{"instruction": "Write an article about: The U.S. is spending millions on \u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 research \u2013 but it\u2019s not clear if it exists. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Cuba, Havana Syndrome, Moscow signal, Project Pandora, Russia, Soviet Union, USSR", "output": "U.S. government agencies have spent more than $2 million researching Havana Syndrome, but medical experts and internal reports suggest it is psychological, not physical. Similar investigations into the \u201cMoscow signal\u201d during the Cold War found nothing.\n\nU.S. federal agencies have spent more than $2 million researching the mysterious condition known as Havana Syndrome \u2013 and they plan on spending more.\nHavana Syndrome is a condition first identified in 2016 that is alleged to be afflicting some diplomats and intelligence agents in the United States and Canada. But numerous scientific experts and internal government reports have suggested the syndrome is psychological, not physical, concluding that it is \u201cvery unlikely\u201d to be the result of attacks by a foreign adversary.\nPolitico reported on March 9, 2023 that the U.S. Department of Defense and Army had awarded researchers at Wayne State University and the University of Michigan a grant for a \u201cTraumatic Brain Injury and Psychological Health Research Program.\u201d The Defense Technical Information Center\u2019s database of public research identified the program as focusing on \u201canomalous health incidents\u201d \u2013 a phrase that the Intelligence Community and State Department use for Havana Syndrome.\nA review of public data on USASpending.gov and SAM.gov, websites used by the government to report contracting information, reveals that the grant is not the only money recently awarded or proposed for research into Havana Syndrome.\nIn September 2022, the same month the DoD awarded the Wayne State grant, the Department of Health and Human Services awarded a contract via the National Institutes of Health to the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, for work on \u201cTraumatic Brain Injuries (TBI) and Anomalous Health Incidences (AHI),\u201d according to USASpending.\nSimilarly, in January 2023, the Virginia Contracting Activity, the body within the Defense Intelligence Agency responsible for contract management, posted a request for information on behalf of the DIA and the Office of the Surgeon General to SAM.gov. The publication called for proposals for a contractor to work with one or both of the agencies on what appears to be a new initiative, called the Anomalous Health Incident Program.\nCollectively, the studies add a new layer to a long-developing, and at times controversial, story.\nIn 2016, a group of Central Intelligence Agency officers working under diplomatic cover at the U.S. embassy in Cuba claimed that they had experienced a constellation of odd physical and mental ailments, ranging from headaches and nausea to memory loss, after exposure to a high-pitched noise.\nThe embassy\u2019s chief of mission called a general meeting and encouraged staff to report any unusual symptoms. Shortly after, more cases were identified.\nNews of the condition first broke a year later, in August 2017, when the Associated Press reported that the Trump administration had expelled two diplomats from Cuba\u2019s embassy in Washington D.C. in connection with what State Department officials called \u201cincidents\u201d \u2013 suggesting that the condition was linked to attacks by a foreign government, possibly even Cuba itself.\nA subsequent story published by the Associated Press in October confirmed this, stating that investigators suspected the noise, which was described as sounding like a \u201cmass of crickets,\u201d may have come from a sonic weapon, or a weapon that uses sound waves to injure a target.\nHowever, speculation on the nature of the alleged attacks shifted, and some individuals claiming to suffer from the condition \u2013 now dubbed Havana Syndrome by the media, because of the location of the original cases \u2013 said their symptoms were the result of directed-energy weapons, or ranged weapons that attack a target with electromagnetic energy like ultra-high frequency radio waves.\nSoon, U.S. officials stationed abroad were reporting a range of unusual symptoms, expanding upon the scope of the attacks to include countries beyond Cuba.\nA CIA official in Moscow described feelings of vertigo and nausea to GQ magazine. A diplomat stationed in China claimed to NBC News that, in addition to a \u201cpulsing pressure\u201d in her body, she believed her dogs were being poisoned.\nThe shift in the alleged source of the attacks highlighted a problem in the stories surrounding Havana Syndrome, however. Few news outlets covering the subject appeared to understand what they were reporting.\nA State Department official who has claimed to suffer from Havana Syndrome was said to have experienced both \u201csonic attacks\u201d and an assault by a \u201cmicrowave range\u201d weapon by different news agencies within a three-month period.\nThese strange dimensions to the Havana Syndrome saga have led to speculation that the condition might not exist at all.\nNeurologist Robert Baloh and medical sociologist Robert Bartholomew published a book in 2020 titled \u201cHavana Syndrome: Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story Behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria,\u201d in which they argue that the condition is a kind of mass hysteria, known as a psychogenic illness, which spreads through medical misdiagnosis and media coverage.\nTheir argument was supported by the findings of multiple federal agencies and scientific panels.\nIn 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation\u2019s Behavioral Analysis Unit reviewed medical information and interview transcripts supplied by the State Department and determined the cause of Havana Syndrome to be a psychogenic illness. (It later retracted those findings after pushback from State Department officials.)\nThat same year, a separate investigatory body of scientists convened by the State Department, called JASON, came to a similar conclusion, stating that \u201cpsychogenic effects may serve to explain important components of the reported injuries.\u201d\nA study published in 2019 by researchers at Dalhousie University in Canada found another possible explanation for the physical symptoms, suggesting they may have been caused by pesticides. At the time when Havana Syndrome was first reported, the Cuban government was in the midst of an aggressive fumigation campaign to combat the Zika virus.\nThe Dalhousie study was leaked to Canadian media four months after publication, but the findings of the FBI and JASON reviews were withheld until 2021.\nThe FBI has denied Freedom of Information Act requests for the full BAU report, citing exemptions for medical privacy reasons and an ongoing investigation.\nDespite mounting evidence pointing to a psychogenic illness, the State Department has remained firm in its stance that Havana Syndrome is real.\nIn 2020, it commissioned another study, this time at the National Academy of Sciences, which argued that directed-energy weapons were the \u201cmost plausible mechanism in explaining these cases.\u201d The following year, the State Department coordinated with the Biden administration to rebrand Havana Syndrome as \u201canomalous health incidents.\u201d\nThe phrase \u201canomalous health incident\u201d has since been adopted by members of the Intelligence Community, many of whom hold conflicting positions on the subject.\nThis has put the Anomalous Health Incident Program at the center of a fierce debate over the nature of the condition and its alleged source.\nOn March 1, 2023, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a press release stating that it was \u201cvery unlikely\u201d that anomalous health incidents were the result of attacks by a foreign adversary.\nThe Washington Post reported that seven intelligence agencies participated in the assessment, with five coming to the \u201cvery unlikely\u201d conclusion, one ruling it \u201cunlikely,\u201d and a final agency abstaining entirely.\nAn unclassified statement of work included with the Virginia Contracting Activity\u2019s request for information (RFI) identifies the Anomalous Health Incident Program by name, repeatedly using the phrase alongside occasional references to Havana Syndrome, suggesting that the Defense Intelligence Agency, VACA\u2019s parent agency, may have been the abstaining party in the ODNI assessment.\nThe document calls for a 26-person team of support staff, ranging from resident nurses and psychologists to industrial hygienists and case managers, to assist the DIA in medical response and data analysis of anomalous health incidents targeting the Intelligence Community in the continental United States and duty stations abroad.\nIt is one of a number of documents produced over the years that point to a long-standing belief in anomalous health incidents by agencies within the government. An earlier version of the RFI included with the contract opportunity identifies the Office of the Surgeon General as the supervising agency and is dated for October 2019.\nIt is unclear if the Anomalous Health Incident Program is a new program within the DIA and/or the OSG, or if the RFI is expanding upon a pre-existing one.\nThe DIA has investigated anomalous health incidents in the past, as discovered by Freedom of Information Act researcher John Greenewald, Jr. in 2022, when a FOIA request into an alleged incident returned a response from the agency.\nIn August of 2021, @VP Kamala Harris' flight was delayed for more than three hours due to an \"anomalous health incident\" / likely a \"Havana Syndrome\" attack.\nDIA found 45 pages relating to this as responsive to my #FOIA filed.\nThey won't release a single page. pic.twitter.com/hTm15oZyzy\n\u2014 John Greenewald, Jr. (@blackvaultcom) April 11, 2022\n\nThe Anomalous Health Incident (AHI) Program is one of many now popping up in the public and private spheres, showing a growing financial incentive to support claims of the existence of anomalous health incidents.\nResearchers at Wayne State University were awarded $750,000 in September 2022 for a study that uses animal subjects in testing, by exposing them to radiofrequency waves for two hours a day over a 60-day period.\nEven more noteworthy is a contract awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine through the National Institutes of Health, also with an action date of September 2022.\nThe Office of the Surgeon General, one of the agencies that may be involved in the government\u2019s AHI Program, falls under the jurisdiction of the HHS.\nThe Henry M. Jackson Foundation contract totals $1.5 million \u2013 double the amount of the Wayne State grant \u2013 and covers research into the relationship between traumatic brain injuries and anomalous health incidents.\nThe foundation does not list the award or the nature of the research on its website, but it may be connected to a one-time employee of the foundation, Dr. James Giordano, a professor of neurology and bioethics at Georgetown University.\nGiordano appears regularly in the media as a subject matter expert on anomalous health incidents, and in a 2021 op-ed referencing Havana Syndrome for Medpage Today, he included a financial disclosure stating that he has received funding from both the NIH and the Henry M. Jackson Foundation.\nWhen asked about the contract, Colleen Franklin, director of communication for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, stated via email, \u201cThis is a government contract, we cannot respond to any media inquiries, requests for interviews or comments.\u201d\nThe Office of the Surgeon General did not respond to a request for comment.\nThese studies are not the first time the U.S. government has funded inquiries into such phenomena.\nIn the 1950s and 1960s, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) conducted radiation experiments on humans and primates, to see if microwave radiation could impede the mental and physical abilities of test subjects.\nThe experiments were part of a larger program, Project Pandora, which sought to understand if the Soviet Union had used a directed-energy weapon on staff at the U.S. embassy in Moscow.\nAt the time, embassy employees reported of suffering from ailments similar in character to Havana Syndrome, prompting the government to look into a so-called \u201cMoscow Signal.\u201d\nDocuments made public by the National Security Archive in 2022, however, revealed that Pandora researchers could find no evidence that microwave radiation degraded mental ability or posed a physical risk at the levels reportedly used against embassy staff.\nOne of the Pandora studies, identified as Project Big Boy, focused on human test subjects on a Navy ship, the USS Saratoga. The study found no changes between groups who had been exposed to microwave radiation through the Saratoga\u2019s radar equipment and those who had not.\n\u201cThere were no significant differences discernible among the three groups, either in the dockside or underway tests with respect either to task performance, psychological effects, or biological effects,\u201d reads a summary of findings of Big Boy in a 1979 Congressional report on Pandora.\nAccording to the report, a subsequent primate study also \u201cdid not provide an acceptable answer to the question as to whether or not any effects, either behavioral or biological, could be caused by microwave radiation of the intensity and characteristics contained in the synthetic \u2018Moscow\u2019 signal.\u201d\nProject Pandora was terminated in 1970.\nThis presents yet another question in a growing list related to anomalous health incidents: If the United States could not find evidence of their existence in earlier research, why is it funding a new round of studies over 50 years later?\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Sanctions violate human rights and should be lifted, says UN Human Rights Council. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Human Rights Council, sanctions, UN, unilateral coercive measures, United Nations", "output": "The UN Human Rights Council voted to condemn unilateral coercive measures, known more commonly as sanctions, saying they should be ended because they harm vulnerable populations. Most Global South nations supported the resolution, while Western countries opposed it.\n\nThe United Nations Human Rights Council voted to condemn sanctions, stating that they violate human rights and should be lifted.\nDespite repeated denunciations by international legal institutions, the United States and European Union have imposed unilateral sanctions on dozens of countries, representing more than one-quarter of the global population.\nThese Western sanctions are illegal under international law, because they have not been endorsed by the Security Council.\nThe UN refers to these illegal sanctions as \u201cunilateral coercive measures.\u201d\nIn a meeting on March 31, more than half of the 47 members of the Human Rights Council voted to condemn these sanctions.\nThe resolution (A/HRC/49/L.6), titled \u201cThe negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights,\u201d was passed with 27 votes in favor (57%), 14 votes against (30%), and six abstentions (13%).\nMost of the countries that voted in support of the resolution are from the Global South, whereas almost all of the states that opposed the measure are from the Global North.\n\nThe 27 countries that voted in support of the resolution, thereby condemning sanctions, were the following: Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, China, Cote d\u2019Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Gabon, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kazakstan, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Qatar, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Venezuela.\nThe 14 nations that voted against the resolution were: Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Montenegro, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States.\nThe six states that abstained were: Armenia, Brazil, Cameroon, Gambia, Mexico, and Paraguay.\nThe resolution states that it \u201curges all States to stop adopting, maintaining or implementing unilateral coercive measures not in accordance with international law, international humanitarian law, [or] the Charter of the United Nations.\u201d\nThe resolution also \u201cstrongly urges all States to refrain from imposing unilateral coercive measures, also urges the removal of such measures, as they are contrary to the Charter and norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States at all levels, and recalls that such measures prevent the full realization of economic and social development of nations while also affecting the full realization of human rights.\u201d\nAccording to the Human Rights Council, unliteral sanctions violate the International Bill of Human Rights.\nThe resolution emphasized that these sanctions are particularly destructive for poor people, women, children, the elderly, the disabled, and the environment.\nThe council \u201cexpresse[d] its grave concern that, in some countries, the socioeconomic conditions of family members, particularly women and children, are adversely affected by unilateral coercive measures, imposed and maintained contrary to international law and the Charter, that create obstacles to trade relations among States, restrict movement through various means of transport, impede the full realization of social and economic development and hinder the well-being of the population in the affected countries, with particular consequences for women, children, including adolescents, the elderly and persons with disabilities.\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Washington Post calls for censoring Chinese media, praises purge of Russian outlets. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Big Tech, censorship, Facebook, Jeff Bezos, Twitter, Washington Post", "output": "The Washington Post \u2013 owned by billionaire oligarch Jeff Bezos, who has CIA and Pentagon contracts \u2013 has called for censoring Chinese news outlets on social media, while praising Silicon Valley for purging Russian publications.\n\nSince the election of Donald Trump as US president, billionaire oligarch-owned newspaper the Washington Post has posted the slogan \u201cDemocracy Dies in Darkness\u201d in the logo at the top of its website.\nThe newspaper is now calling to accelerate the death of democracy and increase the shroud of darkness, by censoring alternative media outlets that challenge the US government\u2019s information dictatorship.\nThe Washington Post editorial board has called for \u201cimposing clear rules for government outlets that result in the removal of Chinese channels\u201d from social media platforms.\nThe newspaper insisted, with the fervor of a contemporary crusader, that censoring Chinese publications on \u201csocial media sites would land another blow in service of Ukraine. But they\u2019d also land a blow against authoritarianism everywhere.\u201d\nThe Washington Post has a very close relationship to the US government, and relies heavily on officials in Washington for its stories.\nThe Post is also owned by Jeff Bezos, one of the richest human beings in history, valued at approximately $200 billion in wealth.\nBezos is the founder and executive chairman of Amazon, which has billions of dollars of contracts with numerous US government agencies, including the CIA,\u00a0Pentagon,\u00a0NSA,\u00a0FBI, and ICE.\nIn an article published on April 11, titled \u201cSocial media shouldn\u2019t let China do Russia\u2019s dirty work,\u201d the Washington Post editorial board accused Beijing of spreading \u201cmisinformation\u201d on social media about the war in Ukraine.\nThe newspaper wrote that \u201cwhen it comes to these platforms, there\u2019s a way to stop the spread\u201d: more censorship.\nBy imposing clear rules for government outlets that result in the removal of Chinese channels, social media sites would land another blow in service of Ukraine \u2060\u2014 and against authoritarianism everywhere, the Editorial Board writes. https://t.co/jHCiDNBWvh\n\u2014 Washington Post Opinions (@PostOpinions) April 12, 2022\n\nThe editorial board praised \u201cU.S. social media sites\u2019 steps to ban Russian state media.\u201d\nYouTube, which is owned by Google, banned Russian state media outlets across the entire world. Google has billions of dollars of contracts with the CIA, Pentagon, and other US government agencies.\nFacebook, another US government contractor, has also prohibited Russian state media outlets in Europe.\nAs an example of the supposed \u201cdisinformation\u201d or even \u201clies\u201d allegedly spread by China, the Washington Post cited Beijing\u2019s insistence that \u201cNATO is to blame for the fighting.\u201d\nThe top US newspaper erased the history of NATO expanding 14 times to the east after the reunification of Germany, in blatant violation of promises made to Moscow, militarily surrounding Russia with hostile powers \u2013 not to mention the US-sponsored coup in Ukraine in 2014, which unleashed a civil war, fueled by billions of dollars worth of weapons, military support, and training from NATO, which led to more than 14,000 Ukrainian deaths before Russia sent a single troop in.\nEven the former US ambassador to Russia, William Burns, who now serves as CIA director, admitted in a 2008 State Department cable that NATO expansion to Ukraine would cross Moscow\u2019s security \u201credlines\u201d and \u201ccould potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.\u201d\nThe Post refuses to acknowledge any of these facts, and instead claims that anyone who blames NATO for the war \u2013 as many countries in the Global South do \u2013 is guilty of \u201cdisinformation\u201d and \u201clies,\u201d and must be censored.\nThe incredible irony is that the Washington Post accuses China and Russia of \u201cprevent[ing] their citizens at home from hearing any voices but theirs,\u201d while it is actively calling for censoring voices that challenge the US government\u2019s propaganda line.\nIt is not just Russian and Chinese state-backed media outlets that are being silenced. Anyone who opposes NATO disinformation is under threat.\nEver since Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, the already dangerous levels of censorship on social media platforms went into hyperdrive.\nOn Twitter, journalist\u00a0Pepe Escobar, former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter, and the popular podcast Russians with Attitude have all been censored for daring to expose Western government lies about Ukraine, just to name a few of the high-profile victims of this digital witch hunt.\nIndependent journalists who challenge NATO government propaganda are at risk of being purged.\nAnd the editorial board of a major newspaper calling for unaccountable Big Tech corporations to wage war on the freedom of the press and freedom of expression shows how extreme this neo-McCarthyite mentality is the United States.\nAnyone who refuses to toe the line of the US government is in danger of having their electronic existence erased.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: After nuking Japan, US gov\u2019t lied about radioactive fallout as civilians died. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Hiroshima, Japan, Nagasaki, nuclear weapons", "output": "After dropping two atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, US government officials lied to the media and Congress, claiming there was \u201cno radioactive residue\u201d in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that civilians did not face \u201cundue suffering,\u201d that it was \u201ca very pleasant way to die.\u201d\n\nAfter dropping two atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945, killing between 100,000 and 200,000 civilians, top US government officials lied to the media and Congress, claiming there was \u201cno radioactive residue\u201d in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that Japanese reports of deaths due to radiation were \u201cpropaganda.\u201d\nThe US general overseeing the nuclear program told Congress that Japanese civilians did not face \u201cundue suffering,\u201d insisting that it was in fact \u201ca very pleasant way to die.\u201d\n\nThis information was revealed by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.\nOn August 8, the archive published declassified documents exposing this shocking history. The archive wrote:\nthe head of the [Manhattan] project, Gen. Leslie R. Groves, was so worried about public revulsion over the terrible effects of the new weapon\u00a0\u2013 which a Navy report later in 1945 called \u201cthe most terrible agent of destruction known to man\u201d \u2013\u00a0that he cut off early discussion within the MED of the problem. Later,\u00a0he misleadingly told Congress there was \u201cno radioactive residue\u201d in the two devastated cities. \u00a0In doing so,\u00a0he contradicted evidence from his own specialists whom he had sent to Japan to investigate. \u00a0Groves even insisted that\u00a0those who had been exposed to radiation from the atomic explosions would not face \u201cundue suffering. In fact, they say it is a very pleasant way to die.\u201d\nThe New York Times echoed these falsehoods on behalf of the US government, publishing an article on September 13, 1945 titled \u201cNo radioactivity in Hiroshima ruin.\u201d\nIn this case, the newspaper of record was repeating the lies of another top US official, Brig. Gen. T. F. Farrell, chief of the War Department\u2019s atomic bomb mission. Like Groves, Farrell ignored his own medical experts and publicly denied that Japanese civilians were dying of radioactive fallout.\n\nDoctor James N. Yamazaki was the lead physician of the US Atomic Bomb Medical Team sent to Nagasaki in 1945 to investigate the effects of the nuclear attack.\nIn his website Children of the Atomic Bomb, published by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Yamazaki wrote:\nThe real mortality of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan will never be known. The destruction and overwhelming chaos made orderly counting impossible. It is not unlikely that the estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are over conservative.\nYamazaki added that the \u201cbomb was a deliberate act of destruction that destroyed human bodies, brains, and genes for generations.\u201d\nMultipolarista further detailed this gruesome history in a report after the assassination of Japan\u2019s former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe this July:\nUS-backed fascism in Japan: How Shinzo Abe whitewashed genocidal imperial crimes\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Biden is expanding the US govt\u2019s brutal anti-immigrant machine. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CBP, ICE, immigration, Joe Biden", "output": "US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained roughly 250,000 people in 200 jails in 2021, using brutal tactics to repress immigrants. This violent apparatus continues to grow under President Joe Biden.\n\nPresident Joe Biden and his top administration officials met on March 15 and signed a massive spending bill of $1.5 trillion into law.\nThis package, which funds federal government agencies for fiscal year 2022, boosts military spending and increases discretionary spending for domestic agencies by $6.7 billion, the biggest increase in domestic discretionary spending in the past four years.\nThe spending bill also expands the US government\u2019s brutal deportation machine, with an additional $284.7 million for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This includes $57 million more funding for ICE\u2019s contentious Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) office, which is responsible for detaining and removing immigrants.\nOverall, the Biden administration is funding ICE with $312 million more than the Donald Trump-era average.\nJoe Biden\u2019s budget proposal increases funding for ICE:https://t.co/6o8gVPo67C pic.twitter.com/zXUb91gtR4\n\u2014 Stephen Semler (@stephensemler) June 1, 2021\n\nThe expansion of these notoriously repressive agencies continues despite the fact that net immigration to the United States has consistently declined since 2016, and substantially dropped from 2020 to 2021, to the lowest levels in decades.\n\nThe 2022 spending bill provides funding to keep roughly 20,000 people currently detained by ICE behind bars.\nThe vast majority \u2013 70% to 80% \u2013 of people held by ICE have no criminal record. Many of those who do have minor offenses such as traffic violations.\nAccording to court records, only 0.6% of new cases in 2022 resulted in deportation orders based on a criminal record.\nThere are presently more than 1.7 million people waiting for immigration court hearings, as the system experiences its largest ever backlog. They are stuck in limbo.\n\nIncarceration of immigrants in private prisons is also growing under Biden.\nAt the end of 2021, private prison corporation the GEO Group signed a deal with Charlton County in Georgia to expand immigration detention centers from 780 beds to 3,018, located in the city of Folkston, which has just 4,464 residents. Down the road near Lumpkin, Georgia is the Stewart Detention Center, which has a capacity of 1,900 detainees.\nThe 2022 spending bill also includes an increase of $10 million for ICE\u2019s \u201cAlternative to Detention\u201d (ATD) program. This expands ICE\u2019s surveillance program in immigrant communities by patrolling their neighborhoods.\nAs of December 2021, there were more than 150,000 people in the ATD program, which received $440 million in taxpayer dollars. That number continues to grow.\nThe Detention Watch Network notes that the \u201cBiden administration continues to significantly and quickly funnel people, including families, into the ICE ATD program.\u201d\nAs of April 9, 2022, there are more than 216,000 people monitored by the ATD program, according to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).\nHarlingen, Texas, is home to the largest number of people monitored by ATD: 17,340. This is a region that is 81.8% Latino, and where the poverty rate is 29.1% \u2013 more than double the national average of 12.8%.\nThe second-biggest area is Phoenix, Arizona, with 16,075 people monitored, followed by Los Angeles, California, with 14,726.\nThe 2022 spending bill likewise puts aside $200 million for the US Department of Homeland Security to develop two permanent migrant processing centers on the southwest border.\nThese will be \u201cone-stop\u201d processing centers to replace the \u201csoft\u201d tent centers that sprung up during the Donald Trump administration. As a result, that border region will see an increase in law enforcement officers patrolling.