner or later. Such revolts are all the more likely if the new Ukrainian regime manages to bring in reforms which will indeed put the country on the path of the western-style normality which the people - and especially the younger generation - crave.

This is the challenge which Vladimir Putin faces. A Ukraine building a western-style market economy based on the rule of law poses a major threat to a system he is defending, where corruption is endemic and the path to inconceivable riches can be followed only by those who enjoy the rulers' favour. The last twenty-five years have seen the rule of the post-Soviet kleptocrats in a kind of "Indian summer" of the Soviet regime. That regime is now, at last, coming to an end.




Reprinted with permission from openDemocracy.

The Mobsters of Wall Street: Stealing America Blind - And Getting Rewarded for Doing It!

Mobsters (Photo by floodlama)

By Jim Hightower
Assume that you ran a business that was found guilty of bribery, forgery, perjury, defrauding homeowners, fleecing investors, swindling consumers, cheating credit card holders, violating U.S. trade laws and bilking American soldiers. Can you even imagine the kind of punishment you'd get?

How about zero? Nada. Nothing. Zilch. No jail time. Not even a fine. Plus, you still get to stay on as boss, you get to keep all the loot you gained from the crime spree, and you even get an $8.5 million pay raise!

Of course, you and I would never get such outrageous, absurd, kid-glove pampering by legal authorities. But, then, we're not the capo of JPMorgan Chase, America's biggest bank and a crime syndicate that apparently is too big to jail.

Continue Reading...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...