\nThe quotas set by the US government are typically met or surpassed.\nIn 2018, for example, the quota of ICE detention beds rose from 34,000 to 40,520. In the following year, ICE broke records by detaining more than 55,000 people and applying funding pressure.\nThe 2022 spending bill maintains its payroll of more than 84,000 ICE and CBP employees and 50,000 border and interior enforcement officers.\nThousands of people wait while the US government decides on their immigration status or the possibility of deportation. Some are held behind bars in inhumane conditions in crowded detention centers.\nIn the fiscal year 2021, across the roughly 200 jails run by ICE, nearly 250,000 people were detained. Yet, many people in the United States are not aware of the astonishing record ICE has of depriving people of access to lawyers, denying them medical attention, and separating them from their families.\nThese abuses were highlighted in a Detention Watch Network report that showed how ICE refused to release people held during the Covid-19 pandemic, which threatened thousands of lives.\nIt has been consistently demonstrated that ICE is unable and unwilling to properly care for people who require medical attention. Reports indicate that poor medical care has resulted in nearly half of all deaths in ICE custody.\nToday, DWN released a new report that details an emerging, lethal situation in detention\u2013ICE\u2019s lack of sanitation and basic necessities and their troubling record of medical negligence and deaths combined with #COVID19\u2019s risk to public health: https://t.co/KiZ3KooBT9 #FreeThemAll pic.twitter.com/eU73W51xtS\n\u2014 Detention Watch (DWN) (@DetentionWatch) March 26, 2020\n\nICE has officially reported 207 deaths of detainees since the agency was created in 2003, in what is likely a very conservative estimate.\nMandated by federal law to publicly report every detainee\u2019s death in their custody, ICE has used a loophole to avoid full accountability.\nThe Investigative Reporting Workshop found that \u201cICE underreported fatalities by releasing sick inmates to hospitals, where some died shortly afterward.\u201d IRW also discovered cases of individuals who died after being released and returned to their families.\nA tragic case of this was the death of Oscar L\u00f3pez Acosta.\nWhile detained in an Ohio immigration center as Covid-19 spread around the country in 2020, L\u00f3pez phoned his wife to tell her that he was \u201cdying in silence.\u201d\nL\u00f3pez battled health issues such as diabetes and was worried about contracting the deadly virus. He had been in ICE custody since 2018 for re-entering the country.\nL\u00f3pez was released on April 24, 2020, with deteriorating health. On May 10, he died on the couch in his home in Dayton, Ohio.\u00a0He left behind a wife and children, among them a 9-year-old daughter.\nLourdes Maria Mejia, L\u00f3pez\u2019s wife, said that she believes ICE was aware that he was infected, which was later confirmed by a hospital test after coming home.\nIn addition to the systemic violence of ICE, there is also rampant abuse under\u00a0US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the county\u2019s largest federal law enforcement agency, which includes Border Patrol.\nCBP\u2019s culture of violence, added to its lack of accountability and oversight, has led to a significant loss of life. Yet no one in the agency\u2019s 90-year history has been successfully convicted of killing while on duty.\nMoreover, CBP has not consistently reported death-related information to Congress.\nAfter tracking deaths based on media coverage, the Southern Border Communities Coalition found that at least 200 people have died in encounters with CBP agents since 2010.\nThe organization\u2019s report on CBP-related violence showed that 31% of deaths came from fatal shootings, 29% from deadly car chases, and 23% from medical issues. 2021 the deadliest, with 58 deaths reported.\nSo far in 2021, 45 deaths resulting from an encounter with #CBP have been reported. No agent has been held accountable, in large part because of the agency\u2019s shadow units which work to protect agents rather than the public. https://t.co/x6aZVVUmFY pic.twitter.com/8mGYSdeenl\n\u2014 SBCC (@SBCCoalition) December 22, 2021\n\nEach of the last four US presidents has left an imprint on the southern border. Biden is already making his.\nThe US government is further militarizing the border by deploying new technology such as drones, camera-equipped towers, and now headless robot dogs to terrorize people migrating to the US.\nThis new technology further pushes people seeking asylum or work into deadly alternative routes. This contributed to the deaths of 650 migrants crossing the US-Mexico border in 2021 \u2013 the\u00a0deadliest year since reporting began in 1998.\nDespite this high number, the International Organization for Migration noted that \u201call (migrant death) figures remain undercounts.\u201d\nAt least 650 migrants died crossing the U.S.-Mexico border in 2021, but undercounting migrant deaths has and continues to be a big problem. Correcting this count is important because it helps determine if the U.S. should send more aid to Central America https://t.co/Rr345NjvW1 pic.twitter.com/XwGfOkkYe3\n\u2014 The Conversation U.S. (@ConversationUS) February 25, 2022\n\nSince Biden\u2019s first day in office, he has pledged to \u201cmodernize our immigration system\u201d with \u201csmart\u201d technologies. But these technologies have also been used on people inside the US protesting police killings.\nOn May 25, 2020, when Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) used a Predator B drone to surveil protesters.\nLater, the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s Air and Marine Operations division deployed drones in more than 15 cities to monitor activists protesting against police brutality.\nImmigrants\u2019 rights organizations such as Mijente, Just Futures Law, and the Rio Grande Valley No Border Wall Coalition have reported on the high-tech border infrastructure that surveils disproportionately Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities.\nThe digital border wall consists of aerial drones, underground sensors, and surveillance towers over hundreds of miles capable of detecting humans, vehicles, and animals in all directions.\nUS agencies also use biometric surveillance technology such as facial recognition, voice recognition, DNA, and iris scans to surveil individuals.\nThe Israeli military company Elbit Systems, which creates technologies to help spy on and militarily occupy the Palestinian people, is the same company that California Border Protection hired to build towers on the US-Mexico border.\nFormer Israeli Colonel Danny Tirza, a principal architect, explained the idea behind this mass surveillance: \u201cIt\u2019s not enough to construct a wall. You have to construct all the systems around it.\u201d\nThe move to further militarize the US-Mexico border is fueled by propaganda in the mainstream corporate media, which treats the border as a war zone.\nThis propaganda narrative claims the border is being militarized to stop criminals, cartels, and \u201cterrorists,\u201d when the truth is that the vast majority of people that Border Patrol face are parents and children, innocent individuals seeking asylum or work.\nBut CBP and ICE have long tried to deceptively link immigration to terrorism \u2013 a tactic that Trump promoted, but which was also used by the George Bush and Barack Obama administrations.\nThe development of new technologies has reduced the number of workers in various sectors, such as retail, service, and factory jobs, with a corresponding increase in automation. But the opposite is happening with law enforcement: Instead, repressive US agencies keep expanding, and racism is growing along with them.\nMeanwhile, each US presidential administration uses more and more taxpayer money to strengthen a system of terror targeting Black and Brown people migrating, despite Census data showing a consistent decline in migration to the United States, to the lowest levels in decades.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Facebook censors journalist Seymour Hersh\u2019s report on Nord Stream pipeline attack. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Facebook, Meta, Nord Stream, Russia, Seymour Hersh, Ukraine", "output": "Facebook censored a report by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh on the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines between Russia and Germany, forcing users to instead read a website funded and partially owned by NATO member Norway.\n\nFacebook has censored a report by the world\u2019s most famous investigative journalist, Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh, on the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines between Russia and Germany.\nWhile discouraging its users from posting Hersh\u2019s article, Facebook instead recommends a website that is funded and partially owned by the government of NATO member Norway.\nFacebook has millions of dollars worth of contracts with the US government, including with the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security.\n\nThe Nord Stream system consisted of two sets of two pipelines each (known as Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2) that delivered natural gas from Russia, through the Baltic Sea, to Germany.\nNord Stream AG, the Switzerland-based international consortium that built and oversees the pipelines, is owned by five European companies. Russia\u2019s state gas giant Gazprom has 51% of the shares, but the other 49% belong to two German companies, a Dutch firm, and a French company.\nIn September 2022, the Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged in a suspicious explosion, in what amounted to a terror attack on the energy infrastructure of Europe.\n\nWorld-renowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported that the pipelines were blown up by the US government, in an operation overseen by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland.\nAll three officials are hard-line anti-Russia hawks. Nuland was a key architect of the violent coup d\u2019etat that overthrew Ukraine\u2019s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral government in 2014 and installed a pro-Western regime.\nHersh published the bombshell story at his personal blog at the website Substack in February.\nIf a Facebook user posts a link to this report by Hersh, a notice pops up that says: \u201cBefore you share this content, you might want to know there\u2019s additional reporting from Faktisk. Pages and websites that repeatedly publish or share false news will see their overall distribution reduced and be restricted in other ways\u201d.\n\nThe page Facebook links to, Faktisk, is a fact-checking website from Norway, which is funded and partially owned by the government of that NATO member state.\nFaktisk discloses that one of its owners and main funders is NRK: the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, a state-owned media outlet.\nNRK states clearly on its website, \u201cNRK is Norway\u2019s biggest media house. The broadcaster is state-owned and the Parliament (Stortinget) has given the mandate and the ownership role to the Ministry of Culture\u201d. It notes that \u201cNRK is publicly financed (97%) by a individual tax everybody in Norway has to pay\u201d.\nThe editor-in-chief of Faktisk, Kristoffer Egeberg, discloses in his biography on the website that he served in the Norwegian Armed Forces as a soldier and officer, participating in NATO and UN operations in Lebanon, Bosnia, and Kosovo.\nWhat this means it that Facebook is censoring a report by the world\u2019s most famous investigative journalist and instead promoting a website partially owned and funded by a NATO member state, Norway, which is edited by a former Norwegian military officer who participated in NATO operations.\nFacebook censored a report by Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh on the Nord Stream pipeline attack, forcing users to instead read a website funded/owned by NATO member Norway\nPress freedom: a casualty of the West's information war on Russia\nFull video: https://t.co/9j7jHE5Ujb pic.twitter.com/td0Te4zwwZ\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 25, 2023\n\nThe US government publicly denied Hersh\u2019s report on the Nord Stream attacks, but Washington has always rejected the investigative journalist\u2019s stories, which have consistently proven to be true.\nHersh won his Pulitzer Prize for exposing the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam, in which the US military killed hundreds of civilians. The US government had denied this massacre, although it was later proven to have happened.\nSimilarly, Washington initially denied Hersh\u2019s blockbuster 2004 report exposing the US military\u2019s use of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which was similarly proven to be correct.\nIn response to Hersh\u2019s report on the Nord Stream attacks, anonymous\u00a0US government officials used the New York Times to undermine the reporter, instead blaming an unidentified \u201cpro-Ukrainian group\u201d, which they claimed was not linked to the Ukrainian government or any other NATO member state.\nWashington and its allies in the corporate media have been desperate to smear Hersh, nitpicking over very minor details he may have mistakenly reported, but they have utterly failed to provide any tangible evidence or compelling alternative explanation of how the Nord Stream pipelines were destroyed.\nThe massive pipelines were built out of steel, surrounded with thick concrete, and located 50 to 100 meters underwater.\nIt would be extremely difficult for a small ragtag \u201cpro-Ukrainian group\u201d to sabotage these pipelines. The attack clearly involved a lot of planning and resources, which suggests that a state was very likely involved.\nA worker testing part of the Nord Stream pipelines\nFacebook is by no means the only US social media giant that has censored dissident voices over the war in Ukraine.\nYouTube, which is owned by Google, blocked the channels of Russia\u2019s state media outlet RT everywhere on the planet.\nLike Facebook, Google has millions of dollars of US government contracts, with the CIA, Pentagon, FBI, and various police departments.\nFurthermore, the European Union banned RT and Sputnik, another Russian state media outlet.\n\nIf someone in the EU tries to access the Twitter profiles of RT or Sputnik, a message appears stating, \u201cAccount Withheld\u201d.\nThe US government even went so far as to seize the domain name of Iran\u2019s state media outlet Press TV.\n\u201cThe domain presstv.com has been seized by the United States Government\u201d, reads a notice on the website, published jointly by the Departments of Justice and Commerce.\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Ex US official admits Ukraine conflict is NATO \u2018proxy war with Russia\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CSIS, Eliot Cohen, NATO, Russia, Ukraine", "output": "Former US State Department official Eliot Cohen stated openly that the conflict in Ukraine is a NATO \u201cproxy war with Russia,\u201d and called for using the country to kill as many Russian soldiers as possible, \u201cthe more and faster the better.\u201d\n\nA former US State Department official has stated openly that the conflict in Ukraine is a NATO \u201cproxy war with Russia,\u201d and called for killing as many Russian soldiers as possible, \u201cthe more and faster the better.\u201d\nThese comments were made by\u00a0Eliot A. Cohen, who served as a counselor for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2007 to 2009, in the George W. Bush administration\u2019s State Department.\nA staunch advocate for hardline neoconservative foreign policy, Cohen published an article in The Atlantic magazine on March 14, titled \u201cAmerica\u2019s Hesitation Is Heartbreaking,\u201d in which he praised the Joe Biden administration for waging an indirect war on Russia on multiple fronts, including through information war, economic war, and proxy war in Ukraine.\nCohen complained, however, that Biden should do even more to up the ante, escalating the conflict even further.\nThe Biden administration has already sent Ukraine more than 17,000 anti-tank weapons, including Javelin missiles, as well as 2,000 stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Some of these went directly to the notorious neo-Nazi Azov regiment.\nAfter sending $350 million in arms to Ukraine in late February, the Biden administration approved an additional $13.6 billion aid package in March, including $6.5 billion in military support.\nNATO is sending weapons and trainers to help neo-Nazis in Ukraine\u2019s white-supremacist Azov movement fight Russia, as the US floods the country with weapons.\nThis follows numerous reports of Western government support for Ukrainian far-right extremists.https://t.co/5gYgmU8PFo\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 10, 2022\n\nEliot Cohen insisted this is not nearly enough.\u00a0\u201cThe stream of arms going into Ukraine needs to be a flood,\u201d he proclaimed in his article in The Atlantic.\n\u201cThe United States and its NATO allies are engaged in a proxy war with Russia,\u201d he wrote clearly. \u201cThey are supplying thousands of munitions and hopefully doing much else\u2014sharing intelligence, for example\u2014with the intent of killing Russian soldiers.\u201d\nCohen added on an equally explicit note: \u201cwe must face a fact: To break the will of Russia and free Ukraine from conquest and subjugation, many Russian soldiers have to flee, surrender, or die, and the more and faster the better.\u201d\n\u201cThus far the Biden administration has done an admirable job of winning the information war, mobilizing the NATO alliance, and imposing crippling (if not yet complete) sanctions on the Russian economy,\u201d he continued. \u201cIt has, it appears, sped the delivery of some weapon systems (notably Javelin anti-tank missiles and Stinger man-portable surface-to-air missiles) to Ukrainian forces.\u201d\nThe neoconservative hawk called for the Biden administration to give Ukraine fighter planes. He claimed sending MiG-29 jets would not escalate the proxy war into World War III with Russia \u2013 although many experts strongly disagree with him, including leaders of the Pentagon and US intelligence agencies.\n\u201cIf only we have the stomach for doing what needs to be done,\u201d he wrote.\nCohen was a leading supporter of the 2003 Iraq War, and has likewise called for Washington to wage a conventional war on Iran.\nAlthough he is no longer directly in government,\u00a0Cohen works at the highly influential neoconservative think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is funded by the US government and its allies, the weapons industry, and fossil fuel corporations.\nHe is also a professor at the elite Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, which has a revolving door with the US government.\nCohen\u2019s ultra-bellicose views are quite representative of his fellow hawks in Washington; he is by no means alone. His article in The Atlantic provides an honest glimpse into how prominent US imperial planners see the crisis in Ukraine: as an opportunity to use the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder in a proxy war to bleed Russia.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Biden is deporting more migrant children than Trump. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "deportations, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Mexico, racism", "output": "US deportations of migrant children increased by 30% in 2021, year one of the Biden-Harris administration. 78% of the minors were not accompanied by adults. But the English-language media ignored this\n\nUS government deportations of migrant children increased by 30% in 2021.\nIn this first year of the Biden-Harris administration, 19,793 minors were deported to Mexico, more than three-quarters of whom \u2014 15,488, or 78% \u2014 were not accompanied by adults.\n2021 saw the most U.S. deportations of children in five years, including all of the time of the Donald Trump administration.\nThese are official figures that come from Mexico\u2019s Secretariat for Home Affairs. They were published in the major\u00a0Mexican newspaper La Jornada\u00a0on January 3.\nYet 10 days later, there still has not been a report about this in a mainstream English-language news outlet.\nAll of the migrant children deported by the United States to Mexico in 2021 were from the Northern Triangle of Central America \u2014 a region that has been devastated by violence, organized crime, and poverty, fueled by U.S.-backed coups, meddling, and neoliberal economic policies.\nThe La Jornada article notes that, of the minors deported by the Biden administration in 2021, 51.7% were Guatemalan, 31.8% were Honduran, and 16.5% were El Salvadoran.\nWhile the Democratic Party rightfully criticized Trump for his racist and inhumane anti-immigrant policies, the reality is those barbaric policies have continued under Biden, with little-to-no scrutiny.\nAnd despite how much he tried, the inveterate bigot\u00a0Trump was not even able to deport\u00a0as many immigrants as the Obama-Biden administration did.\nI discussed this clear political hypocrisy in the video below:\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Dick Cheney confirmed US goal is to break up Russia as a country, not just USSR. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Dick Cheney, Iraq, Iraq War, Russia, Soviet Union, USSR", "output": "Former Vice President and Iraq War architect Dick Cheney wasn\u2019t content only breaking up the Soviet Union. Balkanizing Russia (and China) is a bipartisan foreign-policy goal among top US national security state officials.\n\nFormer US Vice President Dick Cheney, a lead architect of the Iraq War, not only wanted to dismantle the Soviet Union; he also wanted to break up Russia itself, to prevent it from rising again as a significant political power.\nBalkanizing Russia, as NATO did to former Yugoslavia, is a fantasy shared by many hawks in the US national security state. They will never tolerate an independent government in Moscow, regardless of whether or not it is socialist.\nFormer US Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote that,\u00a0\u201cWhen the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat.\u201d\nGates made these comments in his 2014 memoir \u201cDuty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War.\u201d This quote was highlighted on Twitter by journalist Jon Schwarz.\nIn Robert Gates's memoir \"Duty,\" he describes how at the end of the Cold War, Dick Cheney\u2014then secretary of defense\u2014wanted to dismantle not just the Soviet Union but Russia itself. No one in the US knows or cares about this, but I bet lots of people in the Russian government do. pic.twitter.com/Dyb7NeXzJD\n\u2014 \u2600\ufe0f Jon Schwarz \u2600\ufe0f (@schwarz) January 31, 2022\n\nCheney was one of the most powerful vice presidents in modern US history. He exercised significant influence over President George W. Bush, who had little foreign-policy experience and knowledge.\nThe fact that a figure at the helm of the US government not-so-secretly sought the permanent dissolution of Russia as a country, and straightforwardly communicated this to colleagues like Robert Gates, partially explains the aggressive posturing Washington has taken toward the Russian Federation since the overthrow of the USSR.\nThe reality is that the US empire will simply never allow Russia to challenge its unilateral domination of Eurasia, despite the fact that the government in Moscow restored capitalism.\nThis is why it is not surprising that Washington has utterly ignored Russia\u2019s security concerns, breaking its promise not to expand NATO \u201conce inch eastward\u201d after German reunification, surrounding Moscow with militarized adversaries hell bent on destabilizing it.\nLeading US imperial planner Zbigniew Brzezinski clearly stated in his 1997 opus \u201cThe Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives\u201d that the goal was to contain and weaken Russia.\nWashington had to \u201cprevent the emergence of a dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power,\u201d the former US national security advisor wrote, in order to maintain US \u201cglobal primacy.\u201d\nUS imperial planner Brzezinski stressed they must \"prevent the emergence of a dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power\" to maintain US \"global primacy\"\nThe US empire knows the biggest threat to its hegemony is if China & Russia can integrate Eurasia, and form a military alliance pic.twitter.com/8ekQrfOBrZ\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 21, 2021\n\nAlso in 1997, Brzezinski penned an article proposing \u201cA Geostrategy for Eurasia.\u201d This imperial blueprint was published in Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations.\nThe influential US policymaker insisted that Russia should be divided into a \u201cdecentralized political system\u201d, with \u201cfree-market economics\u201d.\nBrzezinski proposed a \u201cloosely confederated Russia \u2014 composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic\u201d. He added that \u201ca decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization\u201d.\nThe Russian Federation of today consists of 22 republics. Moscow has long accused Washington of supporting secessionist movements within its borders, aimed at breaking away some of these republics, with the goal of destabilizing and ultimately dismantling Russia.\nRussian security services have published evidence that the United States supported Chechen separatists in their wars on the central Russian government.\nBritish academic John Laughland stressed in a 2004 article in The Guardian, titled \u201cThe Chechens\u2019 American friends,\u201d that several Chechen secessionist leaders were living in the West, and were even given grant money by the US government.\nLaughland noted that the most important US-based pro-Chechen secessionist group, the deceptively named American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC), listed as its members \u201ca rollcall of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusiastically support the \u2018war on terror'\u201d:\nThey include Richard Perle, the notorious Pentagon adviser; Elliott Abrams of Iran-Contra fame; Kenneth Adelman, the former US ambassador to the UN who egged on the invasion of Iraq by predicting it would be \u201ca cakewalk\u201d; Midge Decter, biographer of Donald Rumsfeld and a director of the rightwing Heritage Foundation; Frank Gaffney of the militarist Centre for Security Policy; Bruce Jackson, former US military intelligence officer and one-time vice-president of Lockheed Martin, now president of the US Committee on Nato; Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, a former admirer of Italian fascism and now a leading proponent of regime change in Iran; and R James Woolsey, the former CIA director who is one of the leading cheerleaders behind George Bush\u2019s plans to re-model the Muslim world along pro-US lines.\nThis was a Who\u2019s Who of DC\u2019s most influential hawks. Alongside Rumsfeld, Abrams, and company, Cheney was a key figure in these neoconservative foreign-policy circles in Washington, whose bellicose adherents fill the unelected US national security state bureaucracy, under both Republican and Democratic administrations.\nThat is to say that Cheney was by no means alone is seeking the breakup of the Russian Federation; it is a fantasy shared by many of his Beltway colleagues.\nDuring the Second Chechen War in the 2000s, these avid proselytizers of the so-called \u201cWar on Terror\u201d cheered on Chechen insurgents as they battled the Russian central government.\nThe fact that far-right Salafi-jihadists made up a significant percentage of the Chechen insurgency didn\u2019t bother these anti-Muslim neocons \u2013 just as Islamophobic \u201cWar on Terror\u201d veterans had no problem supporting extremist head-chopping Takfiri Islamists in the subsequent US wars on Syria and Libya.\nToday many of these same neoconservative US national security state functionaries have turned their attention back toward supporting secessionist movements in China \u2013 in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, and especially Xinjiang.\nThe fact that the CIA cutout the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) openly publicizes its support for Uyghur separatist groups in China shows how transparent Washington\u2019s geopolitical objectives are.\nTo further #humanrights & human dignity for all people in China, the National Endowment for Democracy has funded Uyghur groups since 2004. #NEDemocracy #HumanRightsDay https://t.co/C0LJEyWxq1 pic.twitter.com/OqZdehdxXN\n\u2014 NEDemocracy (@NEDemocracy) December 10, 2020\n\nThe idea that the US foreign-policy apparatus, and NATO as a military bloc, seeks to prevent the rise of both Russia and China as independent powers is obvious to any truly impartial analyst.\nMichael T. Klare, a professor emeritus of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, wrote at TomDispatch this January that \u201cAmerica\u2019s top leaders have reached a consensus on a strategy to encircle and contain the latest great power, China, with hostile military alliances, thereby thwarting its rise to full superpower status.\u201d\nKlare continued:\nThe gigantic 2022 defense bill \u2014\u00a0passed\u00a0with overwhelming support from both parties \u2014 provides a detailed blueprint for surrounding China with a potentially suffocating network of U.S. bases, military forces, and increasingly militarized partner states. The goal is to enable Washington to barricade that country\u2019s military inside its own territory and potentially cripple its economy in any future crisis. For China\u2019s leaders, who surely can\u2019t tolerate being encircled in such a fashion, it\u2019s an open invitation to\u2026 well, there\u2019s no point in not being blunt\u2026 fight their way out of confinement.\n\u2026\nFor Chinese leaders, there can be no doubt about the meaning of all this: whatever Washington might say about peaceful competition, the Biden administration, like the Trump administration before it, has no intention of allowing the PRC to achieve parity with the United States on the world stage. In fact, it is prepared to employ every means, including military force, to prevent that from happening. This leaves Beijing with two choices: succumb to U.S. pressure and accept second-class status in world affairs or challenge Washington\u2019s strategy of containment. It\u2019s hard to imagine that country\u2019s current leadership accepting the first choice, while the second, were it adopted, would surely lead, sooner or later, to armed conflict.\nThis goal is likewise clearly reflected in a 2019 report published by the RAND Corporation, a major Pentagon-backed think tank. Titled \u201cExtending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground,\u201d the document discusses various ways to exploit Moscow\u2019s \u201cweaknesses,\u201d encircle it, and contain it.\nRAND listed the following \u201cgeopolitical measures\u201d:\nMeasure 1: Provide Lethal Aid to Ukraine\nMeasure 2: Increase Support to the Syrian Rebels\nMeasure 3: Promote Regime Change in Belarus\nMeasure 4: Exploit Tensions in the South Caucasus\nMeasure 5: Reduce Russian Influence in Central Asia\nMeasure 6: Challenge Russian Presence in Moldova\nExcluding perhaps concerning Moldova (at least openly), the US government has pursued all of these policies to a tee.\nThe Pentagon's privatized policymaking arm the RAND Corporation published a report in 2019 calling for the US to wage proxy war on Russia in Ukraine, Syria, Belarus, Caucasus, & Central Asia \u2014 the next region on the list, now being targeted via Kazakhstanhttps://t.co/sp6CTNFDeq pic.twitter.com/yxkxeJRuGh\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 6, 2022\n\nThe Moon of Alabama blog, which highlighted this RAND report, also noted that Victoria Nuland, the third-most powerful official in the Joe Biden administration\u2019s State Department, served as Vice President Cheney\u2019s principal deputy foreign policy adviser from 2003 to 2005.\nNuland, today under-secretary for political affairs, held a similar senior position in the Barack Obama administration\u2019s State Department. She used her role there to help sponsor a violent coup in Ukraine in 2014.\nA leaked phone call showed that Nuland chose who would make up the top members of the subsequent Ukrainian puppet government.\nCurrent State Dep person running U.S. Russia policy is Victoria 'Fuck the EU' Nuland.\n\"From 2003 to 2005, Nuland served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney\" https://t.co/9rEQVt1uVB\n\u2014 Moon of Alabama (@MoonofA) January 31, 2022\n\nLike her mentor Cheney, Nuland is a hard-line neoconservative. The fact that he is a Republican and she works primarily in Democratic administrations is irrelevant; this hawkish foreign-policy consensus is completely bipartisan.\nNuland (a former member of the bipartisan board of directors of the NED) is also married to Robert Kagan, a patron saint of neoconservatism, and co-founder of the Project for the New American Century \u2013 the cozy home of the neocons in Washington, where he worked alongside Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other top Bush administration officials.\nKagan was a longtime Republican, but in 2016 he joined the Democrats and openly campaigned for Hillary Clinton\u00a0for president.\nWhat all of this shows is that these hawkish foreign-policy positions are totally mainstream in Washington. Whether Republican or Democrat, Beltway policy-makers simply refuse to allow Russia and China to challenge US unipolar hegemony.\nThe idea that the United States, a country on the other side of the planet, should rule Eurasia \u2013 and frankly the world as a whole \u2013 is unquestionable and sacrosanct.\nThere are some exceptions and internal contradictions, but they are few and far between. The reality is that large parts of the US national security state clearly seek the balkanization of Russia and China. This quote from Dick Cheney only further confirms what was already apparent.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US and Colombia do military exercises with nuclear submarine near Venezuela, after sending warship through Taiwan Strait. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Colombia, nuclear submarine, Taiwan, Ukraine, Venezuela", "output": "While the world is focused on Ukraine, the US and Colombia threatened Venezuela in military exercises with a nuclear submarine, a day after Washington intimidated China by sending a warship through the Taiwan Strait.\n\n(Se puede leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nWhile the world is fixated on the war in Ukraine, the United States is taking provocative military actions against Venezuela and China.\nThe US and Colombia held military exercises with a nuclear submarine in the Caribbean Sea, near Venezuela, just one day after Washington sent a warship through the Taiwan Strait.\nBoth Venezuela and China saw the US military moves as clear threats, condemning the actions as provocative.\nOn February 27 and 28, the US Navy held anti-submarine warfare exercises with the Colombian Navy.\nColombia\u2019s Ministry of Defense boasted that this was the first time they had done a military exercise with a nuclear submarine, the USS Minnesota.\nPor primera vez fue utilizado un submarino nuclear en un ejercicio de interoperabilidad entre Colombia y EE.UU. El submarino USS Minnesota ?? y  el ARC \u2018Pijao\u2019 ?? pusieron a prueba sus capacidades, ratificando la cooperaci\u00f3n y confianza entre ambos pa\u00edses. @ArmadaColombia @USNavy pic.twitter.com/WcGkBsVlvL\n\u2014 Mindefensa (@mindefensa) February 28, 2022\n\nUS Southern Command (Southcom) shared photos of the exercises on its official Instagram account.\n\nA post shared by U.S. Southern Command (@ussouthcom)\n\nThe Colombian Defense Ministry emphasized that the exercise highlighted the \u201cinteroperability between Colombia and the US.\u201d\nThe private intelligence firm Stratfor, which is popularly known as the \u201cshadow CIA,\u201d noted that the US military exercises with Colombia were \u201cwithin [the] scope of NATO.\u201d\nAlthough the US-led military alliance is called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the South American nation is decidedly not in the North Atlantic region,\u00a0Colombia is a special \u201cpartner\u201d of NATO.\nIt is NATO\u2019s first and only \u201cpartner\u201d in Latin America.\nWashington and Bogot\u00e1 claimed the exercises were aimed at fighting drug trafficking, but in reality Colombia\u2019s government is deeply linked to drug cartels, organized crime, and violent paramilitary groups.\nColombia\u2019s former president \u00c1lvaro Uribe, the most powerful politician in the country and a top ally of Washington, works closely with drug cartels and death squads. And Colombia\u2019s current, far-right president, Iv\u00e1n Duque, only came to power because Uribe ordered an infamous drug dealer, \u00d1e\u00f1e Hern\u00e1ndez, to buy votes for him.\nThe Colombian Navy said it felt \u201cproud\u201d to collaborate with the US military and deepen their integration.\n? La @ArmadaColombia se siente orgullosa de hacer parte de la operaci\u00f3n \u201cContralmirante Jos\u00e9 David Espitia Jim\u00e9nez\u201d en aguas del Caribe, para el progreso de la educaci\u00f3n mar\u00edtima, siendo participe de la protecci\u00f3n y el desarrollo de los intereses nacionales. ???? pic.twitter.com/nBHTPJFGYL\n\u2014 Armada de Colombia (@ArmadaColombia) February 28, 2022\n\nFor its part, Venezuela recognized the US-Colombian military exercises near its borders with a nuclear submarine as a blatant threat.\nVenezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino tweeted, \u201cWhy is there such imperialist flashiness? Is this a copy of NATO expansion in the Mediterranean of the Americas?\u201d\n\u201cYou don\u2019t battle drug trafficking, the war in Arauca [in Colombia], systematic murders and terrorist groups with nuclear submarines,\u201d he wrote. \u201cI categorically reject this.\u201d\n\u00bfPara qu\u00e9 tanta ostentaci\u00f3n imperialista?\u00bfEs una r\u00e9plica de la expansi\u00f3n Otanista en el Mediterr\u00e1neo de Am\u00e9rica? El narcotr\u00e1fico, la guerra en Arauca, los asesinatos sistem\u00e1ticos y los grupos terroristas no se combaten con submarinos nucleares. Lo rechazo de manera categ\u00f3rica. pic.twitter.com/aDeLONv5AO\n\u2014 Vladimir Padrino L. (@vladimirpadrino) February 28, 2022\n\nJust one day before these US-Colombian naval exercises started, Washington threatened China by sending a large warship through the Taiwan Strait.\nOn February 26, the US Navy\u2019s guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson sailed through the narrow strait.\nDestroyer USS Ralph Johnson Performs Taiwan Strait Transit \u2013 USNI News https://t.co/joAxUU4480 pic.twitter.com/VG0Izmujkn\n\u2014 U.S. Naval Institute (@NavalInstitute) February 28, 2022\n\nChina condemned the exercise as \u201cprovocative.\u201d\n\u201cIt is hypocritical and futile for the US to conduct this provocative action in an attempt to bolster the \u2018Taiwan independence\u2019 forces,\u201d the Chinese military said.\nBeijing\u2019s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Wang Wenbin, then added, \u201cIf the US wants to embolden the \u2018Taiwan independence\u2019 forces in this way, then we have this to say to the US: such move will only accelerate the demise of the \u2018Taiwan independence\u2019 forces.\u201d\n\u201cThe US will also pay a heavy price for its adventurist act,\u201d he continued. \u201cIf the US tries to intimidate and pressure China in this way, then we have this stern warning: the so-called military deterrence will be reduced to scrap iron when facing the steely great wall of the 1.4 billion Chinese people.\u201d\nComment on the US guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson's recently sail through the Taiwan Strait and all the hype. pic.twitter.com/j5RXw7Vw28\n\u2014 XIE Yongjun \u89e3\u52c7\u519b (@XIEYongjun_CHN) March 1, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Pentagon says China and Russia are top US national security \u2018threats,\u2019 not terrorism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, Cold War Two, Donald Trump, James Mattis, new cold war, Pentagon, Russia, war on terror", "output": "The US government is moving away from \u201cwar on terror\u201d rhetoric as Defense Secretary Mattis says \u201cgreat power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of US national security.\u201d\n\n(This report was first published at The Real News.)\n\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, the U.S. government has justified numerous wars and interventions throughout the world under the pretext of a so-called \u201cwar on terror.\u201d\nThat appears to be is changing. In December, President Donald Trump released a new national security strategy, which reveals that the top priority for U.S. national security is not countering terrorism, but rather countering the influence of competing foreign states, namely China and Russia.\nDefense Secretary James Mattis made this incredibly significant announcement in a speech at John Hopkins University on January 19.\nJAMES MATTIS: The world, to quote George Shultz, is awash in change, defined by increasing global volatility and uncertainty with great power competition between nations becoming a reality once again. Though we will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we are engaged in today, but great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: This marks a huge shift in U.S. government rhetoric on national security, which for nearly two decades has largely been synonymous with counterterrorism.\nThe United States has used terrorism and the threat of extremist groups like al-Qaeda as an excuse to military intervene throughout the Middle East and North Africa, from Iraq to Libya, to Syria, to Yemen.\nTrump\u2019s new national security strategy, however, singles out China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran as the primary targets of U.S. foreign policy.\nJAMES MATTIS: We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from each other\u2026 Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran persist in taking outlaw actions that threaten regional and even global stability.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Defense Secretary Mattis said this is the first U.S. national defense strategy in 10 years.\nA key part of the Trump administration\u2019s rhetoric in the document is the myth that the U.S. military is somehow underfunded.\nJAMES MATTIS: The negative impact on military readiness is resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nation\u2019s history and defense spending caps, because we have been operating also for nine of the last 10 years under continuing resolutions that have created an overstretched and under-resourced military.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: In reality, with a $611 billion budget in 2016, the United States already spent more on its military than the next eight largest countries combined \u2014 and six of those eight are U.S. allies.\nAnd in 2017, Congress voted to increase the already enormous U.S. military budget to a staggering $700 billion per year.\nTrump\u2019s national security strategy also states that sustaining U.S. nuclear weapons and modernizing U.S. nuclear infrastructure is a key priority.\nThese announcements from the Trump administration are yet another sign that the post-Cold War, U.S.-led hegemonic order is breaking down, and we are seeing the rise of a new multipolar world. Military rhetoric is changing from a war on terror to a more traditional, World War I-style great power rivalry.\nHowever, there has long been skepticism of the notion that the \u201cwar on terror\u201d was ever even about stopping terror in the first place. The George W. Bush administration, which launched the endless war, falsely tried to link Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda to justify an invasion that the United Nations said was illegal.\nMoreover, while the United States has waged a drone war in Yemen since 2001, ostensibly to beat back al-Qaeda extremists, in recent years, there has simultaneously been a well-documented alliance between al-Qaeda and U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which have fought side-by-side against Yemen\u2019s Houthi movement, Ansarallah.\nA similar alliance with al-Qaeda-linked Islamist extremists could be seen in the U.S.-backed opposition in Syria.\nThe United States is not necessarily abandoning the war on terror, but the Trump administration\u2019s new national security strategy stands out as one of the most frank admissions yet that U.S. foreign policy is principally about undermining foreign states that challenge U.S. economic and political interests, not about stopping extremist groups that threaten civilians.\nThis announcement did not come out of nowhere. The shift began under former president Barack Obama, whose administration declared a \u201cpivot to Asia\u201d as a key part of its foreign policy.\nBut this declaration is another indication of the Trump administration\u2019s embrace of a more conventional, hawkish, bipartisan foreign policy. And it\u2019s a sign of President Trump\u2019s abandonment of any pretense of non-interventionism.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Biden, like Trump, breaks international law, violating UN neutrality by blocking countries. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Donald Trump, Iran, Joe Biden, Russia, UN, United Nations, Venezuela", "output": "In violation of international law and its 1947 hosting agreement, the US government under both Biden and Trump has blocked foreign diplomats from the UN headquarters in New York, targeting Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and more.\n\nIn a blatant violation of international law and its 1947 hosting agreement, the US government has blocked numerous countries from participating in events at the UN headquarters in New York City.\nThe Biden administration is banning Russian diplomats, while the Trump administration illegally prohibited top officials from Venezuela and Iran.\n\nReuters reported on September 2 that Russia has filed a formal complaint with the United Nations, after the US government has \u201cbeen constantly refusing to grant entry visas\u201d to Russian diplomats to participate in events at the UN headquarters, Moscow\u2019s ambassador said.\nRussia\u2019s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and his delegation have been denied entry to the United States, barring them from the UN.\nThis Joe Biden administration policy, which flagrantly violates international law, was likewise implemented by the Donald Trump administration.\n\nIn January 2020, Foreign Policy reported that Trump had banned Iran\u2019s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif from addressing the UN Security Council in New York, after Washington assassinated top Iranian official Qasem Soleimani, in an illegal act of war.\nForeign Policy wrote, \u201cThe Iranian government was awaiting word on the visa Monday (January 6) when a Trump administration official phoned U.N. Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres to inform him that the United States would not allow Zarif into the country.\u201d\nThe outlet noted that this US policy violates \u201cthe terms of a 1947 headquarters agreement requiring Washington to permit foreign officials into the country to conduct U.N. business.\u201d\nExclusive: Trump administration bars top Iranian diplomat from addressing U.N. Security Council, in breach of U.S.-U.N. host country agreement, FP's @columlynch and @RobbieGramer report.https://t.co/c9Pb9aqK1d\n\u2014 Foreign Policy (@ForeignPolicy) January 6, 2020\n\nIn April 2020, the US government similarly barred Venezuela\u2019s President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro from speaking at the United Nations.\nA Justice Department spokesperson told CNN that Maduro would be \u201carrested immediately\u201d if he stepped foot on US territory.\n\u201cNicol\u00e1s Maduro will be arrested if he is in the United States,\u201d the spokesperson said, in remarks reported in the Spanish-language press. \u201cThe government of the United States does not recognize him as head of state. Executive immunity does not apply to him.\u201d\nThe Justice Department spokesperson threateningly added that \u201cMaduro would face a mandatory minimum sentencing of 50 years in prison and a maximum of life in prison.\u201d\nThis policy also blatantly violated international law. The United Nations always recognized Maduro as the one and only legitimate president of Venezuela.\nMoreover, even at the peak of the US-led coup attempt against Venezuela in 2019, more than two-thirds of UN member states \u2013 the vast majority of the international community \u2013 still recognized Maduro as Venezuela\u2019s president, not US-appointed coup leader Juan Guaid\u00f3.\nEEUU advirti\u00f3 sobre el \"arresto inmediato\" de Nicol\u00e1s Maduro si llega a pisar su territorio https://t.co/nCbnEZs9Lh\n\u2014 infobae (@infobae) April 16, 2020\n\nForeign Policy magazine made it clear that this illegal US behavior is official, systematic government policy, in another report published in November 2019.\nTitled \u201cTrump Turns U.N. Visas, Travel Restrictions Into Foreign-Policy Cudgel,\u201d the article noted, \u201cIf you\u2019re deemed hostile to U.S. interests, you may face travel limitations, arbitrary visa denials, sudden airport checks, and other forms of harassment, diplomats say.\u201d\nForeign Policy wrote:\nThe decision to withhold federal protection for a senior Syrian official is just one among a growing number of diplomatic slights experienced by delegates from a handful of countries with poor relations with the United States during their travels to New York City for United Nations meetings. It reflects the punitive nature of U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump, whose administration has sought myriad ways to sanction or penalize individuals and countries that are viewed as hostile to the United States, or that simply refuse to comply with U.S. demands. It reinforces the perception among some diplomats that the United States has contempt for the United Nations.\n\u201cNot exactly a high point in U.S. diplomacy,\u201d said Larry Johnson, an American lawyer who previously served as the U.N. assistant secretary-general for legal affairs.\nJohnson, an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School, said it\u2019s not the first time the United States has \u201cresorted to delaying tactics and harassment\u201d to keep unwanted foreigners out of the country. But he said Washington has acted under \u201cweak or no legal grounds\u201d in denying access to U.N. headquarters.\nRepresentatives from the U.N. delegations of China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, and Syria say their diplomats and support staff are subjected to increasingly restrictive travel limitations, arbitrary denial of visas and driver\u2019s licenses, additional airport security checks, and curtailed access to banking services needed to conduct their diplomatic work and pay their dues at the U.N., according to a report by a U.N. committee that monitors U.S. dealings with the U.N.\u2019s 192 other states.\nThose measures, they contend, violate the host country treaty, or Headquarters Agreement, signed by the United States in 1947. In many cases, the U.N.\u2019s lawyers agree. In an Oct. 15 statement, the U.N. legal counsel told the committee that U.N. Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres is \u201cconcerned\u201d by recent measures, including the rejection of a visa for a Russian national hired by the United Nations and new travel restrictions imposed on the Iranian delegation and foreign minister after Tehran refused to participate in talks with Washington. The statement said the U.N. was maintaining its long-standing position that the United States lacks legal authority to impose travel restrictions on states in retaliation for restrictions on U.S. diplomats serving in those countries. \u201cThere is no room for the application of measures based on reciprocity,\u201d according to the statement.\nThe lengthy claims of diplomatic retaliation are included in a 64-page report of the U.N. host committee that details a range of matters that bear on U.S. relations with the diplomatic community in New York.\nDiplomats coming from countries considered hostile to U.S. interests have been experiencing travel limitations, arbitrary visa denials, sudden airport checks, and other forms of harassment, @columlynch reports. https://t.co/FVtltVB6jl\n\u2014 Foreign Policy (@ForeignPolicy) November 6, 2019\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US TikTok ban aims to weaken China & protect Big Tech monopolies. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Big Tech, China, Elon Musk, Joe Biden, technology, Tesla", "output": "The US government\u2019s plan to either ban TikTok or force owner ByteDance to sell it to a (US) company is part of Washington\u2019s economic war on China, and an attempt to protect Big Tech monopolies from competition.\n\nThe US government has for years threatened to ban TikTok, one of the most popular social media apps in the country.\nIt\u2019s now looking like this might actually happen.\nThis March, the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to pass legislation called the \u201cProtecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act\u201d.\nThis bill states that it \u201cprohibits distributing, maintaining, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application (e.g., TikTok)\u201d.\nIt passed with an overwhelming majority of 352 votes in favor and just 65 votes against. It will now go to the Senate, where it is likely going to pass. And President Joe Biden has said he will sign the bill.\n\nTikTok is not technically a Chinese company. It is based in Los Angeles, California, and also Singapore. The CEO of TikTok, Shou Zi Chew, is not Chinese; he is Singaporean.\nShou pointed this out many times when he was grilled in the US Senate by Republicans like Tom Cotton, who portrayed him as an agent of the Communist Party of China.\nWhat the US government is trying to do with this legislation is force the owner of TikTok, the Chinese company ByteDance, to divest \u2013 and ideally sell TikTok to a US company.\nIf ByteDance refuses to sell its popular social media to its competitors, the US government will ban TikTok.\nThis is part of a technological war that Washington is waging against Beijing.\nThe US is essentially trying to block competition from Chinese tech companies, to protect Big Tech monopolies in Silicon Valley.\n\u201cBanning TikTok would boost Alphabet, Meta and Snap\u201d, Forbes chirped excitedly in 2023. It noted that these \u201cAmerican technology giants could tack on some $431 billion in market value if the U.S. bans TikTok\u201d.\nFor its part, Meta (which has tens of billions of dollars of contracts with multiple US government agencies) has spent years lobbying against TikTok.\nThe Washington Post reported in 2020, \u201cFacebook parent company Meta is paying one of the biggest Republican consulting firms in the country to orchestrate a nationwide campaign seeking to turn the public against TikTok\u201d.\nTo try to sabotage Chinese competition, the US is banning apps, imposing tariffs, and restricting exports \u2013 targeting Chinese electric vehicles, Chinese solar panels, advanced semiconductors, 5G tech, and smart phones, principally from cutting-edge companies like Huawei.\nWashington\u2019s goal is to prevent China from catching up technologically. And TikTok is only one part of this larger tech war.\n\nUS Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo made this clear as day back in 2021, stating, \u201cIf we really want to slow down China\u2019s rate of innovation, we need to work with Europe\u201d.\nThe US commerce secretary has since repeated comments like this multiple times.\nThis March, Raimondo said that the US will \u201cdo whatever it takes\u201d to prevent China from getting access to the most advanced technology.\nIt\u2019s not a coincidence that, also in March, President Biden called for an investigation into the so-called \u201cnational security risks\u201d posed by Chinese electric vehicles.\nThe Biden White House published an official statement claiming, \u201cChinese automakers are seeking to flood the autos market in the United States and globally, posing new threats to our national security\u201d.\nBiden made this statement just a few weeks after the billionaire oligarch Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, publicly called for trade barriers, to weaken Chinese competitors to his company (which has received billions of dollars of subsidies from the US government).\n\u201cIf there are no trade barriers established, [Chinese electric vehicles] will pretty much demolish most other car companies in the world\u201d, Musk complained in January. He added in despair that his Chinese competitors are \u201cextremely good\u201d.\nThe European Union is doing the same thing. In October, the European Commission announced an official investigation into Chinese electric vehicles.\nThis March, the EU revealed that it is likely going to put retroactive tariffs on Chinese EVs. (This came just a few weeks after Musk called for trade barriers.)\nThis is the root of the issue with TikTok. The West is waging a technological war on China.\nWashington\u2019s explicitly stated goal is to prevent China from catching up technologically and competing with US corporate monopolies.\nThis is an attempt to protect US Big Tech monopolies so they can continue to dominate the entire world, so there are no alternatives to US corporate hegemony.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US convenes anti-China \u2018Quad\u2019 alliance, Beijing calls it \u2018tool for containment and siege\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Antony Blinken, Australia, China, Cold War Two, India, Japan, new cold war, Quad, Russia, Scott Morrison, Ukraine", "output": "The US, Japan, and India held a meeting of the Quad alliance in Australia. Beijing condemned it as \u201ca tool for containing and besieging China to maintain US hegemony,\u201d with an \u201cantiquated Cold War mentality.\u201d\n\n(Se puede leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nThe United States has brought Japan, India, and Australia together in an anti-China alliance called the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad for short.\nTop representatives of these four countries convened in the Australian city of Melbourne on February 11, to discuss ways to counter Beijing, among other issues.\nThe Chinese government responded to the meeting by condemning the Quad as \u201ca tool for containing and besieging China to maintain US hegemony.\u201d Beijing accused the alliance of seeking \u201cto stoke confrontation,\u201d with an \u201cantiquated Cold War mentality.\u201d\nThe timing of this gathering was not coincidental; it came right in the middle of the Beijing Winter Olympics, which the US, Australia, and India had condemned with diplomatic boycotts. (Britain\u2019s influential newspaper the Financial Times described the Beijing Olympics as \u201cthe new front line in the US-China cold war.\u201d)\nThe Melbourne meeting featured the foreign ministers of the US, Japan, India, and Australia, and was their fourth reunion since the Quad was re-established by the Donald Trump administration in 2017 to focus on containing Beijing.\nThe Quad is a vital part of our vision for the Indo-Pacific and shows the priority we place on working with partners and allies in the region. We had a productive discussion on issues that shape our collective prosperity and security. pic.twitter.com/VvEhZOEVAK\n\u2014 Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) February 11, 2022\n\nThe Australian government enthusiastically endorsed the Quad meeting by not only sending its foreign minister but also its Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the leader of the right-wing Liberal Party, who has made fearmongering about the supposed \u201cthreat\u201d of China a central part of his political program.\nUnder Morrison, Australia has become a front line in the second cold war. The country joined an anti-China military alliance with Washington and London called AUKUS, and announced it is buying nuclear-powered submarines with North American and British technology \u2013 a very provocative move, given that all other countries that have nuclear submarines also have nuclear weapons.\nIn a press conference before the Quad meeting, Morrison claimed Australia has faced \u201ccoercion and the pressure,\u201d implying that China was guilty. He framed the conflict with Beijing as a matter of \u201cfreedom,\u201d insisting that the alliance exists to protect \u201ca world order that favors freedom, and particularly here in a free and open Indo-Pacific.\u201d\nAppreciate that PM @ScottMorrisonMP met the Quad FMs collectively before we began talks. His insights and thoughts were valuable.\nWe are focused on the early and effective realization of our Leaders' vision. pic.twitter.com/VfKMSRcbdw\n\u2014 Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) February 11, 2022\n\nUS Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Quad members \u201cshare concerns that in recent years China has been acting more repressively at home and more aggressively in the region, and indeed potentially beyond.\u201d\nBlinken joined the Australian prime minister in portraying the meeting as \u201cfour democracies coming together.\u201d Juxtaposing them implicitly against Beijing, Morrison claimed the Quad consists of \u201cgreat democracies, great liberal democracies.\u201d\nNeither Blinken nor Morrison mentioned that Japan is essentially a one-party state that has been ruled by the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party, with few exceptions, since 1955, or that India is governed by the far-right Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, which has been dismantling the secular state and attacking the rights of religious minorities.\nFacts like these, along with the US and Australian governments\u2019 continued history of genocide against Indigenous peoples and brutal violations of civil rights, blatantly contradicted their attempt to portray the Quad as a symbol of freedom and democracy against supposed Chinese authoritarianism.\nThe foreign ministers of the United States, Australia, India, and Japan at the Quad meeting in Melbourne on February 11\nFollowing the meeting, the four Quad member states released a joint statement. From the use of language, it appears that this declaration was largely written by the United States.\nBlinken stated in the press conference that the Quad exists to defend the \u201cfree and open Indo-Pacific, the most dynamic region in the world with the fastest growing economies, half the world\u2019s population.\u201d The statement echoed this rhetoric, calling \u201cto advance a free and open Indo-Pacific \u2013 a region which is inclusive and resilient, and in which states strive to protect the interests of their people, free from coercion.\u201d\nBlinken said the Quad seeks \u201cto defend the rules-based system that we have spent tremendous time and effort building over these many years.\u201d The declaration used this phrase \u201crules-based\u201d three times, reflecting Washington\u2019s attempts to create a new international legal framework that it controls, in order to isolate China and Russia.\nAlthough the joint statement forcefully condemned North Korea and Myanmar, it was careful not to mention China by name. Despite this, it was overwhelmingly aimed at attacking Beijing, implicitly referring to it as a threat to the Indo-Pacific region.\nThe Chinese government vociferously condemned the February 11 Quad meeting in Australia.\nForeign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian asserted in a press conference on the same day, \u201cChina believes that the so-called Quad group cobbled together by the US, Japan, India and\u2002Australia is essentially a tool for containing and besieging China to maintain US hegemony.\u201d\nThe Quad \u201caims to stoke confrontation and undermine international solidarity and cooperation,\u201d Zhao said.\nThe Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman added, \u201cI want to stress that as the Cold War is long over. The attempt to forge a so-called alliance to contain China wins no support and leads nowhere.\u201d\n\u201cRelevant countries should abandon the antiquated Cold War mentality, correct the wrong approach of bloc confrontation and geopolitical games, and contribute to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific,\u201d Zhao said.\nA reporter in the press conference asked the Foreign Ministry spokesman to respond to US Secretary of State Blinken\u2019s comment that \u201cChina has been acting more repressively at home and more aggressively in the region.\u201d Zhao replied, \u201cSpeaking of being aggressive in this region and beyond, the United States is second to none.\u201d\nSpeaking of being aggressive in this region and beyond, the United States is second to none. pic.twitter.com/hOL0DSUF5L\n\u2014 Spokesperson\u53d1\u8a00\u4eba\u529e\u516c\u5ba4 (@MFA_China) February 12, 2022\n\nGlobal Times, a newspaper owned by the Communist Party of China\u2019s official organ People\u2019s Daily, responded to the Australia meeting with an article titled \u201cUS ropes in Quad allies to fight \u2018two-front wars\u2019 with China and Russia despite spent force.\u201d\nThe semi-official Chinese newspaper wrote, \u201cThe sign is clearer than ever that the US is turning Quad into a tool to serve its own strategic goal of countering China and Russia simultaneously.\u201d\nIt noted that Blinken brought up the conflict in Ukraine in the Quad meeting, although the alliance claims to be focused on Indo-Pacific concerns.\nWashington\u2019s attempt to get its Quad allies on board with a cold war against Russia as well is less likely, however. Australia has taken a hard line against Moscow, but Japan and India have more complex relationships.\nJapan and Russia are certainly not allies, but until recently they had cordial diplomatic ties. A conflict in 2021 over disputed islands led to souring relations, and Moscow has criticized Tokyo for joining the US in threatening Russia over Ukraine.\nIndia\u2019s government, led by the far-right Bharatiya Janata Party and Hindu-nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has taken an extremely aggressive line against China.\nIn fact, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar used the Quad meeting as an opportunity to attack China, blaming it for a border dispute that has led to violence.\nYet while ultra-conservative Hindu-nationalist politicians in New Delhi, like their\u00a0right-wing counterparts in the West, have turned Beijing into a convenient scapegoat for their domestic problems, India has not joined the United States in its war drive against Russia.\nIn a press conference before the Quad meeting, a journalist asked Foreign Minister Jaishankar what New Delhi\u2019s position is on the conflict in Ukraine. He evaded the question, repeating that \u201cthis meeting is focused on the Indo-Pacific.\u201d\nThe Australia reunion made it clear that, while the Quad members are united in their mutual goal to contain China, they still have political differences on other issues.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Exposed: US DEA used criminals to spy on, destabilize Venezuela, Mexico, Bolivia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "AMLO, Andr\u00e9s Manuel L\u00f3pez Obrador, Bolivia, CIA, DEA, drugs, Evo Morales, Mexico, Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, Venezuela", "output": "Reports reveal that the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) used known criminals to spy on and destabilize the left-wing governments in Venezuela, Mexico, and Bolivia.\n\nNumerous reports in major media outlets have documented how the US government has used the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in order to spy on and try to destabilize left-wing governments in Latin America.\nDEA meddling schemes have targeted Venezuela\u2019s President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, Bolivia\u2019s former President Evo Morales, and Mexico\u2019s President Andr\u00e9s Manuel L\u00f3pez Obrador.\nIn these scandals, the DEA has collaborated with known criminals, including drug traffickers and money launderers, to launch sting operations against leftist politicians.\n\nThe Associated Press revealed this February that the DEA \u201csent undercover operatives into Venezuela to surreptitiously record and build drug-trafficking cases against the country\u2019s leadership\u201d.\nKnown as Operation Money Badger, it was launched in 2013 with the goal of ensnaring senior Venezuelan officials in corruption scandals.\nThe AP reported that the DEA \u201cauthorized otherwise illicit wire transfers through U.S.-based front companies and bank accounts\u201d. It noted that \u201cColombian drug traffickers\u201d were involved.\nAs its informants, the DEA recruited criminals. The AP wrote (emphasis added):\nThe DEA Miami Field Division\u2019s Group 10 recruited a dream informant: a professional money launderer accused of fleecing $800 million from Venezuela\u2019s foreign currency system through a fraudulent import scheme.\nThe informant\u2019s illicit activity in Venezuela positioned him to help the DEA collect evidence against the chief target of the unilateral operation: Jose Vielma, an early acolyte of the late Hugo Ch\u00e1vez who in two decades of service to the Bolivarian revolution cycled through a number of top jobs, including trade minister and the head of Venezuela\u2019s IRS.\nVenezuela\u2019s sovereign, democratically elected government had expelled the DEA, so this covert operation was a clear violation of Venezuela\u2019s sovereignty. And the US government itself acknowledged that these activities violated international law, the AP reported.\nThe AP quoted a former DEA official who served in Venezuela who boasted, \u201cWe don\u2019t like to say it publicly but we are, in fact, the police of the world\u201d.\nOperation Money Badger started under the Barack Obama administration, but was expanded under President Donald Trump.\nThe Trump administration launched a coup attempt in 2019, pressuring countries around the world to recognize US-appointed coup leader Juan Guaid\u00f3 as the so-called \u201cinterim president\u201d of Venezuela, despite the fact that he had never participated in a presidential election.\nThe US government imposed several rounds of crushing sanctions and an economic embargo on Venezuela, which devastated the country\u2019s oil industry and starved Caracas of the export revenue it needed to fund social programs and the foreign currency it needed to stabilize its national currency, fueling hyper-inflation.\n\nIn 2020, the US government backed an attempted invasion of Venezuela. The attack, known as Operation Gideon, was led by two former US Army special operations commandos.\nOne of the top Venezuelan coup-plotters involved in the failed invasion later revealed that the putschists had been in touch with the CIA and other US government agencies.\nCIA backed failed 2020 invasion of Venezuela, top coup-plotter says\n\nThe botched invasion was overseen by a US private security company called Silvercorp, which was based in Florida and run by a former U.S. Army Green Beret commando, Jordan Goudreau.\nGoudreau had provided security for Donald Trump\u2019s rallies. And he met with US government officials at Trump\u2019s golf course in Doral, Florida to discuss the plans to invade Venezuela.\nFor his part, Trump boasted that he tried to \u201ctake over\u201d Venezuela and pillage its massive oil reserves.\nAt a Republican Party convention in 2023, Trump stated, \u201cWhen I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over; we would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door\u201d.\nTrump boasts he wanted to take Venezuela\u2019s oil after overthrowing its government\n\nTrump\u2019s neoconservative national security advisor, John Bolton, likewise bragged in a 2022 interview on CNN that he \u201chelped plan coups d\u2019etat\u201d in Venezuela and \u201cother places\u201d.\nMeanwhile, US-backed coup leader Juan Guaid\u00f3 and his accomplices were widely accused of extreme corruption.\nEven Guaid\u00f3\u2019s erstwhile supporters in Venezuela\u2019s right-wing opposition turned against him, accusing Guaid\u00f3 and his allies of spending huge sums of humanitarian aid money on expensive nightclubs, hotels, cars, clothes, food, and alcohol.\nGuaid\u00f3\u2019s coup-plotting allies also used public assets that the US, UK, and EU stole from the Venezuelan government and people in order to pay their enormous legal fees.\nVenezuela was by no means the only country in Latin America targeted by the DEA for destabilization.\nIn 2008, Bolivia\u2019s democratically elected socialist president, Evo Morales, expelled the DEA.\nMorales was the first ever Indigenous president of a country where the majority of the population is Indigenous.\nHe accused DEA agents of spying on his government and collaborating with violent right-wing opposition groups.\n\u201cThere were DEA agents that were doing political espionage \u2026 financing criminal groups so that they could act against authorities, even the president\u201d, Morales said, in comments reported by Reuters.\nAt the time, US officials rejected Morales\u2019 accusations as a crazy conspiracy theory.\nBut in 2015, the Huffington Post revealed that DEA agents had in fact been spying on Morales and the Bolivian government, as part of an undercover sting called \u201cOperation Naked King\u201d.\nTo justify its meddling, the DEA misleadingly accused Morales of supporting the drug trade, because he legalized the production of coca, a plant that can be used for non-drug purposes, such as in teas and medicines.\nMany poor farmers, especially in the Indigenous-majority areas that Morales was from and represented, relied on producing coca.\nVice News reported in 2016 that, after Morales legalized coca, \u201cthere is less violence, less cocaine, and even less coca in Bolivia than there was before\u201d.\nMorales blasted the DEA\u2019s double standards, noting that it purchased 45,000 kilos of coca in 1992.\n\u201cDuring our government, the model of the fight against drug trafficking was applauded and recognized by the UN and EU\u201d, Morales tweeted in 2020.\n\u201cNow, they submit themselves to the CIA and DEA to benefit the geopolitical interests of the US\u201d, he added, condemning the then government of unelected far-right leader Jeanine \u00c1\u00f1ez of \u201csubmission\u201d and \u201ccorruption\u201d.\nDurante nuestro gobierno, el modelo de lucha contra el narcotr\u00e1fico era aplaudido y reconocido por la ONU y la UE. Ahora, se someten a la CIA y DEA para beneficiar a los intereses geopol\u00edticos de EE.UU., y anuncian gastos millonarios sin fiscalizaci\u00f3n. Sometimiento y corrupci\u00f3n.\n\u2014 Evo Morales Ayma (@evoespueblo) May 27, 2020\n\nIn 2019, Morales was overthrown in a violent coup d\u2019etat. With US support, an unelected far-right regime came to power, which was led by Christian extremists who systematically discriminated against Bolivia\u2019s Indigenous majority.\nBolivia\u2019s US-backed coup regime also sought to privatize the South American nation\u2019s massive lithium reserves. Bolivia is one of the world\u2019s top producers of lithium, a crucial material needed for battery production.\nWhen a Twitter user criticized billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk in 2020 over his support for the putsch in Bolivia, the oligarch responded, \u201cWe will coup whoever we want! Deal with it\u201d.\n\nIn 2021, Morales stated that, \u201cFor the CIA and DEA the so-called \u2018war against drugs\u2019 is an excuse to attack progressive and anti-imperialist governments. It is a screen to cover their geopolitical interests\u201d.\nThe former Bolivian leader, who was spied on and targeted in a sting operation by the DEA, pointed to a similar scandal that had been exposed in Mexico.\nPara la CIA y la DEA la denominada \"guerra contra las drogas\" es una excusa para atacar a gobiernos progresistas y antiimperialistas. Es una pantalla para encubrir sus intereses geopol\u00edticos. El caso denunciado por #M\u00e9xico as\u00ed lo demuestra.\n\u2014 Evo Morales Ayma (@evoespueblo) January 16, 2021\n\nOver decades, the DEA has repeatedly been implicated in illegal espionage operations in sovereign Mexican territory, targeting government officials and politicians, particularly those on the left.\nThis January, the US media outlet ProPublica published a thinly sourced article alleging, without concrete evidence, that allies of Mexico\u2019s leading left-wing politician Andr\u00e9s Manuel L\u00f3pez Obrador (AMLO) took money from drug cartels to try to help him win the 2006 presidential election.\nThe report acknowledged, \u201cThe investigation did not establish whether L\u00f3pez Obrador sanctioned or even knew of the traffickers\u2019 reported donations\u201d.\nAMLO later won the 2018 election, and has since been one of the most popular presidents on Earth, governing for five years with consistent support from around two-thirds of the Mexican population, according to the US-based firm Morning Consult.\nAMLO blasted the ProPublica article as \u201cvile defamation\u201d and \u201cpropaganda\u201d, and he suggested that it sought to influence Mexico\u2019s upcoming 2024 election. The candidate Claudia Sheinbaum, from AMLO\u2019s left-wing Morena party, is leading in all of the polls, by a huge margin.\nThe ProPublica article offered no tangible evidence, just insinuations trying to link AMLO to organized crime. But it did disclose that, in 2011, on the eve of Mexico\u2019s 2012 elections, \u201cDEA agents proposed a sting in which they would offer $5 million in supposed drug money to operatives working on L\u00f3pez Obrador\u2019s second presidential campaign\u201d.\nThat is to say, the DEA was blatantly meddling in Mexico\u2019s internal politics to harm the left-wing candidate, as a presidential election soon approached.\nProPublica also admitted that US \u201cJustice Department officials closed the investigation, in part over concerns that even a successful prosecution would be viewed by Mexicans as egregious American meddling in their politics\u201d.\nMexico-based US journalist Kurt Hackbarth noted that the \u201conly real revelation in this week\u2019s ProPublica piece is the DEA\u2019s plot to frame the AMLO campaign in the runup to the 2012 election\u201d.\n\u201cUnlike Russiagate, here\u2019s a bonafide attempt to intervene in a foreign election, freely admitted to\u201d, he added.\nThe only real revelation in this week's @Propublica piece is the DEA's plot to frame the AMLO campaign in the runup to the 2012 election. Unlike Russiagate, here's a bonafide attempt to intervene in a foreign election, freely admitted to. Think it'll make headlines in the US? Na. pic.twitter.com/nJ261T3r3a\n\u2014 Kurt Hackbarth ???? (@KurtHackbarth) February 2, 2024\n\nIn a follow-up Twitter thread, Hackbarth emphasized, \u201cLet\u2019s take a second and appreciate the implications of this. At the precise time Felipe Calder\u00f3n\u2019s Security Minister Genero Garc\u00eda Luna was colluding with the Sinaloa Cartel \u2013 which the DEA saw and heard no evil about \u2013 they were instead focused on this stupid sting op on AMLO\u201d.\nCalder\u00f3n, a conservative former president from Mexico\u2019s right-wing PAN party, was a close US ally, so faced no serious consequences for his documented links to drug cartels.\n????ANATOMY OF A HIT: Another clumsy attempt by the US to meddle in this year's Mexican presidential election. How does it work?\n1.) THE SYNCHRONIZED SWIM: Spread your story at the same time across various media. (A little obvious, though, to do it at the exact same time, guys.) pic.twitter.com/t8jZMO2kh7\n\u2014 Kurt Hackbarth ???? (@KurtHackbarth) January 31, 2024\n\nAMLO, on the other hand, is an independent left-wing leader who has routinely criticized the US for violating his country\u2019s sovereignty.\nIn 2023, the Mexican president sent the Joe Biden administration a letter formally condemning US \u201cinterventionism\u201d in his country. Specifically, AMLO noted that USAID was funding right-wing opposition groups.\nIn another speech that year, AMLO condemned State Department criticism as hypocritical \u201cmeddling\u201d and stated, \u201cThere is more democracy today in Mexico than in the United States\u2026 because here the people govern, and there the oligarchy govern\u201d.\nAMLO likewise held a huge rally in which he denounced Republicans Congress members who have called for the US military to invade their southern neighbor. While honoring the Mexican state\u2019s nationalization of the country\u2019s large oil and lithium reserves, AMLO declared, \u201cMexico is an independent and free country, not a US colony or protectorate!\u201d\n\u2018Mexico is not a US colony!\u2019: AMLO condemns invasion threats, celebrates nationalization of oil, lithium\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Biden admitted in 1997 NATO expansion would cause Russian \u2018hostile reaction\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Atlantic Council, Baltic, Estonia, James Woolsey, Joe Biden, Latvia, Lithuania, NATO", "output": "Current US President Joe Biden admitted in a 1997 talk at the Atlantic Council that eastward NATO expansion into the Baltic states would cause a \u201cvigorous and hostile reaction\u201d by Russia.\n\nCurrent US President Joe Biden acknowledged in 1997 that eastward NATO expansion into the Baltic states would cause \u201cthe greatest consternation,\u201d which could \u201ctip the balance\u201d and result in a \u201cvigorous and hostile reaction\u201d by Russia.\nThe Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania did indeed become part of NATO in 2004. Estonia and Latvia directly border Russia, and frequently do military exercises with Western troops a mere 100 kilometers from the border.\nBiden\u2019s 1997 comments were\u00a0a clear admission that Washington knew its policy of pushing the US-led military alliance right up onto Russia\u2019s borders could force Russia to respond with force, as Moscow did by invading Ukraine in February 2022.\nBiden made these remarks in a June 18, 1997 event at the Atlantic Council, NATO\u2019s de facto think tank, and one of the most powerful organizations in Washington.\n\nAt the time of the event, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were actively seeking to join NATO. (They later did in 1999.)\nThen a senator representing Delaware, Biden enthusiastically praised NATO and criticized fellow lawmakers who opposed its expansion. Biden called for the military alliance to continue to grow into Eastern Europe.\nBut he conceded that this expansion could precipitate a \u201chostile reaction\u201d from Moscow.\n\u201cI think the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short term, for admission \u2013 having nothing to do with the merit and preparedness of the countries coming in \u2013 would be to admit the Baltic states now, in terms of NATO-Russian, US-Russian relations,\u201d Biden said.\n\u201cAnd if there was ever anything that was going to tip the balance, were it to be tipped, in terms of a vigorous and hostile reaction, I don\u2019t mean military, in Russia, it would be that,\u201d he added.\nA video clip of Biden\u2019s comments was published on Twitter by user @ImReadinHere.\nBiden in 1997 saying that the only thing that could provoke a \"vigorous and hostile\" Russian response would be if NATO expanded as far as the Baltic states pic.twitter.com/i0yfEgIGZA\n\u2014 . (@ImReadinHere) March 7, 2022\n\nWhen Biden made these remarks, he was the ranking member, or top Democrat, on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.\nBiden was introduced at the event by James Woolsey, a former CIA director who at the time served as head of the Atlantic Council.\nWoolsey celebrated Biden as\u00a0\u201cone of the leading and most important senators\u2026 in both the areas of judiciary and foreign policy.\u201d\n\nThese 1997 comments are by no means the only time that a top US government official admitted that NATO expansion could force Russia to respond.\nWhen the Senate approved NATO expansion in 1998, it was condemned by none other than leading cold warrior George Kennan, the architect of US containment policy toward the Soviet Union. Kennan warned in prescient words published by the New York Times:\nI think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs.\nIn a 2008 classified State Department cable published by WikiLeaks, former US Ambassador to Russia William Burns, who now serves as Biden\u2019s CIA director, likewise cautioned that NATO expansion into Ukraine would cross Moscow\u2019s security \u201credlines\u201d and \u201ccould potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.\u201d\nEx US Ambassador to Russia William Burns (now CIA director) admitted back in 2008 that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow's security \"redlines\" and could create violence & civil war, which would force Russia to intervene\nThat's exactly what happenedhttps://t.co/8DOuuq5Og3\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 27, 2022\n\nSenior US, British, French, and German officials repeatedly promised the former Soviet Union in 1990 that NATO would not expand eastward after the reunification of Germany. This is an undeniable historical fact confirmed by numerous documents from Western governments.\nNATO broke this promise, however, adding 14 new member states, all east of Germany.\nA newly discovered document on a 1991 diplomatic meeting proves that the US, UK, France, and Germany promised the USSR that NATO would not expand east.\nIt\u2019s part of a growing body of evidence that the West broke its promise to Russia.\nvia @Multipolaristahttps://t.co/KP6KHW2YyR\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 20, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: West votes against democracy, human rights, cultural diversity at UN; promotes mercenaries, sanctions. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "democracy, General Assembly, human rights, mercenaries, sanctions, unilateral coercive measures, United Nations", "output": "The West voted against the rest of the world on United Nations General Assembly resolutions, opposing democracy, human rights, and cultural diversity, while supporting mercenaries and unilateral coercive measures (sanctions).\n\nWestern governments frequently claim that their foreign and domestic policies are motivated by \u201chuman rights\u201d and \u201cdemocracy\u201d. They often even lecture their adversaries for purportedly failing to respect these concerns.\nBut on the international stage, Western capitals have shown their commitments to be merely rhetorical, as they have consistently voted against these noble causes and refused to support measures that would tangibly protect them, in flagrant violation of the will of the vast majority of the international community.\nThese stark double standards were on display on November 7 in the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly\u2019s Third Committee, which is devoted to social, humanitarian, and cultural issues.\n\nIn this three-hour session, the West opposed draft resolutions that called for promoting democracy, human rights, and cultural diversity, while\u00a0 simultaneously supporting the use of mercenaries and the application of unilateral coercive measures, commonly known as sanctions.\nThe extended West voted against the rest of the world on these issues. Its positions were virtually uniform as a bloc, led by the United States, including Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan.\nIn fact, the chair of the General Assembly\u2019s Third Committee is Austria\u2019s representative to the United Nations, Alexander Marschik, and even he could not help but laugh in the session at the constant protestations of the US representative, who dominated the debate, speaking out against nearly every resolution to explain why the world should join with Washington in voting against it. (Marschik could not contain his laughter despite the fact that his own country, Austria, voted along with the US on each resolution.)\nGeopolitical Economy Report has created maps that illustrate the clear political divide between the West and the rest.\nIn the November 7 session, nations debated a draft that condemned unilateral coercive measures, or sanctions, for violating the human rights of civilians in targeted countries.\nThe resolution passed with 128 votes in favor and 54 against, and no abstentions.\n\n\nThe General Assembly\u2019s Third Committee likewise considered a measure that called for the \u201cpromotion of a democratic and equitable international order\u201d.\nThe resolution passed with 123 votes in favor and 54 against, plus 7 abstentions (from Armenia, Chile, Costa Rica, Liberia, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay).\n\n\nAnother resolution sought to promote \u201chuman rights and cultural diversity\u201d.\nThe measure passed with 130 votes in favor and 54 against, and no abstentions.\n\n\nThe Third Committee deliberated a draft that called for the \u201cpromotion of equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies\u201d.\nThe resolution passed with 128 votes in favor and 52 against, and no abstentions.\n\n\nAnother measure condemned the \u201cuse of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination\u201d.\nThe resolution passed with 126 votes in favor and 52 against, plus 6 abstentions (from Kiribati, Liberia, Palau, Mexico, Tonga and Switzerland).\n\n\nThe United Nations published a full video of the Third Committee\u2019s session on November 7, in the 48th plenary meeting of the General Assembly\u2019s 78th session.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CIA director calls China biggest \u2018threat\u2019, says Ukraine war benefits US geopolitically and economically. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CFR, China, CIA, Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, Russia, Ukraine, William Burns", "output": "CIA Director William J. Burns published an article demonizing China as the \u201cbigge[st] long-term threat\u201d, boasting that the spy agency has doubled its budget for anti-China ops. He also said the Ukraine war helps the US economically and geopolitically, and warned Taiwan could be next.\n\nThe director of the Central Intelligence Agency, William J. Burns, published an article in which he referred to \u201cthe United States\u2019 principal rivals\u2014China and Russia\u201d, while emphasizing that \u201cChina is the bigger long-term threat\u201d.\nStrongly implying that we are in the early stages of a new cold war, he wrote that \u201cChina and Russia consume much of the CIA\u2019s attention\u201d.\nBurns revealed that \u201cthe CIA has been reorganizing itself\u201d in order to counter China. The notorious US spy agency has created a special \u201cmission center\u201d focusing exclusively on Beijing, and has doubled its budget for anti-China operations.\nHe also boasted that the war in Ukraine has helped the United States geopolitically and economically, and he argued that, by supporting Kiev, Washington is sending a threatening message to Beijing over Taiwan.\n\nThe CIA director wrote this article for Foreign Affairs, the official publication of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). One of the most powerful US think tanks, the New York City-based CFR has a virtual revolving door with the State Department, acting as a kind of umbilical cord between Wall Street and the State Department, coordinating economic and foreign policy.\nIn the January 30 piece, titled \u201cSpycraft and Statecraft: Transforming the CIA for an Age of Competition\u201d, Burns acknowledged that China\u2019s \u201ceconomic transformation over the past five decades has been extraordinary\u201d.\nChina\u2019s rapid economic and technological advances have weakened US hegemony, the CIA director lamented, writing that \u201cChina\u2019s rise and Russia\u2019s revanchism pose daunting geopolitical challenges in a world of intense strategic competition in which the United States no longer enjoys uncontested primacy\u201d.\n\nMany top officials in Washington, including President Joe Biden, have claimed that the United States only seeks \u201ccompetition\u201d with China, not a new cold war. But in his article, Burns wrote that the \u201cpost\u2013Cold War era came to a definitive end the moment Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022\u201d.\nBy stating that the \u201cpost-Cold War era\u201d is over, and by frequently speaking of China and Russia together in the same breath, the US spy chief strongly implied that Washington is indeed waging Cold War Two.\nNevertheless, it is not Moscow, but rather Beijing that Washington considers to be its main \u201cthreat\u201d.\n\u201cChina remains the only U.S. rival with both the intent to reshape the international order and the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do so\u201d, Burns warned.\nThe CIA director wrote (emphasis added):\nWhile Russia may pose the most immediate challenge, China is the bigger long-term threat, and over the past two years, the CIA has been reorganizing itself to reflect that priority. We have started by acknowledging an organizational fact I learned long ago: priorities aren\u2019t real unless budgets reflect them. Accordingly, the CIA has committed substantially more resources toward China-related intelligence collection, operations, and analysis around the world\u2014more than doubling the percentage of our overall budget focused on China over just the last two years. We\u2019re hiring and training more Mandarin speakers while stepping up efforts across the world to compete with China, from Latin America to Africa to the Indo-Pacific.\nThe CIA has a dozen or so \u201cmission centers,\u201d issue-specific groups that bring together officers from across the agencies\u2019 various directorates. In 2021, we set up a new mission center focused exclusively on China. The only single-country mission center, it provides a central mechanism for coordinating work on China, a job that extends today to every corner of the CIA.\nBurns also used the Foreign Affairs article to call for Washington to continue supporting Ukraine in its war with Russia.\nThe CIA director referred to US military assistance to Ukraine as \u201ca relatively modest investment with significant geopolitical returns for the United States and notable returns for American industry\u201d.\nIn other words, the spy chief was acknowledging that the Ukraine war has benefited the Military-Industrial Complex, enriching US arms corporations.\nThe Biden administration has used similar \u201cmilitary Keynesian\u201d talking points. Politico reported in October that the \u201cWhite House has been quietly urging lawmakers in both parties to sell the [Ukraine] war efforts abroad as a potential economic boom at home\u201d.\nBurns likewise argued that US support for Ukraine could intimidate China.\n\u201cThe United States\u2019 willingness to inflict and absorb economic pain to counter Putin\u2019s aggression\u2014and its ability to rally its allies to do the same\u2014powerfully contradicted Beijing\u2019s belief that America was in terminal decline\u201d, the CIA director wrote.\n\u201cContinued material backing for Ukraine doesn\u2019t come at the expense of Taiwan; it sends an important message of U.S. resolve that helps Taiwan\u201d, he added.\nOn the issue of the Ukraine war, William Burns has a disturbing track record.\nBefore being appointed CIA director, he served for decades as a senior US diplomat. His career reflects the revolving door between the CIA and State Department.\nIn the Barack Obama administration, Burns was deputy secretary of state, making him second-in-command of the State Department, reporting directly to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.\nBefore that, in the George W. Bush administration, Burns served as US ambassador to Russia.\nAt the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania in 2008, President Bush pledged that Ukraine and Georgia were going to join the US-led military alliance. This upset several top NATO allies, including Germany and France, who worried that the promise would exacerbate tensions with Russia.\nIn his capacity as US ambassador to Russia, Burns responded to this controversy by penning a 2008 confidential State Department cable titled \u201cNyet Means Nyet: Russia\u2019s NATO Enlargement Redlines\u201d (\u201cnyet\u201d means \u201cno\u201d in Russian).\nIn the document, which was made public by the whistle-blowing journalism organization WikiLeaks, Burns wrote:\nUkraine and Georgia\u2019s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia\u2019s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.\nVirtually everything Burns warned about potential conflict in Ukraine eventually came true, as the United States pushed Kiev into war with its neighbor Russia.\nThis precedent makes the CIA director\u2019s current threats against China over Taiwan even more striking.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CIA has trained Ukrainians to kill Russian-speakers since 2014 US-backed coup. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CIA, Donbas, Russia, Ukraine", "output": "CIA paramilitaries have been active in Ukraine training elite special operations forces to kill Russian-speaking Ukrainian separatists since soon after the 2014 US-sponsored coup. The US spy agency boasted that its influence \u201ccannot be overestimated.\u201d\n\nThe Central Intelligence Agency has been active in Ukraine training elite special operations forces to kill Russian-speaking Ukrainian separatists since 2014, when a US-sponsored coup d\u2019etat overthrew the elected government in Kiev.\nYahoo News revealed this in a March 16 report titled \u201cSecret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion.\u201d\nThe article details how \u201cCIA paramilitaries\u201d began traveling to Ukraine in 2014 to train and advise forces to fight against Russian-speaking Ukrainian militants in the eastern Donbas region.\nThese Russian-speaking independence fighters rose up against Kiev after a 2014 US-backed coup toppled democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, who had maintained a policy of political neutrality, balancing Ukraine between the West and Russia. Washington instead installed a pro-NATO puppet regime that repressed the rights of the Russian-speaking minority in the east of the country.\nYahoo News described the operation as a \u201ccovert CIA training program run from Ukraine\u2019s eastern frontlines,\u201d noting that it focused on developing\u00a0Ukrainian special operations units, teaching them \u201cirregular warfare\u201d tactics.\nThe US spy agency additionally sent \u201ctactical specialists, like snipers, who also worked for the CIA Special Activities Center.\u201d It likewise developed secure communications systems for the Ukrainian forces.\nAn anonymous CIA officer involved in the operation said, \u201cOur job is to have an exponential impact\u201d on the Ukrainian forces.\nAnother official told Yahoo News that the effects of the CIA program in Ukraine \u201ccannot be overestimated,\u201d and that the spy agency developed elite units that form \u201ca strong nucleus\u201d for Kiev\u2019s military.\nThis CIA operation was secret. But publicly, Washington was sending Ukraine large numbers of weapons, and the US military was openly\u00a0training Ukrainian soldiers, Yahoo News noted, including by developing snipers and teaching fighters how to use Javelin anti-tank missiles and M141 Bunker Defeat Munitions.\n\nA post shared by JMTG-U (@jmtgukraine)\n\nAfter Russia invaded Ukraine this February 24, the United States and other NATO member states sent the country at least 17,000 anti-tank weapons, including Javelin missiles, along with 2,000 stinger anti-aircraft missiles.\nSome of these weapons have ended up in the hands of Ukrainian neo-Nazis from far-right extremist groups like Azov.\nWashington and its NATO military alliance have made it clear that they are fueling an insurgency inside Ukraine. After approving $350 million in weapons for Kiev in late February, the US government this March passed a staggering $13.6 billion aid package for Ukraine, which includes $6.5 billion in military support.\nYahoo News also reported in January that the CIA had since 2015 been training Ukrainian paramilitaries inside the United States.\nA former CIA officer stated clearly, weeks before Russia invaded, that the \u201cUnited States is training an insurgency,\u201d adding that the spy agency was teaching Ukrainian militants \u201cto kill Russians.\u201d\nYahoo News falsely portrayed the conflict that raged from 2014 to 2022 in the Donbas as a fight between Ukrainians and Russians. In reality, researchers at the Pentagon-backed RAND Corporation admitted that \u201ceven by Kyiv\u2019s own\u00a0estimates, the vast majority of rebel forces consist of locals\u2014not soldiers of the regular Russian military.\u201d\nA former CIA officer admitted the spy agency is training far-right Ukrainian nationalists to \u201ckill Russians\u201d and wage an \u201cinsurgency\u201d against Moscowhttps://t.co/Awtotoylnz\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) January 25, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CIA director admits to waging \u2018information war\u2019 against Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Avril Haines, Ben Sasse, China, CIA, Marco Rubio, NSA, Russia, Ukraine, William Burns", "output": "CIA Director William Burns admitted the US is waging an \u201cinformation war\u201d against Russia. In a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, he claimed \u201cPutin is losing\u201d that information war over Ukraine.\n\nThe director of the US Central Intelligence Community has admitted to waging an \u201cinformation war\u201d against Russia.\nCIA chief William Burns acknowledged this in a Senate Intelligence Committee open-door hearing on supposed national security threats on March 10.\nBurns, who previously served as US ambassador to Russia, argued that President Vladimir \u201cPutin is losing\u201d this information war.\n\u201cIn all the years I spent as a career diplomat, I saw too many instances in which we lost information wars with the Russians,\u201d Burns lamented.\nBut \u201cin this case, I think we have had a great deal of effect in disrupting their tactics and their calculations,\u201d he added.\u00a0\u201cSo this is one information war that I think Putin is losing.\u201d\nNeoconservative Republican Senator Marco Rubio agreed, stating in the hearing, \u201cI think there has been such a good job done at defeating them [the Russians] in the information space.\u201d\nCIA Director William Burns admitted the US is waging an \u201cinformation war\u201d against Russia. In a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, he claimed \u201cPutin is losing\u201d that information war over Ukraine.\nRead more here: https://t.co/OFdsxTyhxw pic.twitter.com/uzHMnBZoxY\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 17, 2022\n\nThe CIA has since 2015 been training Ukrainian special forces and paramilitaries to \u201ckill Russians,\u201d according to a former official.\nThe CIA trained many of these Ukrainian militants inside the United States, although the spy agency has also had operatives in Ukraine\u2019s eastern Donbas region advising anti-Russian fighters.\nA former CIA officer admitted the spy agency is training far-right Ukrainian nationalists to \u201ckill Russians\u201d and wage an \u201cinsurgency\u201d against Moscowhttps://t.co/Awtotoylnz\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) January 25, 2022\n\nIn the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing,\u00a0Burns argued that Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine, which began this February 24, has backfired and hurt the country.\nHe also claimed, without citing any evidence, that Moscow may carry out \u201cfalse-flag operations\u201d in this war.\nThe CIA director said his spy agency is focusing \u201cmore and more attention and resources on major power adversaries like China and Russia.\u201d\nBurns warned that Beijing and Moscow have become close strategic partners, and he emphasized that the CIA has created a new mission center focused especially on China.\nIn order to challenge China, Burns called \u201cto deepen partnerships with the private sector\u201d in order to develop new technologies. To help facilitate this, he noted that the CIA has created the position of a \u201cchief technology officer\u201d for the first time.\nThis same Senate hearing also featured the US director of national intelligence, Avril Haines. She summarized the US intelligence community\u2019s 2022 Annual Threat Assessment report.\nHaines dubbed the People\u2019s Republic of China the top \u201cthreat\u201d to Washington, saying Beijing \u201cremains an unparalleled priority for the intelligence community.\u201d\nIn the list of so-called \u201cthreats\u201d identified by the US intelligence community, China was followed by Russia, Iran, and North Korea.\nResponding to the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Haines said US spy agencies are working to \u201chold Russia and Russian actors accountable for their actions.\u201d\nShe warned that Russia \u201cmay escalate the conflict, essentially doubling down to achieve Ukrainian disarmament and neutrality, to prevent it from further integrating with the United States and NATO.\u201d\n\nThe US intelligence chief boasted of the devastating impact that Western economic warfare has had on Russia.\n\u201cThe reaction to the invasion from countries around the world has been extraordinarily severe,\u201d Haines said. \u201cWestern unity in imposing far-reaching sanctions and export controls as well as foreign commercial decisions are having cascading effects on the Russian economy.\u201d\nHaines noted approvingly that the Russian currency, the ruble, is \u201cin free fall\u201d and has \u201clost about 40% of its value.\u201d\nShe added, \u201cIt is extraordinary to watch the stock markets, the fact that they\u2019ve had to close down so much of their economic industry, and also the private sector impact has been extraordinary.\u201d\nThe director of the National Security Agency (NSA), Paul Nakasone, acknowledged that the agency has \u201cworked very, very hard with Ukraine over the past several years,\u201d especially since 2015.\n\u201cWe have had hunt forward teams from US Cyber Command in Kiev,\u201d Nakasone said. \u201cWe worked very, very closely with a series of partners at NSA and the private sector.\u201d\nRepublican Senator Ben Sasse used the intelligence hearing to refer to Russian President Putin as a \u201cjackass.\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Trump advisor John Bolton admits planning US coups in Venezuela and beyond. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CNN, coup, Donald Trump, Jake Tapper, John Bolton, Mark Esper, Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, Venezuela", "output": "Neoconservative former US National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted he \u201chelped plan coups d\u2019etat\u201d in Venezuela and \u201cother places,\u201d in a CNN interview. His memoir provides further insight into the US hybrid war on Venezuela.\n\n(Se puede leer esta nota en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nNeoconservative former US National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted on network TV that he was involved in organizing coups d\u2019etat.\nBolton is a hard-line right-wing hawk who was a leading architect of the Iraq War as a prominent diplomat in the George W. Bush administration. He has publicly called for the US military to bomb Iran and launch \u201cpre-emptive\u201d strikes on North Korea.\nFrom 2018 to 2019, Bolton\u00a0served as President Donald Trump\u2019s top national security official. In this role, Bolton oversaw a US-backed coup attempt against Venezuela\u2019s democratically elected socialist government.\nDonald Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton  admitted he \u201chelped plan coups d\u2019etat\u201d in Venezuela and \u201cother places.\u201d\nBolton is a neoconservative hawk who was an architect of the Iraq War in the George W. Bush administration.\nRead more here: https://t.co/C2wcCrNTVv pic.twitter.com/0se5N8CV0O\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) July 13, 2022\n\nIn an interview with Bolton published on July 12, CNN anchor Jake Tapper accused Trump of attempting a coup inside the United States, and asked Bolton about a Congressional investigation into violent protests held by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.\n\u201cOne doesn\u2019t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup,\u201d Tapper said.\nBolton replied,\u00a0\u201cI disagree with that, as somebody who has helped plan coups d\u2019etat \u2013 not here, but, you know, other places. It takes a lot of work.\u201d\nTapper later asked, \u201cI do want to ask a follow up. When we were talking about what is capable, or what you need to do to be able to plan a coup, and you cited your expertise having planned coups.\u201d\n\u201cI\u2019m not going to get into the specifics, but uh\u2026\u201d, Bolton answered.\n\u201cSuccessful coups?\u201d Tapper asked.\n\u201cWell, I wrote about Venezuela in the book. And it turned out not to be successful \u2013 not that we had all that much to do with it,\u201d Bolton said.\n\u201cBut I saw what it took for an opposition to try and overturn an illegally elected president, and they failed,\u201d he added, implicitly admitting that Venezuelan President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro was elected.\n\u201cThe notion that Donald Trump was half as competent as the Venezuelan opposition is laughable,\u201d Bolton quipped.\n\u201cI feel like there\u2019s other stuff you\u2019re not telling me, though,\u201d Tapper responded.\n\u201cI\u2019m sure there is,\u201d Bolton said with a laugh.\nIn January 2019, the Donald Trump administration launched a coup attempt in Venezuela by appointing little-known right-wing opposition politician Juan Guaid\u00f3 as supposed \u201cinterim president\u201d of the country, despite the fact that he has never received a single vote in a presidential election.\nIn an interview on Fox Business that same week, John Bolton admitted that the US government and North American corporations aimed to exploit Venezuela\u2019s oil reserves, which are the largest on Earth.\nIn January 2019 the Trump admin launched a coup attempt against Venezuela\u2019s elected government.\nUS National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted, \u201cwe\u2019re looking at the oil assets\u201d and \u201cwe\u2019re in conversation with major American companies\u201d\nRead more here: https://t.co/C2wcCrNTVv pic.twitter.com/rCabJNtKZM\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) July 13, 2022\n\n\u201cWe\u2019re looking at the oil assets,\u201d the US national security advisor stated bluntly. \u201cThat\u2019s the single most important income stream to the government of Venezuela. We\u2019re looking at what to do to that.\u201d\n\u201cWe\u2019re in conversation with major American companies now,\u201d Bolton revealed. \u201cI think we\u2019re trying to get to the same end result here.\u201d\nHe added,\u00a0\u201cIt will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.\u201d\nMere days after declaring that unelected coup leader Guaid\u00f3 was supposed \u201cinterim president,\u201d John Bolton threatened to send thousands of US troops to Colombia, hinting at an attack on Venezuela.\nBolton then publicly demanded that Venezuela\u2019s elected President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro step down.\nIn February 2019, Bolton called for the Venezuelan military to launch a coup against President Maduro.\n\u201cTo the Venezuelan military high command, now is the time to stand on the side of the Venezuelan people,\u201d he tweeted.\nTo the Venezuelan military high command, now is the time to stand on the side of the Venezuelan people. It is your right and responsibility to defend the constitution and democracy for Venezuela! https://t.co/SWpQ8lwHAe\n\u2014 John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) February 2, 2019\n\nThreatening Venezuela in March, Bolton invoked the nearly 200-year colonialist Monroe Doctrine to justify US intervention in Latin America.\n\u201cIn this administration, we\u2019re not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine. This [Venezuela] is a country in our hemisphere,\u201d he said in another interview with CNN\u2019s Jake Tapper.\nTrump\u2019s Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, a former vice president for weapons corporation Raytheon, revealed in a memoir he published in 2022 that the US government had frequently discussed military attacks on Venezuela.\nTrump wanted US military attacks on Venezuela, Defense Secretary Mark Esper details in book\n\n\u201cTrump had been fixated on Venezuela since the early days of his administration, with an eye toward using military force to oust Maduro,\u201d Esper wrote in the book, \u201cA Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times.\u201d\n\u201cAgain and again, Trump would ask for military options,\u201d and his National Security Council \u201cteam was even more enthusiastic about them,\u201d he recalled.\nEsper disclosed that he, Guaid\u00f3, and fellow coup-plotters had discussed plans for the United States to train fighters in Colombia to later launch an attack on neighboring Venezuela.\nThis is exactly what happened in May 2020, when the US government sponsored an attempted invasion of Venezuela, known as Operation Gideon.\nThe former US Army special forces comando who oversaw this plot, Jordan Goudreau, said he was given the green light for the botched invasion after meeting with US government officials at a Miami golf resort owned by Trump.\nA Venezuelan army defector who helped plan a botched May 2020 invasion, Cl\u00edver Alcal\u00e1, said the coup-plotters were in touch with the CIA and other US government agencies\nThey had Washington's approval to try to violently overthrow President Nicol\u00e1s Madurohttps://t.co/GHYCrcZnm8\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 2, 2022\n\nTrump fired John Bolton in September 2019, partially due to his failure in the Venezuela coup attempts.\nIn 2020, Bolton published a 500-page tell-all memoir, titled \u201cThe Room Where It Happened.\u201d He was offered a $2 million advance for the book, and promised millions more in royalties.\nThe memoir turned Bolton into a media celebrity. He cashed in on the opportunity to criticize Trump for supposedly not being enough of a warmonger.\n\u201cThe Room Where It Happened\u201d mentions Venezuela and Venezuelans more than 300 times, and has a 35-page chapter dedicated specifically to detailing his coup attempt, titled \u201cVenezuela Libre\u201d (Free Venezuela).\nBolton did not hide his neocolonialist worldview in the book, once again invoking the nearly 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine.\nFearmongering about Venezuela\u2019s alliance with China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba, he declared, \u201cAmerica had opposed external threats in the Western Hemisphere since the Monroe Doctrine, and it was time to resurrect it.\u201d\nBolton\u00a0wrote that Trump shared this colonialist mentality. He claimed the president said that Venezuela is \u201creally part of the United States,\u201d and that \u201cit would be \u2018cool\u2019 to invade Venezuela,\u201d according to White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly.\n\u201cTrump still wanted a military option,\u201d Bolton emphasized. This is consistent with what former Defense Secretary Mark Esper described in his book.\nThe neoconservative national security advisor also boasted in the book that the Trump administration\u2019s coup attempt against Venezuela had bipartisan backing from both Republicans and Democrats \u201con the Hill, where support on both sides of the aisle for our hard line in Venezuela was almost uniform.\u201d\n\u201cAnd the press coverage was uniformly favorable,\u201d he added contently.\nBolton pointed out the coincidental timing that, \u201cShortly after I became National Security Advisor, while Maduro was speaking at a military awards ceremony on August 4, he was attacked by two drones.\u201d\nMaduro said his government has intelligence proving that Bolton had planned the assassination attempt.\nShowing his sadistic streak, Bolton wrote that the photos of Venezuela soldiers running away from the killer drones was \u201chilarious.\u201d\nIn a meeting after the drone assassination attempt, Bolton wrote that \u201cTrump said to me emphatically, \u2018Get it done,\u2019 meaning get rid of the Maduro regime. \u2018This is the fifth time I\u2019ve asked for it,\u2019 he continued.\u201d\nThe national security advisor noted that Trump\u2019s secretary of state, former CIA Director Mike Pompeo, was strongly in agreement, stating \u201c\u2018we should go to the wall\u2019 to get Maduro out.\u201d\nBolton added, \u201cTrump insisted he wanted military options for Venezuela and then keep it because \u2018it\u2019s really part of the United States.'\u201d\nTrump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Advisor John Bolton in April 2019\nTrump had made it clear that he was considering invading Venezuela as far back as August 2017, Bolton pointed out. In a press conference that August, Trump had stated, \u201cWe have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary.\u201d\nIn the memoir, Bolton admitted that that illegal unilateral sanctions the United States imposed on Venezuela were aimed at \u201cdriving the state-owned oil monopoly\u2019s production as low as possible,\u201d in an attempt \u201cto crash Maduro\u2019s regime.\u201d\n\u201cTrump stressed that he wanted the \u2018strongest possible sanctions\u2019 against Venezuela,\u201d Bolton wrote.\nTrump also \u201cwanted assurances regarding post-Maduro access to Venezuela\u2019s oil resources, trying to ensure that China and Russia would not continue to benefit from their deals,\u201d he added.\nBolton stressed that Trump had great \u201cinterest in Venezuela\u2019s oil fields,\u201d and he recalled that the US president insisted \u201cwe should take the oil in Venezuela after ousting Maduro.\u201d\nSimilarly, Bolton recalled numerous stories that showed how Trump\u2019s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs banker and hedge fund manager, was most concerned about the interests of US corporations.\nHe wrote that Mnuchin frequently \u201ctalked to oil-company executives.\u201d Mnuchin was concerned about remaining \u201cUS oil-and-gas assets in Venezuela,\u201d and \u201cworried that steps in the banking sector would hurt Visa and Mastercard.\u201d\nBolton also revealed he pressured the UK government to illegally freeze more than $1 billion of gold reserves that Venezuela held in the Bank of England.\nHe celebrated sanctions as instruments of US financial warfare, declaring that \u201cthey\u2019re about using America\u2019s massive economic power to advance our national interests. They are most effective when applied massively, swiftly, and decisively, and enforced with all the power available.\u201d\nBoasting of the sadistic sanctions he imposed on Venezuela, Bolton gleefully wrote, \u201cwe had Maduro by the windpipe and needed to constrict it.\u201d\nTrump with National Security Advisor John Bolton and CIA Director Gina Haspel in January 2019\nIn an incredibly hypocritical moment of his book, Bolton accused the Venezuelan government, without any evidence, of supposedly trafficking drugs. But he simultaneously fondly recalled a meeting he had \u201cin my office with Honduran President Juan Hernandez, who was similarly optimistic, in contrast to the situation in Nicaragua, on his border.\u201d\nHonduras\u2019 right-wing authoritarian leader Juan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez (JOH) came to power after a US-backed military coup in 2009. JOH was a key US ally, and joined Washington in recognizing Guaid\u00f3. JOH was also a notorious drug dealer.\nIn 2022, JOH was extradited to the United States, and the Justice Department said \u201cHernandez allegedly partnered with some of the largest cocaine traffickers in the world to transport tons of cocaine.\u201d\nBolton concluded the chapter lamenting that the various US-sponsored coup attempts in Venezuela failed.\nHe also complained that Trump was not supportive enough. While Trump had pushed for extremely aggressive policies against Venezuela, he apparently did not much have faith in Guaid\u00f3, calling him \u201cweak\u201d and allegedly joking that he was the \u201cBeto O\u2019Rourke of Venezuela.\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US woos India\u2019s far-right PM Modi to help wage new cold war on China. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "BJP, China, India, Joe Biden, Narendra Modi, Quad, RSS", "output": "The US government is trying to divide the BRICS bloc and recruit India for its new cold war on China. Biden doesn\u2019t care that far-right Prime Minister Modi is closely linked to fascistic Hindu-supremacist groups that violently oppress minorities.\n\nIndia\u2019s far-right Prime Minister Narendra Modi took a historic trip to the United States this June.\nPresident Joe Biden rolled out the proverbial red carpet for Modi, touting a \u201cnew era\u201d to \u201cstrengthen our partnership for decades to come\u201d, as the US seeks to recruit India for its new cold war on China.\nThe two leaders released a joint statement implicitly criticizing China and Russia.\nReuters made it clear that \u201cWashington wants Delhi to be a strategic counterweight to China\u201d, and that the two leaders signed \u201cdeals on defense and commerce aimed at countering China\u2019s global influence\u201d.\nTogether, the United States and India \u2013 the world's oldest and largest democracies \u2013 are a combined force for global good.\nIt's my pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House to strengthen our partnership for decades to come. pic.twitter.com/cj8d3Xzn8K\n\u2014 President Biden (@POTUS) June 22, 2023\n\nBritain\u2019s establishment newspaper The Guardian declared that there is a \u201cbipartisan consensus\u201d in the US that India\u2019s far-right government is a \u201clinchpin\u201d\u00a0in Washington\u2019s efforts to weaken and destabilize Beijing.\nIndia is already a member of the US-led, anti-China military bloc the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), along with Japan and Australia.\nThe Quad is often referred to as an \u201cIndo-Pacific NATO\u201d or \u201cAsian NATO\u201d, and is explicitly aimed at encircling China.\nBiden and Modi had a friendly meeting at the Quad leaders\u2019 summit in Hiroshima this May.\nThe Quad leaders\u2019 summit in 2022\nInside India, Modi is notorious for his links to extremist Hindu-supremacist politics.\nIn the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002, there was a massive pogrom in which hundreds of Muslims were killed. At the time, Modi was chief minister of the state. He oversaw the violence.\nDuring Modi\u2019s tenure leading Gujarat, state-sponsored school textbooks glorified fascism, teaching children about \u201cHitler, the Supremo\u201d and the \u201cInternal Achievements of Nazism\u201d.\nModi is also a longtime member of the fascistic RSS paramilitary movement, whose early leaders praised Adolf Hitler and sought to model their religiously pure \u201cHindustan\u201d off of the Third Reich, demonizing Muslims much in the same way as Nazi Germany demonized Jews.\nIn his 1939 book We, or Our Nationhood Defined, RSS ideologue MS Golwalkar wrote, \u201cTo keep up the purity of the nation and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of Semitic races \u2013 the Jews. National pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by\u201d.\nModi\u2019s far-right Hindu-nationalist party BJP is the political arm of the RSS.\nBJP lawmakers have given speeches openly calling for forcibly \u201cre-converting\u201d South Asian Muslims and Christians. They also routinely incite against Dalits and other low-caste Indians.\nIn India today, left-wing activists are routinely attacked. Progressive media outlets that criticize the government\u2019s neoliberal, anti-worker economic policies are raided. Their editors\u2019 homes are ransacked by police.\nDespite his close links to violent extremist groups, Modi has enjoyed bipartisan support in Washington, among both Republicans and Democrats.\nOn his trip to Washington this June, Modi delivered a speech before a joint session of Congress. Politicians from both sides of the aisle lavished him with standing ovations.\nWhile Biden welcomed fascist-linked Modi to Washington, he simultaneously smeared China\u2019s President Xi Jinping as a \u201cdictator\u201d.\nBack when Barack Obama was president, the New York Times noted that the fellow Democrat also had a close \u201cfriendship\u201d with Modi.\nDonald Trump\u2019s relationship with Modi was even more intimate. The two far-right leaders symbolically held hands at a \u201cHowdy, Modi\u201d rally in Texas.\nIn 2021, Trump\u2019s former CIA Director turned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo boasted that Washington had tried to weaken the BRICS by supporting Modi (along with Brazil\u2019s far-right leader, Jair Bolsonaro).\n\u201cRemember BRICS? Well, thanks to Jair Bolsonaro and Narendra Modi, the B and the I both get that the C and the R are threats to their people\u201d, Pompeo tweeted triumphantly.\nThe US goal is very clear: recruit India to divide BRICS and isolate China and Russia.\nRemember BRICS? Well, thanks to @jairbolsonaro and @narendramodi the B and the I both get that the C and the R are threats to their people. pic.twitter.com/JwL8E0uJte\n\u2014 Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 19, 2021\n\nModi had nothing to do with the creation of BRICS. The bloc was founded in 2009 under his predecessor, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, from the opposition Indian National Congress party \u2013 the main rival of Modi\u2019s far-right BJP.\nThe strains have become increasingly obvious. Former Indian diplomat MK Bhadrakumar wrote this January that \u201cIndia\u2019s got the BRICS blues\u201d.\nModi\u2019s far-right regime in \u201cIndia feels uneasy that the centre of gravity in BRICS is poised to shift further to the left\u201d, he explained.\nBhadrakumar noted that\u00a0Modi is an avid \u201cacolyte of the US-led \u2018rules-based order'\u201d \u2013 that is to say, the US-led imperialist system.\nThese efforts appear to be working, at least partially.\nIn a bad sign for the process of Asian integration, India was supposed to host a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in July, but Modi cancelled the in-person meeting and downgraded it to a mere virtual call.\nThe Indian press noted that this \u201cdecision came as a surprise to many as the leaders of all SCO countries were expected to attend the summit physically in New Delhi\u201d.\nChina, Russia, and Pakistan are fellow SCO members. Iran recently joined as well.\nBy cancelling the in-person summit, Modi indicated that the SCO is not a significant priority \u2013 while his trip to Washington was clearly at the top of his agenda.\nThat said, India is not totally subservient to the US.\nIndia does still maintain close economic relations with Russia, largely because Moscow sells it oil at a big discount, along with cheap fertilizers. Russia is likewise the biggest supplier of weapons to India\u2019s military.\nDelhi\u2019s historic friendship with Moscow goes back to the days of the Soviet Union, when the left-leaning Indian National Congress party rejected Washington\u2019s first cold war and led the Non-Aligned Movement.\nModi\u2019s government has not entirely rejected the foreign policy of India\u2019s Non-Aligned past. But he has moved Delhi closer to Washington, and has increasingly antagonized China.\nThe US is already India\u2019s largest trading partner. Washington is now pressuring companies to \u201cfriendshore\u201d operations, moving from China to India.\nSome firms may do so, but thus far not many have. At the moment, \u201cfriendshoring\u201d seems to mostly be a media buzzword.\nReplacing massive, multimillion-dollar factories is much easier said than done. China also has capital controls, meaning Western investors can\u2019t simply pull all of their capital out of the country on a whim.\nFurthermore, the reality is that China\u2019s workforce is very skilled, and thus very difficult to replace.\nIndia does offer a massive market; its population just overtook China\u2019s, making it the most-populous country on Earth.\nBut while India may now have more people, its economy is a mere fraction of China\u2019s.\nChina has the world\u2019s largest economy, when measured at purchasing power parity (PPP).\nChina\u2019s GDP per capita (PPP) in 2021 was $19,338, whereas India\u2019s was just $7,242, according to World Bank data.\n\nWhen he arrived in the US, Modi was immediately greeted by a Who\u2019s Who of the ruling class. Not only political leaders, but also a motley crew of oligarchs like Apple CEO Tim Cook and US government-subsidized anti-government billionaire Elon Musk.\nHedge fund manager Ray Dalio met with the Indian leader and wrote excitedly, \u201cI am pleased to be able to help PM Modi as he is a man whose time has come when India\u2019s time has also come. He and India are in an analogous position to Deng Xiaoping and China in the early 1980s\u201d.\nI am pleased to be able to help PM Modi as he is a man whose time has come when India\u2019s time has also come. He and India are in an analogous position to Deng Xiaoping and China in the early 1980s\u2013i.e., at the brink of the fastest growth rates and biggest transformations in the\u2026 https://t.co/20Hcc6TtAJ\n\u2014 Ray Dalio (@RayDalio) June 22, 2023\n\nThis comparison is absurd. Modi and Deng could hardly be more different. And the conflict between China and India is nothing at all like the Sino-Soviet Split.\nDeng\u2019s reforms came after China had a revolution and implemented comprehensive agrarian and land reform \u2013 something India desperately needs.\nChina\u2019s incredible development was only possible because of that foundational step, which allowed it to move into a new phase of massive industrialization, to develop the productive forces needed to provide the material basis for advancing socialism.\nIndia never had a revolution. Its land reform after independence was very uneven and incomplete \u2013 and many of the progressive Nehruvian gains have since been reversed over decades of neoliberalism.\nChina has always implemented five-year plans. This partial planning has undergirded its marvelous economic growth.\nModi has no coherent economic development plan. Thus far, he has only continued the failed neoliberal model.\nSome US corporations will probably increase \u201cfriendshoring\u201d to India, but unless the country has a concerted, state-led industrial policy that uses strategic foreign investments, technology transfers, and joint ventures to develop its own local infant industries (with protectionist policies to save them from being devoured by Western competitors), Indian workers will simply end up being increasingly exploited by foreign capital, with few long-term gains.\nIn fact, Modi\u2019s signature program \u201cMake in India\u201d has been a total failure.\nModi launched the initiative in 2014, immediately after coming to power.\nHe boldly claimed that India would become a manufacturing superpower, vowing that manufacturing would rise to 25% of GDP and create 100 million new jobs.\nInstead, India lost 24 million manufacturing jobs and its share of GDP fell from 17% to 14%, as of 2021.\n\nIndia\u2019s Bloomberg affiliate reported in 2021:\u00a0\u201cMake in India has failed to achieve any of its stated goals. Rather, every indicator has worsened, be it the share of manufacturing in the economy or the number of jobs generated in manufacturing\u201d.\n\u201cFor all his rhetoric of reviving Indian manufacturing to compete with China, Modi has done much worse than his predecessor Manmohan Singh\u201d,\u00a0the website added.\nMoreover, Modi\u2019s far-right BJP is the polar opposite of the Communist Party of China. It has no coherent economic development plan either.\nInstead, the BJP and its fascistic RSS movement are focused on promoting Hindutva and waging (an often violent) culture war on Muslims and Dalits.\nFinally, the US economy is in a weaker position today than it was then \u2013 and is facing severe decline.\nIn 1980, the US made up just over 20% of the global economy (with GDP measured at PPP). At the same time, India\u2019s economy was slightly larger than China\u2019s, with 2.77% compared to 2.26%, according to IMF data.\nAs of 2023, the tables have completely turned. China now represents 18.92% of the world economy, bigger than the US at 15.39%, and significantly larger than India at 7.47%.\n\nComparing Modi to Deng totally misunderstands the vastly different material conditions in China, India, and the US, then and now.\nThe reality is that, this time, Washington simply doesn\u2019t have the power needed to repeat its Kissingerian \u201ctriangular diplomacy\u201d. US hegemony is in terminal decline.\nIndia may at the end of the day recognize this, hedge its bets, and return to a more non-aligned foreign policy. But Washington is doing everything it can to prevent that.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Trump boasts he wanted to take Venezuela\u2019s oil after overthrowing its government. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "coup, Donald Trump, Hugo Ch\u00e1vez, John Bolton, Juan Guaid\u00f3, Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, oil, PDVSA, Republican Party, Syria, Venezuela", "output": "Former US President Donald Trump boasted at a Republican Party rally that he wanted to \u201ctake over\u201d Venezuela, and \u201cwe would have gotten all that oil\u201d. This confirms the sinister motives behind Washington\u2019s 2019 coup attempt to overthrow President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro and install Juan Guaid\u00f3.\n\nFormer US President Donald Trump gave a speech in which he boasted that he wanted to \u201ctake over\u201d Venezuela and exploit its large oil reserves.\n\u201cWhen I left, Venezuela was ready to collapse. We would have taken it over; we would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door\u201d, Trump said.\n\u201cBut now we\u2019re buying oil from Venezuela. So we\u2019re making a dictator very rich. Can you believe this? Nobody can believe it\u201d, he added.\n\nTrump made these remarks on June 10, at a speech for a convention organized by the North Carolina Republican Party.\nThe US government initiated a coup attempt against Venezuela in 2019. The Trump administration appointed a little-known right-wing opposition politician, Juan Guaid\u00f3, as the supposed \u201cinterim president\u201d of the South American nation, despite the fact that he had never participated in a presidential election.\nVenezuela has the world\u2019s largest known oil reserves \u2013 although its crude is very heavy, and in order to be used it must be mixed with lighter crude or diluents, which the country is often incapable of importing due to illegal, unilateral US sanctions.\nAs president, Trump made it clear that Washington seeks to control the natural resources of foreign countries.\nIn a January 2020 interview on Fox News, Trump boasted that he was militarily occupying Syria\u2019s crude-rich regions in order to \u201ctake the oil\u201d:\nDONALD TRUMP: And then they say he left troops in Syria. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil.\nThe only troops I have are taking the oil. They\u2019re protecting the oil. I took over the oil.\n\u2026\nMaybe we should take it. But we have the oil. Right now, the United States has the oil.\nSo they say he left troops in Syria. No, I got rid of all of them, other than we\u2019re protecting the oil. We have the oil.\nHere's irrefutable video evidence of Trump \"fighting the deep state\" ?\n\"I left troops [in Syria] to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They're protecting the oil. I took over the oil\u2026 We have the oil. Right now, the U.S. has the oil\" pic.twitter.com/IYaep53GP5\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 31, 2023\n\nOther members of the Donald Trump administration made similar comments.\nTrump\u2019s neoconservative National Security Advisor John Bolton stated clearly at the beginning of the coup attempt in January 2019, in an interview on Fox News, that Washington and US corporations wanted to profit off of Venezuela\u2019s oil:\nJOHN BOLTON: We\u2019re looking at the oil assets. That\u2019s the single most important income stream to the government of Venezuela. We\u2019re looking at what to do to that.\nWe want everybody to know. We\u2019re looking at all this very seriously. We don\u2019t want any American businesses or investors caught by surprise. They can see what President Trump did yesterday. We\u2019re following through on it.\n\u2026\nWe\u2019re in conversation with major American companies now, that are either in Venezuela or in the case of Citgo here in the United States. I think we\u2019re trying to get to the same end result here.\nYou know, Venezuela is one of the three countries I called the \u201cTroika of Tyranny\u201d.\nIt\u2019ll make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and\u00a0 produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.\nIt would be good for the people of Venezuela. It would be good for the people of the United States.\nWe both have a lot at stake here making this come out the right way.\nTrump's neoconservative National Security Advisor John Bolton made it clear from the beginning of the US coup attempt against Venezuela in January 2019 that US corporations wanted to exploit its massive oil reserves, which had been nationalized by President Hugo Ch\u00e1vez.\nBolton\u2026 pic.twitter.com/gp7pkzweHT\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) June 13, 2023\n\nVenezuela\u2019s massive oil reserves were nationalized by former President Hugo Ch\u00e1vez, who launched the country\u2019s leftist Bolivarian Revolution.\nVenezuela\u2019s state-owned oil company PDVSA used the revenue from the oil sales in order to fund social programs, public housing, transportation, health care, and education.\nAcademic studies have found that countries with large oil reserves are more likely to suffer wars and foreign military interventions.\nIn April 2002, there was a briefly successful military coup which overthrew democratically elected President Ch\u00e1vez. But the leader was so popular that the people of Venezuela stormed the streets, overthrew the coup regime, and demanded that Ch\u00e1vez be reinstated as president.\nThe George Bush administration was deeply involved in supporting this 2002 coup in Venezuela.\nSince then, Washington has sponsored several more coup attempts, including violent riots in 2014 and 2017, culminating in the 2019 designation of Juan Guaid\u00f3 as supposed \u201cinterim president\u201d.\nThe fact that this was a coup attempt was admitted by Trump\u2019s national security advisor himself.\nIn a 2022 interview on CNN, Bolton boasted of how difficult it was to organize the coup attempt:\nJAKE TAPPER: One doesn\u2019t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup.\nJOHN BOLTON: I disagree with that, as somebody who has helped plan coups d\u2019etat \u2013 not here, but, you know, other places. It takes a lot of work.\nJAKE TAPPER: I do want to ask a follow up. When we were talking about what is capable, or what you need to do to be able to plan a coup, and you cited your expertise having planned coups.\nJOHN BOLTON: I\u2019m not going to get into the specifics, but uh\u2026\nJAKE TAPPER: Successful coups?\nJOHN BOLTON: Well, I wrote about Venezuela in the book. And it turned out not to be successful \u2013 not that we had all that much to do with it. But I saw what it took for an opposition to try and overturn an illegally elected president, and they failed. The notion that Donald Trump was half as competent as the Venezuelan opposition is laughable. But I think there\u2019s another \u2013\nJAKE TAPPER: I feel like there\u2019s other stuff you\u2019re not telling me, though.\nJOHN BOLTON: I think \u2013 I\u2019m sure there is.\nBolton\u2019s 2020 memoir, \u201cThe Room Where It Happened\u201d, mentions Venezuela and Venezuelans more than 300 times, and has a 35-page chapter recounting the coup attempt in the country, titled \u201cVenezuela Libre\u201d (Free Venezuela).\nBolton wrote that President\u00a0Trump had repeatedly asked for a military attack on Venezuela.\nTrump advisor John Bolton admits planning US coups in Venezuela and beyond\n\nThis was further confirmed by Trump\u2019s former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who wrote in his 2022 memoir \u201cA Sacred Oath\u201d that\u00a0\u201cTrump had been fixated on Venezuela since the early days of his administration\u201d.\n\u201cAgain and again, Trump would ask for military options\u201d to overthrow Venezuela\u2019s democratically elected President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, Esper recalled.\nTrump\u2019s National Security Council meetings on Venezuela \u201calways began with the consideration of military options, rather than on the other end of the spectrum\u2014diplomacy\u201d, Esper wrote.\nTrump wanted US military attacks on Venezuela, Defense Secretary Mark Esper details in book\n\nThere in fact was an attempted invasion of Venezuela in May 2020, known as Operation Gideon.\nThe figures involved in planning this botched invasion admitted they had the support of the Trump White House and were in contact with the CIA, other US government agencies, and Colombian intelligence services.\nCIA backed failed 2020 invasion of Venezuela, top coup-plotter says\n\nIn response to Trump\u2019s admission in June 2023 that he wanted to \u201ctake over\u201d Venezuela and its oil, the country\u2019s foreign minister, Yvan Gil, responded: \u201cTrump confesses that his intention was to take over Venezuela\u2019s oil. All the damage that the United States has done to our people, with the support of its lackeys, here has had one objective: to steal our resources! They were not able to, and they will not be able to. We will always overcome!\u201d\nVenezuela\u2019s vice minister for North America, Carlos Ron, declared, \u201cWhat further evidence do we need? Here\u2019s Trump confessing that his aim, all along, was to take over Venezuela\u2019s oil. The Biden [administration] keeps his illegal sanctions policy still in place. Venezuela has and will continue to prevail!\u201d\nWhat further evidence do we need?\nHere\u2019s Trump confessing that his aim, all along, was to take over Venezuela\u2019s oil.\nThe Biden Administracion keeps his illegal sanctions policy still in place.\nVenezuela has and will continue to prevail! https://t.co/kLO3INnm57\n\u2014 Carlos Ron (@CarlosJRonVE) June 11, 2023\n\nVenezuela\u2019s ambassador to the United Nations, Samuel Moncada, stated, \u201cTrump took the mask off of 60 satellite countries, the international propaganda, and all of those politicians and intellectuals who supported a puppet [Juan Guaid\u00f3] to govern Venezuela. The only aim has been to pillage the oil of the Venezuelan people. How shameful! This is the confession of a criminal\u201d.\nThe \u201c60 satellite countries\u201d that Moncada referenced were those that joined the United States in formally recognizing unelected coup leader Guaid\u00f3 as supposed \u201cinterim president\u201d of Venezuela.\nVenezuela\u2019s former foreign minister, Jorge Arreaza, who served during the 2019 coup attempt, said Trump\u2019s confession was legal evidence that the US was motivated to try to steal his country\u2019s natural resources.\n\u201cThe international justice system must act\u201d, Arreaza implored.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: West sabotaged Ukraine peace deal with Russia, admit Zelensky official and Germany\u2019s ex leader. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Boris Johnson, Davyd Arakhamia, Naftali Bennett, Russia, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky", "output": "Russia wanted to sign a peace deal with Ukraine in March 2022, but NATO countries sabotaged it, according to Germany\u2019s former Chancellor Gerhard Schr\u00f6der and the parliamentary faction leader of Zelensky\u2019s political party, Davyd Arakhamia.\n\nThe United States has played a key role in fueling the wars in both Israel-Palestine and Ukraine.\nThe US government has sought to prevent peace in Gaza, vetoing resolutions in the UN Security Council that call for a ceasefire, while sending weapons to Israel to help it bomb densely populated civilian areas, contributing to the killing of more than 15,000 Palestinians, approximately 70% of whom are women and children.\nSince 2022, Washington has done exactly the same in Ukraine, torpedoing peace proposals that Russia had supported.\nThis has been confirmed by numerous sources, including the former leader of Germany and a top Ukrainian official, as well as Israel\u2019s ex prime minister.\n\nThis October, former German Chancellor Gerhard Schr\u00f6der explained in an interview how he had tried to negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia in 2022.\nUkraine\u2019s overtly anti-Russian newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on his bombshell remarks.\nMoscow had a concrete peace plan laid out, according to Schr\u00f6der. It was based on five points: \u201cUkraine\u2019s rejection of NATO membership, two official languages in Ukraine, Donbas autonomy, security guarantees for Ukraine, and negotiations on the status of Crimea\u201d, Ukrainska Pravda wrote.\nBut the former German leader said the United States sabotaged the peace talks.\n\u201cThe only people who could resolve the war over Ukraine are the Americans\u201d, Schr\u00f6der emphasized.\n\u201cDuring the peace talks in March 2022 in Istanbul with [Ukraine\u2019s Defense Minister] Rustem Umierov, Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They had to coordinate everything they talked about with the Americans first\u201d, he recalled.\n\u201cHowever, nothing eventually happened. My impression is that nothing could happen because everything else was decided in Washington. It was fatal\u201d, Schr\u00f6der added.\nThe former German head of state likewise warned that Russia will never accept NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia.\n\u201cRegardless of who is in power, there is a belief in Russia that the West wants to expand further with NATO, namely into the post-Soviet area. Keywords: Georgia and Ukraine. No one at the head of Russia will allow this to happen. This danger analysis may be emotional, but it is real for Russia. The West must understand this and compromise accordingly; otherwise, peace will be tough to achieve\u201d, Schr\u00f6der stressed, in the comments quoted by Ukrainska Pravda.\nA top Ukrainian official and Germany's former leader have admitted that Russia wanted to sign a peace deal with Ukraine in March 2022, but NATO countries sabotaged it, instead preferring war.\nLink to full video below pic.twitter.com/WUVvBANiuN\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 3, 2023\n\nThe former German chancellor\u2019s observations were further bolstered by the remarks of a top Ukrainian official.\nIn November, Davyd Arakhamia sat down for an interview with Ukraine\u2019s TV channel 1+1. Arakhamia is the parliamentary faction leader of the political party of Ukraine\u2019s Western-backed President Volydmyr Zelensky.\nThis interview was also reported on by Ukraine\u2019s vehemently anti-Russian newspaper Ukrainska Pravda.\nArakhamia represented Ukraine in the peace talks with Russia in T\u00fcrkiye in March 2022.\nAt those negotiations, Arakhamia admitted that Russia did indeed want peace, and neutrality \u201cwas the most important thing for them\u201d.\n\u201cThey [the Russians] were prepared to end the war if we agreed to \u2013 as Finland once did \u2013 neutrality, and committed that we would not join NATO\u201d, the top Ukrainian official said, according to a translation by Ukrainska Pravda.\n\u201cThey really hoped almost to the last moment that they would force us to sign such an agreement so that we would take neutrality\u201d, he added.\nBut Ukraine\u2019s Western sponsors were adamantly opposed to the peace proposal.\n\u201cWhen we returned from Istanbul, [British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said that we would not sign anything with them at all, and let\u2019s just fight\u201d, Arakhamia recalled.\n\nThese important testimonies from Germany\u2019s former leader and a top Ukrainian official both echo an admission made by Israel\u2019s former prime minister.\nIsrael\u2019s ex Prime Minister Naftali Bennett explained in a February 2023 interview how he had been a mediator between Ukraine and Russia the year before.\n\u201cAnything I did was coordinated down to the last detail with the US, Germany, and France\u201d, Bennett said. And \u201cthere was a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin\u201d.\nReferring to the NATO bloc\u2019s response to the peace proposal, the interviewer asked, \u201cSo they blocked it?\u201d\nBennett replied, \u201cBasically, yes. They blocked it, and I thought they\u2019re wrong\u201d.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US sends Israel 100+ weapons shipments. Most Americans oppose it \u2013 but Biden ignores them.. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Anwar Ibrahim, China, Donald Trump, Gaza, genocide, Hague, ICJ, International Court of Justice, Israel, Joe Biden, Malaysia, Michael Fakhri, Palestine, UN Security Council, United Nations, Wang Yi", "output": "The US has sent Israel more than 100 arms shipments since October 7, to bomb Gaza. Polls show 52% of North Americans oppose these weapons sales. Biden defies the Democratic Party\u2019s base, while allying with Trump and the Republicans.\n\nPolling shows that a slight majority of people in the United States oppose sending weapons to Israel to help it wage its brutal war on Gaza.\nHowever, despite the fact that only a quarter of North Americans support arming Israel, the Joe Biden administration has sent the country more than 100 arms shipments since October 7, the Washington Post reported.\nThe newspaper quoted a former senior Biden administration, who remarked, \u201cThat\u2019s an extraordinary number of sales over the course of a pretty short amount of time, which really strongly suggests that the Israeli campaign would not be sustainable without this level of U.S. support\u201d.\n\nA poll published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, DC found that 52% of North Americans want to end US weapons shipments to Israel.\nNearly two-thirds (62%) of those who voted for Joe Biden oppose arms sales Israel.\nAmong people who did not vote for president, 60% do not want to send weapons.\nThe only political group that supported giving weapons to Israel was Donald Trump voters: 55%.\nA mere 27% of all North Americans want to continue selling arms to Israel.\nIn other words, Biden and the Democratic Party leadership agree with Trump and the Republicans, and the DNC is defying its own base.\n\nThis was confirmed by another poll in January, which was commissioned by The Economist magazine. It found that 49% of young people in the United States (those between ages 18 and 29) and 49% of Democrats say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.\nOverall, slightly over one-third (35%) of North Americans say Israel is committing genocide.\nOn the other hand, 57% of Republicans do not think Israel was committing genocide (just 18% do think so).\nThese surveys demonstrate that the only people represented by the US government\u2019s staunchly pro-Israel policy are conservatives, Republicans, and Trump supporters.\nThe top United Nations expert on the right to food, Michael Fakhri, stated publicly that Israel is intentionally starving Palestinian civilians and carrying out genocide.\nMeanwhile, Washington has voted against four UN Security Council resolutions that called for peace in Gaza, unilaterally using its veto power three times to kill ceasefire proposals.\nUS kills 4th UN call for peace in Gaza, helping Israel violate Hague\u2019s genocide ruling\n\nThe UN\u2019s International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague ruled in January that there is sufficient evidence to investigate Israel on charges of genocide.\nA US federal court likewise found that Israel\u2019s scorched-earth war on Gaza \u201cplausibly\u201d amounts to genocide.\nThe ICJ ordered Israel to stop killing Palestinians and to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.\nThe leading Western human rights organization, Amnesty International, warned that \u201cIsrael has failed to take even the bare minimum steps to comply\u201d with the Hague\u2019s ruling, adding that \u201cIsrael has continued to disregard its obligation as the occupying power to ensure the basic needs of Palestinians in Gaza are met\u201d.\nChildren in Gaza are starving to death under a suffocating Israeli blockade.\nThe UN News agency warned that \u201cmore infants [in Gaza] may die from hunger\u201d.\nThe Associated Press reported in January that the \u201cIsraeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history\u201d.\nChina\u2019s Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated Beijing\u2019s calls for an immediate ceasefire and stated at a press conference, \u201cIt is a tragedy for humankind and a disgrace for civilization that today, in the 21st century, this humanitarian disaster cannot be stopped\u201d.\nMalaysia\u2019s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was even more direct in his criticism of Western hypocrisy.\n\u201cWhy, for example, is the West so vociferous, vehement and unequivocal in the condemnation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, while remaining utterly silent on the relentless bloodletting inflicted on the innocent men, women and children of Gaza?\u201d Anwar asked.\n\u201cUnfortunately, the gut-wrenching tragedy that continues to unfold in the Gaza Strip has laid bare the self-serving nature of much valued, the much vaunted rules-based order\u201d, the Malaysian leader added.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Atomic bombing of Japan was not necessary to end WWII. US gov\u2019t documents admit it. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Hiroshima, history, Japan, Nagasaki, nuclear weapons, Oppenheimer, Soviet Union, USSR, World War II", "output": "US government documents admit the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary to end WWII. Japan was on the verge of surrendering. The nuclear attack was the first strike in Washington\u2019s Cold War on the Soviet Union.\n\nIt is very common for Western governments and media outlets to tell the rest of the world to be afraid of North Korea and its nuclear weapons, or to fear the possibility that Iran could one day have nukes.\nBut the reality is that there is only one country in human history that has used nuclear weapons against a civilian population \u2013 and not once, but twice: the United States.\nOn the 6th and 9th of August, 1945, the US military dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 200,000 civilians were killed.\nToday, nearly 80 years later, many US government officials, journalists, and educators still claim that Washington had no choice but to nuke Japan, to force it to surrender and thus end World War Two. Some argue that this horrifying atrocity was in fact a noble act, that it saved even more lives that would have been lost in subsequent fighting.\nThis narrative, although widespread, is utterly false.\nUS government documents have admitted that Japan was already on the verge of surrendering in 1945, before the nuclear strikes. It was simply not necessary to use the atomic bomb.\n\nThe US Department of War (which was renamed the Department of Defense later in the 1940s) conducted an investigation, known as the Strategic Bombing Survey, analyzing its air strikes in World War II.\nPublished in 1946, the Strategic Bombing Survey stated very clearly, \u201cJapan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped\u201d:\n\u2026 it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.\nBased on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey\u2019s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.\nThe nuclear strikes on Japan represented a political decision taken by the United States, aimed squarely at the Soviet Union; it was the first strike in the Cold War.\nIn August 1945, the USSR was preparing to invade Japan to overthrow its ruling fascist regime, which had been allied with Nazi Germany \u2013 which the Soviet Red Army had also just defeated in the European theater of the war.\nWashington was concerned that, if the Soviets defeated Japanese fascism and liberated Tokyo like they had in Berlin, then Japan\u2019s post-fascist government could become an ally of the Soviet Union and could adopt a socialist government.\nThe atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore, were not so much aimed at the Japanese fascists as they were aimed at the Soviet communists.\n\nThis expressly political decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan was in fact opposed by several top US military officials.\nAs one of the most famous generals in US military history, Dwight Eisenhower led operations in the European theater of the war and oversaw the subsequent occupation of what was formerly Nazi Germany.\nEisenhower later became president of the United States, following Harry Truman, the US leader who had nuked Japan.\nEisenhower is renowned worldwide for his leadership in the fight against fascism in Europe. But what is little known is that he opposed the US nuclear attacks on Japan.\nAfter leaving the White House, Eisenhower published a memoir titled Mandate for Change. In this 1963 book, the former top general recalled an argument he had in July 1945 with then US Secretary of War Henry Stimson.\nStimson had notified him that Washington was planning to nuke Japan, and Eisenhower criticized the decision, stating that he had \u201cgrave misgivings\u201d and was convinced \u201cthat Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary\u201d.\nEisenhower wrote:\nThe incident took place in [July] 1945 when Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. \u2026 But the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.\nDuring his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of \u201cface\u201d. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reason I gave for my quick conclusions.\nThese \u201ccompletely unnecessary\u201d nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed some 200,000 civilians. But they had a political goal, aimed at the Soviet Union.\nThe political reasons behind the atomic bombing of Japan have been publicly acknowledged by the US Department of Energy\u2019s Office of History, which runs a website with educational information about the Manhattan Project, the scientific initiative that developed the bomb.\nThe US government website conceded that the Truman administration\u2019s decision to nuke Japan was politically motivated, writing:\nAfter President Harry S. Truman received word of the success of the Trinity test, his need for the help of the Soviet Union in the war against Japan was greatly diminished. The Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, had promised to join the war against Japan by August 15th. Truman and his advisors now were not sure they wanted this help. If use of the atomic bomb made victory possible without an invasion, then accepting Soviet help would only invite them into the discussions regarding the postwar fate of Japan.\n\u2026\nOther historians argue that Japan would have surrendered even without the use of the atomic bomb and that in fact Truman and his advisors used the bomb only in an effort to intimidate the Soviet Union.\n\u2026\nTruman hoped to avoid having to \u201cshare\u201d the administration of Japan with the Soviet Union.\nMainstream historians have acknowledged this fact as well.\nWard Wilson, a researcher at the establishment London-based think tank the British American Security Information Council, published an article in Washington\u2019s elite Foreign Policy magazine in 2013 titled \u201cThe Bomb Didn\u2019t Beat Japan. Stalin Did\u201d.\n\u201cAlthough the bombs did force an immediate end to the war, Japan\u2019s leaders had wanted to surrender anyway and likely would have done so before the American invasion planned for Nov. 1. Their use was, therefore, unnecessary\u201d, he wrote.\nWilson explained:\nIf the Japanese were not concerned with city bombing in general or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, what were they concerned with? The answer is simple: the Soviet Union.\n\u2026\nEven the most hard-line leaders in Japan\u2019s government knew that the war could not go on. The question was not whether to continue, but how to bring the war to a close under the best terms possible.\n\u2026\nOne way to gauge whether it was the bombing of Hiroshima or the invasion and declaration of war by the Soviet Union that caused Japan\u2019s surrender is to compare the way in which these two events affected the strategic situation. After Hiroshima was bombed on Aug. 6, both options were still alive. \u2026\u00a0Bombing Hiroshima did not foreclose either of Japan\u2019s strategic options.\nThe impact of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different, however. Once the Soviet Union had declared war, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator \u2014 he was now a belligerent. So the diplomatic option was wiped out by the Soviet move. The effect on the military situation was equally dramatic.\n\u2026\nWhen the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas.\n\u2026\nThe Soviet invasion invalidated the military\u2019s decisive battle strategy, just as it invalidated the diplomatic strategy. At a single stroke, all of Japan\u2019s options evaporated. The Soviet invasion was strategically decisive \u2014 it foreclosed both of Japan\u2019s options \u2014 while the bombing of Hiroshima (which foreclosed neither) was not.\n\u2026\nAttributing the end of the war to the atomic bomb served Japan\u2019s interests in multiple ways. But it also served U.S. interests. If the Bomb won the war, then the perception of U.S. military power would be enhanced, U.S. diplomatic influence in Asia and around the world would increase.\n\u2026\nIf, on the other hand, the Soviet entry into the war was what caused Japan to surrender, then the Soviets could claim that they were able to do in four days what the United States was unable to do in four years, and the perception of Soviet military power and Soviet diplomatic influence would be enhanced. And once the Cold War was underway, asserting that the Soviet entry had been the decisive factor would have been tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.\nThus, before World War II was even over, the United States launched a Cold War against its ostensible \u201cally\u201d, the Soviet Union \u2013 and against the potential spread of socialism anywhere around the world.\nUS spy agencies began recruiting former fascists and Nazi collaborators. US officials freed Class A Japanese war criminals from prison, some of whom went on to lead the government in Tokyo.\nMany of these figures were involved in founding the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has essentially run Japan as a one-party state since 1955 (excluding a mere five years of opposition rule).\nA textbook example of this was Nobusuke Kishi, a notorious war criminal who ran the Japanese empire\u2019s Manchukuo puppet regime and oversaw genocidal atrocities in collaboration with the Nazis. He was briefly imprisoned, but later pardoned by US authorities and, with Washington\u2019s support, rose to become prime minister of Japan in the 1950s.\nKishi\u2019s fascist-linked family still commands significant control over Japanese politics. His grandson, Shinzo Abe, was the longest-serving prime minister in the East Asian nation\u2019s history.\nUS-backed fascism in Japan: How Shinzo Abe whitewashed genocidal imperial crimes\n\nToday, it remains important to correct widespread myths about this history, because they have a profound impact on popular culture.\nIn July 2023, Hollywood released a blockbuster film, \u201cOppenheimer\u201d, by award-winning director Christopher Nolan. The movie was a huge commercial success, but was also criticized for its politics.\nThe film humanized the eponymous physicist who directed the Manhattan Project\u2019s Los Alamos laboratory, J. Robert Oppenheimer, commonly known as the \u201cfather of the atomic bomb\u201d.\nLater in life, Oppenheimer came to regret the role he played in developing the weapon, and he campaigned against nuclear proliferation.\nIronically, Oppenheimer also became a victim of the US government\u2019s McCarthyism, and was persecuted for his links to left-wing groups.\nBut while the movie was celebrated for depicting Oppenheimer\u2019s complex internal struggles, it was accused of whitewashing the brutality of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.\nThe Japanese civilians who lost their lives in these totally unnecessary attacks were eerily absent from the film.\nBy incessantly repeating the falsehood that nuking 200,000 people was the only way to get Japan to surrender, US officials have normalized this erasure of the civilian victims of its unnecessary, politically motivated war crimes.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CIA director admits media myth \u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 is not foreign attack. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CIA, Havana Syndrome, Robert Bartholomew, William Burns", "output": "CIA Director William Burns admitted that US spies and diplomats suffering from \u201cHavana Syndrome\u201d were not attacked by a foreign country like Russia, China, or Cuba, and there are normal medical explanations.\n\nTop Western corporate media outlets have spent years spreading a conspiracy theory called \u201cHavana Syndrome,\u201d claiming without any evidence that Russia, China, and/or Cuba were systematically attacking US spies and diplomats with futuristic microwave technology and directed-energy weapons.\nThe CIA itself admitted in January 2022 that there was absolutely no proof of this, and its scientific experts concluded that Havana Syndrome is not caused by attacks by foreign adversaries. They found normal medical explanations for the condition\u2019s very vague symptoms.\nCIA Director William Burns himself has now publicly acknowledged that Havana Syndrome is not a result of attacks, in comments first reported by Kawsachun News.\n\nIn an interview with NBC News Correspondent Andrea Mitchell at the Aspen Security Forum on July 20, the CIA director rejected the myriad mainstream media articles that blamed Havana Syndrome on Russia, China, and/or Cuba.\n\u201cWe don\u2019t assess that a foreign player or the Russians or anyone else is behind or is responsible for a sustained global campaign on the scale of what has been reported to harm U.S. personnel, with a weapon or some kind of external device,\u201d Burns said.\n\u201cIn the majority of incidents \u2013 and we\u2019ve, you know, investigated each one as thoroughly as we possibly can, and we\u2019re still working on a number of them \u2013 that, you know, you could find reasonable alternative explanations, whether it was other environmental factors, or preexisting medical conditions, or other kind of medical explanations,\u201d he added.\nGeopolitical Economy Report documented some of the blatantly false Havana Syndrome conspiracies spread by major corporate media outlets.\nCIA\u2019s \u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 conspiracy implodes: Here are media\u2019s worst fake news stories\n\nIn January, Geopolitical Economy Report interviewed Doctor Robert Bartholomew, a medical sociologist and leading expert on mass hysteria and social panics.\nIn 2020, Bartholomew published a book titled \u201cHavana Syndrome: Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story Behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria,\u201d which accurately predicted that the condition was psychological and was not caused by foreign attacks.\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Why does the US support Israel? A geopolitical analysis with economist Michael Hudson. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran, Israel, Michael Hudson, Middle East, oil, Saudi Arabia, West Asia", "output": "A geopolitical analysis of why the United States so strongly supports Israel: Economist Michael Hudson discusses with journalist Ben Norton.\n\nWhy does the United States so strongly support Israel? Geopolitical Economy Report editor Ben Norton interviewed economist Michael Hudson to explore the reasons why Israel is such an important part of U.S. foreign policy and Washington\u2019s attempt to dominate not only the region of the Middle East, but the entire world.\n\nIsrael is an extension of U.S. geopolitical power in one of the most critically important regions of the world.\nIn fact, it was current U.S. President Joe Biden, back in 1986, when he was a senator, who famously said that, if Israel didn\u2019t exist, the United States would have to invent it:\nIf we look at the Middle East, I think it\u2019s about time we stop, those of us who support, as most of us do, Israel in this body, for apologizing for our support for Israel.\nThere is no apology to be made. None. It is the best $3 billion investment we make.\nWere there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interest in the region; the United States would have to go out and invent an Israel.\nI am with my colleagues who are on the floor of the Foreign Relations Committee, and we worry at length about NATO; and we worry about the eastern flank of NATO, Greece and Turkey, and how important it is. They pale by comparison\u2026\nThey pale by comparison in terms of the benefit that accrues to the United States of America.\nIt goes without saying that the so-called Middle East, or a better term is West Asia, has some of the world\u2019s largest reserves of oil and gas, and the entire world\u2019s economic infrastructure relies heavily on fossil fuels.\nThe planet is gradually moving toward new energy sources, which is needed to fight climate change, but fossil fuels are still absolutely critical to the global economy. And Washington\u2019s goal has been to make sure that it can maintain steady prices in global oil and gas markets.\nBut this is about something much bigger than just oil and gas. The U.S. military\u2019s stated policy since the 1990s, since the end of the Cold War and the overthrow of the Soviet Union, is to try to maintain control over every region of the world.\nThis was stated clearly in 1992 in the so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine. The U.S. National Security Council wrote:\n[The United States\u2019] goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the reemergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies. These regions include Europe, East Asia, the Middle East/Persian Gulf, and Latin America. Consolidated, nondemocratic control of the resources of such a critical region could generate a significant threat to our security.\nThen, in 2004, the U.S. government published its National Military Strategy, in which Washington stressed that its goal was \u201cFull Spectrum Dominance \u2013 the ability to control any situation or defeat any adversary across the range of military operations\u201d.\nHistorically, when it came to West Asia, the U.S. relied on a so-called \u201ctwin pillar\u201d strategy. The west pillar was Saudi Arabia, and the east pillar was Iran.\nUntil the 1979 revolution, Iran was governed by a shah, a dictatorial monarch who was backed by the United States and served U.S. interests in the region.\nHowever, following the 1979 revolution, the U.S. lost one of the pillars of its twin pillar strategy, and Israel became increasingly important for the United States to maintain control over this crucially strategic region.\nMany of the world\u2019s top oil and gas producers are located in West Asia.\n\nFurthermore, some of the most important trading routes on Earth go through this region.\nIt would be difficult to overstate how important Egypt\u2019s Suez Canal is. It connects trade transiting from West Asia going into Europe, from the Red Sea into the Mediterranean.\nAround 30% of all of the world\u2019s shipping containers pass through the Suez Canal. That represents around 12% of the total global trade of all goods.\nThen, directly south of the Suez Canal, where the Red Sea enters the Arabian Sea, there is a crucial geostrategic choke point known as the Bab al-Mandab Strait, off the coast of Yemen. There, more than 6 million barrels of oil pass through every single day.\n\nHistorically, the United States has tried to dominate this region in order to maintain control of energy supplies and ensure these global trade routes that the globalized capitalist system is built on.\nAs U.S. influence in the region has weakened in an increasingly multipolar world, Israel has become even more important for the United States to try to exercise hegemony in the region.\nOne can see this clearly in the discussions over oil prices in OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, which has essentially been expanded to OPEC+ to include Russia.\nToday, Saudi Arabia and Washington\u2019s archenemy, Russia, play a key role in determining global oil prices.\nHistorically, Saudi Arabia was a loyal U.S. proxy, but Riyadh has increasingly pursued a more non-aligned foreign policy. And a very big reason for that is that China is now the biggest trading partner of many of the countries in the region.\nFor a decade, China has been the largest importer of oil and gas from the Persian Gulf, whereas U.S. oil imports peaked in 2005.\nDue to massive expansion of production and the shale boom in the 2010s, the United States established itself as one of the top three oil producers on Earth, reducing its need for crude from Persian Gulf.\nMeanwhile, through its global infrastructure project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China is moving the center of world trade back to Asia. And the \u201croad\u201d in BRI is a reference to the New Silk Road.\n\nCan you guess which region is crucial in the New Silk Road and the BRI? Of course, it\u2019s the Middle East \u2013 or, again, a better name is West Asia, and that term actually much better explains the geostrategic importance of this region, because it connects Asia to Europe.\nThis explains why the United States has been so desperate to try to challenge the Belt and Road with its own attempts to build new trade routes. In particular, the U.S. seeks to make a trade route going from India into the Persian Gulf, and then up through Israel.\nSo in all of these projects, Israel plays an important role, as an extension of U.S. imperial power in one of the most important regions of the world. That is why Biden said back in 1986 that if Israel didn\u2019t exist, the U.S. would have to invent it.\nThat is also why Biden repeated this in a White House meeting with Israel\u2019s President Isaac Herzog on October 27, 2022:\nWe\u2019re also going to discuss the ironclad commitment \u2013 and this is, I\u2019ll say this 5000 times in my career \u2013 the ironclad commitment the United States has to Israel, based on our principles, our ideas, our values; they\u2019re the same values.\nAnd I have often said, Mr.\u00a0President [Herzog], if there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one.\nAnd even as recently as October 18, 2023, Biden again repeated the same thing in a speech he made in Israel: \u201cI have long said, if Israel didn\u2019t exist, we\u2019d have to invent it\u201d.\nIn that speech in 2023, Biden traveled to Israel in order to support the country as it was carrying out a brutal bombing campaign in Gaza, and ethnically cleansing Palestinians as part of what legal experts around the world have referred to as a \u201ctextbook case of genocide\u201d.\nTop United Nations experts have warned that the Palestinian people are in danger of genocide by Israel.\nAnd the United States has steadfastly been supporting Israel, because, as Joe Biden said, Israel is an extension of U.S. imperial power in West Asia, and if it didn\u2019t exist, Washington would have to invent it.\n\nBelow follows a transcript of the interview that Geopolitical Economy Report editor Ben Norton conducted with economist Michael Hudson, author of many books, including Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.\nBEN NORTON: Michael, thanks for joining me today. We are speaking on November 9, and the latest death toll in the war in Gaza is that Israel has killed more than 10,000 Palestinians.\nThe United Nations has referred to Gaza as a \u201cgraveyard for children\u201d. More than 4,000 children have been killed. About 40% of the casualties are children.\nAnd the United States has continued to support Israel, not only diplomatically and politically, not only by, for instance, vetoing resolutions in the U.N. Security Council that call for a ceasefire, but furthermore, the U.S. has been sending billions of dollars to Israel.\nNot only the $3.8 billion that the U.S. always gives to Israel every year in military aid, but additionally, tens of billions of dollars more.\nSo I am wondering if you could provide your analysis of why you think the U.S. is investing so many resources in supporting Israel while it is clearly committing war crimes.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well, certainly it is supporting Israel, but it\u2019s not supporting Israel because this is an altruistic act.\nTo the United States, Israel is its landed aircraft carrier in the Near East. Israel is the takeoff point for America to control the Near East.\nAnd from the very time there was talk of creating an Israel, it was always that Israel was going to be an outpost, first of England, then of Russia, then of the United States in the Near East.\nAnd I can give you an anecdote. Netanyahu\u2019s main national security advisor for the last few years has been Uzi Arad. I worked at the Hudson Institute for about five years, 1972 to \u201876. And I worked very closely with Uzi there.\nUzi and I made two trips to Korea and Japan to talk about international finance. So we had a good chance to get to know each other. And on one trip, we stopped over from New York to San Francisco. And in San Francisco, there was a party or a gathering for people to meet us.\nAnd one of the U.S. generals came over and slapped Uzi on the back and said, you\u2019re our landed aircraft carrier over there. We love you.\nWell, I could see Uzi feeling, tightening up and getting very embarrassed and didn\u2019t really have anything to say. But the United States has always viewed Israel as just our foreign military base, not Israel.\nSo of course, it wants to secure this military base.\nBut when England first passed the act saying there should be in Israel the Balfour Declaration, it was because Britain wanted to control the Near East and its oil supplies.\nWhen Israel was formed in the United Nations, the first country to recognize it was Stalin and Russia, who thought that Russians were going to have a major influence over Israel.\nAnd then after that, of course, when Truman came in, the military immediately saw that America was replacing England as the chief of the Near East. And that was even after the fight, the overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran in 1953.\nSo from the United States, it\u2019s not Israel\u2019s wagging the American tail, just the opposite. You mentioned that America is supporting Israel. I don\u2019t think America is supporting Israel at all, nor do most Israelis, nor do most Democrats.\nAmerica is supporting Netanyahu. It\u2019s supporting Likud, not Israel. The majority of Israelis, certainly the non-religious Israelis, the core population of Israel since its founding, is opposing Likud and its policies.\nAnd so what really is happening is that to the United States, Netanyahu is the Israeli version of Zelensky in the Ukraine.\nAnd the advantage of having such an unpleasant, opportunist, and corrupt person as Netanyahu, who is under indictment for his bribery and corruption, is precisely that all of the attention now of the whole world that is so appalled by the attacks going on in Gaza, they\u2019re not blaming the United States.\nThey\u2019re blaming Israel. They\u2019re blaming Netanyahu and Israel for it, when it\u2019s the United States that has been sending plane load after plane load of bombs, of guns. There are 22,000 machine guns, automatic guns, that are banned for sale in the United States that America is sending for the settlers to use on the West Bank.\nSo there\u2019s a pretense of good cop, bad cop. You have Mr.\u00a0Blinken telling Netanyahu, when you bomb hospitals, make sure you do it according to the rules of war. And when you kill 100,000 Gaza children, make sure it\u2019s all legal and in the war. And when you talk about ethnic cleansing and driving a population out, make sure that it\u2019s all done legal.\nWell, of course, it\u2019s not the rules of war, and there are war crimes being committed, but the United States is pretending to tell Netanyahu and the Israeli government, use smaller bombs. Be more gentle when you bomb the children in the hospital, when actually this is all for show.\nThe United States is trying to say, well, we\u2019re only there to give help to an ally. The whole world has noticed that the U.S. now has two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean, right off the Near Eastern shore, and it has an atomic submarine near the Persian Gulf.\nWhy are they there? President Biden and Congress say we are not going to have American troops fighting Hamas in Gaza. We\u2019re not going to get involved. Well, if the troops are not going to get involved, why are they there?\nWell, we know what the American planes are doing. Yesterday, they bombed yet another airport and a fuel depot in Syria. They\u2019re bombing Syria. And it\u2019s very clear that they\u2019re there not to protect Israel, but to fight Iran.\nAgain and again, every American newspaper, when it talks about Hamas, it says Hamas is acting on behalf of Iran. When it talks about Hezbollah, and is there going to be an intervention from Lebanon against northern Israel, they say Hezbollah are the Iranian puppets.\nAny time they talk about any Near Eastern leader, it\u2019s really that all these leaders are puppets of Iran, just like in Ukraine and Central Europe, they talk about Hungary and other countries as all being puppets of Putin in Russia.\nTheir focus, really \u2013 America isn\u2019t trying to fight to protect Ukraine. It\u2019s fighting for the last Ukrainian to be exhausted in what they\u2019d hoped would be depleting Russia\u2019s military. Well, it hasn\u2019t worked.\nWell, the same thing in Israel. If the United States is pushing Israel and Netanyahu to escalate, escalate, escalate, to do something that at a point is going to lead Nasrallah to finally say, okay, we can\u2019t take it anymore. We\u2019re coming in and helping rescue the Gazians and especially rescue the West Bank, where just as much fighting is taking place. We\u2019re going to come in.\nAnd that\u2019s when the United States will then feel free to move not only against Lebanon, but all the way via Syria, Iraq, to Iran.\nWhat we\u2019re seeing in Gaza and the West Bank today is only the catalyst, the trigger for the fact that the neocons say we are never going to have a better chance than we have right now to conquer Iran.\nSo this is the point for the showdown, that if America is to control Near Eastern oil, and by controlling Near Eastern oil, by bringing it under the US control, it can control the energy imports of much of the world.\nAnd therefore, this gives American diplomats the power to cut off oil and gas and to sanction any country that tries to go multipolar, any country that tries to resist US unipolar control.\nBEN NORTON: Yeah, Michael, I think you\u2019re really hitting such an important point, which is how this is one of the most geostrategic regions of the world, especially when it comes to hydrocarbons.\nThe entire global economy is still very heavily reliant on oil and gas, and especially considering the US is not part of OPEC, and especially now considering that OPEC has really expanded essentially to OPEC+ and now includes Russia.\nThat means that Saudi Arabia and Russia essentially can help control global oil prices. And we\u2019ve seen this really, in fact, in the United States in the past few years with the rise of consumer price inflation.\nWe saw that the Biden administration was concerned about gas prices, in particular in the lead up to the midterm elections. And the Biden administration has been releasing a lot of oil from the strategic oil reserves of the United States.\nAnd we can also see these kinds of statements in particular when we go back and look at the Bush administration. There are numerous people involved in the Bush administration and the so-called \u201cWar on Terror\u201d who openly talked about how important it was for Washington to dominate this region.\nAnd I\u2019m really thinking of, in 2007, when the top US general and NATO commander Wesley Clark famously disclosed that the Bush administration had made plans to overthrow seven countries in five years. And those were countries in North Africa and West Asia.\nSpecifically, he revealed in an interview with journalist Amy Goodman on Democracy Now that Washington\u2019s plans were to overthrow the governments of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally Iran:\nWESLEY CLARK: About 10 days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me.\nAnd one of the generals called me and he said, \u201cSir, you\u2019ve got to come in and talk to me a second\u201d.\nI said, \u201cWell, you\u2019re too busy\u201d. He said, \u201cNo, no\u201d. He says, \u201cWe\u2019ve made the decision; we\u2019re going to war with Iraq\u201d.\nThis was on or about the 20th of September. I said, \u201cWe\u2019re going to war with Iraq, why?\u201d He said, \u201cI don\u2019t know\u201d. He said, \u201cI guess they don\u2019t know what else to do\u201d.\nSo I said, \u201cWell, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?\u201d He said, \u201cNo, no\u201d. He says, \u201cThere\u2019s nothing new that way. They\u2019ve just made the decision to go to war with Iraq\u201d.\nHe said, \u201cI guess it\u2019s like we don\u2019t know what to do about terrorists, but we\u2019ve got a good military and we can take down governments\u201d.\nAnd he said, \u201cI guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail\u201d.\nSo I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan.\nI said, \u201cAre we still going to war with Iraq?\u201d And he said, \u201cOh, it\u2019s worse than that\u201d.\nHe said, he reached over on his desk, he picked up a piece of paper, and he said, \u201cI just got this down from upstairs\u201d, meaning the Secretary of Defense\u2019s office today, and he said, \u201cThis is a memo that describes how we\u2019re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off Iran\u201d.\nI said, \u201cIs it classified?\u201d He said, \u201cYes, sir\u201d. I said, \u201cWell, don\u2019t show it to me\u201d.\nAnd I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, \u201cYou remember that?\u201d And he said, \u201cSorry, I didn\u2019t show you that memo! I didn\u2019t show it to you!\u201d\nAMY GOODMAN: I\u2019m sorry, what did you say his name was? (laughs)\nWESLEY CLARK: I\u2019m not going to give you his name. (laughs)\nAMY GOODMAN: So go through the countries again.\nWESLEY CLARK: Well, starting with Iraq, then Syria and Lebanon, then Libya, then Somalia and Sudan, and then back to Iran.\nBEN NORTON: And since then, we of course saw the U.S. war on Iraq. We of course saw the proxy war in Syria that still goes on in many ways. The U.S. is occupying one-third of Syrian territory, including the oil rich areas.\nAnd Trump himself, President Donald Trump, boasted in a 2020 interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham that he was leaving U.S. troops in Syria to take the oil:\nDONALD TRUMP: And then they say, \u201cHe left troops in Syria\u201d. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They\u2019re protecting the oil.\nLAURA INGRAHAM: We\u2019re not taking the oil. We\u2019re not taking it.\nDONALD TRUMP: Well, maybe we will, maybe we won\u2019t.\nLAURA INGRAHAM: They\u2019re protecting the facilities.\nDONALD TRUMP: I don\u2019t know, maybe we should take it. But we have the oil. Right now, the United States has the oil.\nSo they say, \u201cHe left troops in Syria\u201d. No, I got rid of all of them, other than we\u2019re protecting the oil; we have the oil.\nBEN NORTON: We also saw the U.S. impose sanctions on Lebanon, which contributed to hyperinflation and the destruction of the Lebanese economy. And that was largely because Hezbollah is part of the government, and the U.S. has been pressuring the Lebanese government to create a new government without Hezbollah.\nWe also saw, of course, that NATO destroyed the Libyan state in 2011. Somalia also has a failed state. And Sudan was divided in no small part thanks to the U.S. and Israel supporting South Sudan\u2019s separatist movement on ethno-religious lines, using religious sectarianism.\nSo if you look at the list of countries that Wesley Clark named in 2006, the seven countries in five years, again, that was Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally Iran; the only country that really has been able to maintain state stability, that has not been completely devastated by the United States, is Iran.\nOf course, it took longer than five years, but the U.S. was pretty successful. And of course Israel has played an important role in this U.S. goal to destabilize those governments in the region.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well, let\u2019s look and see how this was done. Remember after America was attacked on 9/11, there was a meeting at the White House, and everybody knew that the pilots were Saudi Arabians, and they knew that some of the pilots had been staying at the Saudi embassy in Los Angeles, I think, in the United States.\nBut after 9/11, there was a cabinet meeting, and Rumsfeld said to the people there, look and find any link you can get to Iraq, forget Saudi Arabia, no problem, Iraq is the key. And he directed them to find it, and 9/11 became the excuse for attacking not Saudi Arabia, but Iraq, and going right on with it.\nWell, you needed a similar crisis in Libya. They said in Libya, there was some, I think, fundamentalists in the suburbs of one of the [cities], not the capital city, that were causing problems. And so you have to \u201cprotect\u201d the innocent people from [Muammar Gadhafi], and you go in and grab all of their gold reserves, all of their money, and you take over the oil on behalf of France\u2019s oil monopoly.\nWell, this is the role of the fighting in Gaza today. Netanyahu\u2019s fight against Gaza is being used as the excuse for America moving its warships there, its submarines, and bombing, along with Israel, the Syrian airport so that the Syrians are not able to move weapons or any kind of military support either to Lebanon, to the west, or Iran, to the east.\nSo it\u2019s obvious that all of what we\u2019re seeing is somehow to soften up public opinion for the fact that, well, just like we had to invade Iraq because of 9/11, we have to now finally fight and take out the oil refineries of Iran and their scientific institutes and any laboratories where they may be doing atomic research.\nAnd Iran realizes this. Last week, the Iranian press TV said that their defense minister says that if there\u2019s any attack on Iran, whether by Israel or by anyone else, the U.S. and its foreign bases are going to be hit hard.\nIran, Russia, China have all looked at the Gaza situation not as if it\u2019s an Israeli action, but as if it\u2019s the U.S. action. They all see exactly that it\u2019s all about Iran, and the American press only says when it talks about Gaza or Hamas or Hezbollah or any other group, it\u2019s always the Iranian tool so-and-so.\nThey\u2019re demonizing Iran in the same way that the neocons have demonized Russia to prepare for America declaring an undeclared war against Iran. And they may even declare war.\nLast night, on [November] 8, the Republicans had their presidential debate without Trump, and Nikki Haley said, you know, we\u2019ve got to fight Iran, we\u2019ve got to conquer it. And DeSantis of Florida said, yes, kill them all. He didn\u2019t say who the them was. Was it Hamas? Was it everybody who lives in Gaza? Was it all of the Arabs in the Middle East?\nAnd we\u2019re really seeing something very much like the Crusades here. It\u2019s a real fight for who is going to control energy, because, again, the key, if you can control the world\u2019s flow of energy, you can do to the whole world what the United States did to Germany last year by blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines.\nYou can grind its industry to a halt, its chemical industry, its steelmaking industry, any of its energy-intensive industries, if countries do not agree to U.S. unipolar control. That\u2019s why it wants to control these areas.\nWell, the wildcard here is Saudi Arabia. Well, in two days, I think you\u2019re going to have the Iranian president visit Saudi Arabia, and we\u2019re going to see what\u2019s going to happen.\nBut Saudi Arabia finds that while its role is key, Saudi Arabia could simply say we\u2019re not going to export more oil until America pulls out of the Near East. But then all of Saudi Arabia\u2019s monetary savings are invested in the U.S.\nThe United States is holding the world hostage, not only by controlling its oil and gas and energy, but by controlling its finance. It\u2019s like you have your money in a mafia bank or in Bankman-Fried\u2019s cryptocurrency mutual fund. They can do whatever they want with it.\nSo I think what would happen is it\u2019s very unlikely that Saudi Arabia is ostensibly going to visibly break with the United States because the U.S. would hold it hostage.\nBut I think what it would do would be what has been talked about ever since the 1960s, when similar problems came with Iran. And Iran\u2019s ace in the hole has always been the ability to sink a ship in the Hormuz Strait, where the oil goes through a very narrow little strait, where if you sink a tanker there or a warship, it\u2019s going to block all of the sea trade with Saudi Arabia.\nAnd that would certainly, number one, take Saudi Arabia off the hook for saying, we can\u2019t help it. Of course, we\u2019d love to export oil, but we can\u2019t because the shipping lanes are all blocked because you, America, attacked Iran and they defended themselves by sinking the ship. So you can\u2019t send your aircraft carriers and submarines to attack Iran. That\u2019s very understandable.\nBut the United States is causing a world crisis.\nWell, obviously, the United States knows that that\u2019s going to happen because it\u2019s been discussed literally for 50 years. Since I was at the Hudson Institute working on national security, it was being discussed what to do when Iran sinks the ship in the Strait of Hormuz.\nWell, the United States figures, okay, oil prices are going to go up. And if Iran fights back in this way, we then will have the power to do to the world what we did to Germany in 2022 when we cut off its oil. But in this case, we don\u2019t take the blame.\nWe\u2019ll say, oh, we didn\u2019t block the Saudi and Arab oil trade. It was that Iran that blocked it, and that\u2019s why we\u2019re going to bomb Iran, assuming that they can.\nSo that, I think, is the contingency plan. And just as America had a contingency plan just like that, waiting for an opportunity, like 9-11, they needed a trigger, and Netanyahu has provided the trigger. And that\u2019s why the United States has been backing Netanyahu.\nAnd of course, Iran says, well, we have the ability to really wipe out Israel. And in Congress, General Miley and the others have all said, well, we know that Iran could wipe out Israel. That\u2019s why we have to attack Iran.\nBut in attacking Iran, you send its missiles off to Israel, and again, Israel will end up being the Near Eastern equivalent of Ukraine. And that sort of is the plan, and I think a lot of Israelis see this, and they\u2019re the ones who are worried and are opposing Netanyahu and trying to prevent him from triggering a whole set of military exchanges that Israel won\u2019t be able to resist.\nAnd even though Iran, I\u2019m sure they can bomb some places in Iran, but now that you have Russia, China, all supporting Iran through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, you\u2019re having the lines being drawn very, very clearly.\nSo it seems that this scenario is inevitable because Mearsheimer pointed out that it\u2019s impossible to have a negotiated solution or settlement between Israel and Palestine. He said you can\u2019t have a two-state solution because the Palestinian state is going to be like an Indian reservation in America, all sort of cut apart and isolated, not really a state.\nAnd you can\u2019t have a single state because a single state is a theocratic state. It\u2019s like, again, it\u2019s like the United States in the Wild West in the 19th century.\nAnd I think the way to put it in perspective is to realize that what we\u2019re seeing today in the attempt to split the world is very much like, excuse me, very much like what happened in the 12th and 13th century with the Crusades.\nBEN NORTON: Yeah, Michael, you raise a lot of very important points there. And I know you want to talk further about the Crusades and the historical analogy. And I think you made a really good point about the US empire standing in as the new Crusaders.\nBut before you move away from the more contemporary political discussion, I wanted to highlight two very important points that you stressed.\nOne is not only the hydrocarbon reserves in the Middle East, which are so important for the world economy and in the US attempt to maintain control over oil and gas supplies and in particular energy costs.\nThere\u2019s also an election coming up in 2024, and the US is concerned about gas prices and inflation. And of course, energy inputs are a key factor in inflation.\nBut furthermore, this region is strategic because of trade routes. Of course, the Suez Canal, according to looking at data here from the World Economic Forum, 30% of the world\u2019s shipping container volume transits through the Suez Canal and 12% of all global trade consists of goods that pass through the Suez Canal.\nAnd we saw this in 2021 when there was this big media scandal when a US ship got stuck in the Suez Canal. And this, of course, also came at the time when the world was coming out of the pandemic and there were all these supply chain shocks.\nSo we can see how sensitive the global economy is to even small issues in the global supply chain. And when you talk about shipping routes, we\u2019re not only talking about the Suez Canal, we\u2019re also talking about in the Red Sea toward the south.\nYou also have the Bab al-Mandab. This is a very important strait off of the coast of Yemen. And in the war in Yemen, starting in 2014 and 2015, a lot of the fighting back by the U.S. in this war was in the south, off of the Bab al-Mandab, because this is such an important strait where every single day millions of barrels of oil flow through this strait.\nAnd this also reminded me, Michael, you were talking about the historical context. And if you go back to 1956, Israel invaded Egypt. And why was that? Israel invaded Egypt because Egypt\u2019s leftist president, Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal.\nAnd at that moment, what was very interesting is that the U.K. and France were strongly supporting Israel in this war against Egypt because they were concerned also about Nasser\u2019s nationalization of the Suez. At that moment, the U.S. wasn\u2019t as deeply pro-Israel as it later became.\nOf course, in 1967, in the Six-Day War, Israel attacked the neighboring Arab states and occupied part of Egypt, the Sinai, and then also what became Gaza. Israel occupied the Golan Heights of Syria, which remain illegally occupied Syrian territory today. And Israel occupied the West Bank, what we call the West Bank today.\nBut another important detail about that is, after the 1967 war, Israel increasingly became much more of a U.S. ally.\nWhereas the first generation of Israeli leaders were much more, many of them were European, whereas the later generations of Israelis have been really American.\nI mean, someone like Netanyahu, he is an American. Netanyahu was raised in the United States. He went to high school in Philadelphia. He went to high school with Reggie Jackson, by the way. He spent his most formative years in the U.S. He went to college at MIT.\nHe then worked in Boston, and he worked with many Republicans that he became friends with, like Mitt Romney, like Donald Trump. And then when he went back to Israel, he was sent to the U.S. to be a diplomat in the United States.\nSo the new generation of Israeli leaders is much more American, essentially.\nAnd another detail you mentioned about Iran is so important, because, up until the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Iran of the Shah, the U.S.-backed monarchy, was such an important ally in the region.\nAnd in fact, Saudi Arabia and Iran were famously referred to as the twin pillars. Saudi Arabia was the west pillar and Iran was the east pillar. The U.S. used to try to dominate this region, of course, with the support of Israel as well.\nWell, with the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the U.S. lost that crucial east pillar, which meant that Israel became even more important from the perspective of the U.S. imperialism to maintain control over this region.\nSo I just wanted to mention those details of the strategic importance of the trade routes, like the Bab al-Mandab Strait, like the Suez Canal, and also the fact that the Iranian Revolution fundamentally shifted U.S. policy in the region and made Israel even more important from the perspective of U.S. imperialism.\nAnd now we\u2019re in a moment where, as you mentioned, the U.S. is even losing control over Saudi Arabia. So it\u2019s losing both of its pillars, which is, again, why Washington is so desperate in propping up Israel, despite the fact that the entire region is completely against these settler-colonialist policies and these ethnic cleansing policies that Israel is carrying out right now, as the entire world is watching.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well, to U.S. diplomats, what you call the support of Israel is really the support of the U.S.\u2019 ability to militarily control the rest of the Near East.\nIt\u2019s all about oil. America is not giving all this money to Israel because it loves Israel, but because Israel is the military base from which the United States can attack Syria, Iraq, and Iran and Lebanon. So it\u2019s a military base.\nAnd of course, it can frame this in terms of pro-Israeli, pro-Jewish policy, but this is only for the public relations view of the State Department.\nIf American strategy is based on energy in the Near East, then Israel is only a means to this end. It\u2019s not the end itself. And that\u2019s why the United States needed to have an aggressive Israeli government.\nYou can look at Netanyahu as being, in a way, a U.S. puppet, very much like Zelensky. Their positions are identical in their reliance on the United States against the majority of their own people.\nSo you keep talking about America\u2019s support of Israel. It\u2019s not supporting Israel at all. It rejects the majority of Israelis. It supports the Israeli military, not the Israeli society or the culture, have nothing to do with Judaism at all. This is pure military politics, and that\u2019s how I\u2019ve always heard it discussed among the military and national security people.\nSo you want to be careful not to be taken in by the cover story.\nThere\u2019s one other means of control, I think, that we should mention, and that is, you\u2019ve had in the last month or so all sorts of statements by the United States that as soon as Russia conquers the Ukraine and solidifies its control, it\u2019s going to bring up claims against war crimes, crimes against humanity, against Russia.\nAmerica is trying to use the crooked court system. The International Criminal Court is a branch of the Pentagon in the State Department, and it\u2019s the kangaroo court. The idea is that somehow the kangaroo court can give America judgments against Putin as they\u2019ve declared him to be arrested anywhere he goes of people who respect the kangaroo court, and they can have all sorts of sanctions against Russian property elsewhere.\nWell, look at how on earth are they going to justify these claims of war crimes against Russia if in the view of what\u2019s happening between Israel and Gaza right now, and in fact, the arms and the bombs that are being used against Gaza are U.S. bombs, U.S. arms. The U.S. is fueling it all.\nHow on earth can the United States not accuse itself of war crimes on the basis of what it\u2019s trying to accuse Russia of? Part of the splitting of the world that you\u2019re going to see, whether or not the United States can actually bomb Iran, is going to be a whole setup of parallel courts and an isolation, not only of the United States, but as Europe is coming in.\nBasically, there\u2019s a fight for who is going to control the world right now, and that\u2019s why I mentioned the Crusades.\nI want to say I\u2019ve been writing a history of the evolution of financial policy. I\u2019ve done two volumes already, one on the Bronze Age Near East, \u2026and forgive them their debts, and the other on classical antiquity, The Collapse of Antiquity. I\u2019m now working on the third volume, which covers the Crusades to World War I.\nIt\u2019s really all about an attempt by Rome, that had hardly any economic power at all, to take over all of the five Christian bishoprics that were made. Constantinople was really the new Rome. That was the head of Orthodox Christianity.\nThe emperor of Constantinople was really the emperor over the whole Christian world. It was followed by Antioch, Alexandria, and finally Jerusalem.\nThe Crusades really began, before they attacked the Near East it began in the 11th century. And Rome was finally being attacked by the Norman armies that were coming in and grabbing parts of France and had moved into Italy.\nSo the papacy made a deal with the Norman warlords, and it said, \u201cWe will give you the divine right to rule, we will recognize you as the Christian king, and we will excommunicate all of your enemies, but you have to pledge feudal fealty, loyalty to us, and you have to let us appoint your bishops and control the churches, which control most of your land, and you have to pay us tribute\u201d.\nThe papacy all during the 10th century was controlled by a small group of aristocratic families around Rome that treated the papacy just as they treat the local political mayor of a city or the local administrators.\nThe church was just sort of run by a family. It had nothing to do with Christian religion at all. It was just, this is the church property, and one of our relatives, we\u2019re always going to have as the pope.\nWell, the popes didn\u2019t have any troops in the late 11th century, and so they got the troops by making a deal with the Normans, and they decided, okay, we\u2019re going to have an ideal, we\u2019re going to mount the Crusades, and we\u2019re going to rescue Jerusalem from the \u201cinfidels\u201d, the Muslims.\nWell, the problem is that Jerusalem didn\u2019t need a rescue, because all throughout the medieval world, throughout Islam, no matter what the religion of the governing classes was, there was a religious tolerance, and that continued for hundreds of years under the Ottoman Empire.\nThere was only one group that was intolerant, and that was the Romans, that said, \u201cWe have to control all of Christianity, in order to prevent these aristocratic Italian families from taking over again\u201d.\nAnd so they mounted the Crusades, nominally against Jerusalem, but they ended up sacking Constantinople, and two centuries later, by 1291, the Christians lost in Acre.\nThe whole Crusade against the Near East failed.\nI think you can see the parallel that I\u2019m going to be drawing.\nSo most of the Crusades were not fought against Islam, because Islam was too strong.\nThe Crusades were fought against other Christians. And the fight of Roman Christianity was against the original Christianity for itself, as it existed over the last 10 centuries.\nWell, you\u2019re having something like that today. Just as Rome appointed the Normans as feudal rulers, William the Conqueror in Sicily, the U.S. appoints Zelensky, supports Netanyahu, supports client oligarchs in Russia, supports Latin American dictators.\nSo you have a U.S. view of the world that is not only unipolar, but in order to have unipolar U.S. control of the world, the U.S. has to be in charge of treating any foreign state, any foreign president as a feudal serf, basically, that they owe feudal loyalty to the United States\u2019 sponsors.\nAnd just as you had the Inquisition formed in the 12th century, really, to enforce this obedience to Rome as opposed to independent southern France, and independent Italy, and Arab science in Spain, you have today the U.S. using the National Endowment for Democracy, and all of the organizations controlled by Victoria Nuland with her cookies, to support things.\nWell, you\u2019re having the whole strategy of the Roman takeover, how it was going to take over other countries, how it was going to prevent other countries from becoming independent of Rome, is almost sentence for sentence what you get in American national security reports, how to control other countries. And that\u2019s really the fight that we\u2019re seeing there.\nAnd against that, you\u2019re finding the fight of other countries, the global majority. But in this case, whereas Constantinople was looted in 1204 and sort of destroyed by the Fourth Crusade, Russia, and China, and Iran and the other countries have not been looted.\nThe only thing that the United States can do right now is it\u2019s setting up this military plan to attack Iran. What is the role going to be of, for instance, India? The attack on Iran and on oil is at the same time an attack on the Chinese-led Belt and Road Initiative, the whole attempt to control transportation, not only oil, but transportation by the global majority for each other\u2019s mutual growth, mutual gain, mutual trade.\nAnd the United States is trying to have an alternative plan for all of this that would run from India, essentially largely through Israel, and making a cut right across Gaza, which is one of the big problems that are being discussed now, to the Israeli control of Gaza, which would control its offshore oil and gas.\nSo you\u2019re having the wild cards in the U.S. plan, India, Saudi Arabia, what will it do, and Turkey, because Turkey also has an interest in this oil and gas. And if the Islamic countries decide that they\u2019re really under attack, and this attack by the Christian West against Islam is really a fight to the death, then Turkey will join with Saudi Arabia and with all of the other countries, the Shiites, and the Sunnis, and the Alawites will join together and say, what we have in common is the Islamic religion.\nThat is really going to be essentially the extension of America\u2019s fight against China and Russia.\nSo what we\u2019re seeing, I\u2019m going to try to summarize now, what we\u2019re really seeing is having fought Russia to the last Ukrainian, and threatening to fight Iran to the last Israeli. The United States is trying to send arms to Taiwan to say, wouldn\u2019t you like to fight to the last Taiwanese against China? And that\u2019s really the U.S. strategy all over the world.\nIt\u2019s trying to fuel other countries to fight wars for its own control. That\u2019s how Rome used the Norman armies to conquer southern Italy, England, and Yugoslavia.\nIsrael, and what is in the news over the whole attacks in Gaza, is only the opening stage, the trigger for this war, just as the shooting in Sarajevo started World War I in Serbia started everything.\nBEN NORTON: Well, you raised so many interesting points, Michael, and I think your analysis is very fresh and unique and very insightful. I wish we had more time to go into some of these topics, but we\u2019ve already been speaking for about an hour.\nSo I think we\u2019re going to wrap up here. But I do want to thank you, Michael, for joining us. And of course, we\u2019ll be back very soon for more analysis.\nFor people who are interested, I actually have interviewed Michael. I did an interview recently on classical antiquity, and Rome and Greece. And he has also written about the history of debt up through the creation of Christianity in his book And Forgive Them Their Debts. And now he is working on this political, economic, materialist history of the Crusades.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: I didn\u2019t realize when I began the book in the 1980s, drafting it, I didn\u2019t realize how critical the Roman papacy was, and how similar it was to the State Department, and CIA, and the blob today in its plans for world conquest.\nBEN NORTON: Well, I\u2019m sure in the future we will have many opportunities to discuss that research. Of course, for people who want to get more of Michael\u2019s very important analysis, you should check out the show that he co-hosts here with friend of the show, Radhika Desai, and that is Geopolitical Economy Hour.\nIf you go to our website, geopoliticaleconomy.com, or if you go to our YouTube channel, you can find a playlist with all of the different episodes of Geopolitical Economy Hour. So thanks again, Michael, and we\u2019ll definitely have you back very soon.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: It\u2019s good to be here. Thank you.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Chinese balloon was not spying, US gov\u2019t admits months after manufactured crisis. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "balloons, China, Jens Stoltenberg, Mike Gallagher, NATO, Pentagon", "output": "The Pentagon admitted that a Chinese balloon that crossed into US territory in February was not spying; it was likely blown off course by wind. But Washington and the media milked this manufactured scandal for new cold war propaganda.\n\nThe US government has admitted that severe accusations it made against China were just a lot of hot air.\nThe highest-ranking official in the US military has clarified that a Chinese balloon that crossed into US territory in February 2023 was not spying; it was likely blown off course by wind.\nCBS News published an interview this September with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, who stated, \u201cThe intelligence community, their assessment \u2013 and it\u2019s a high-confidence assessment \u2013 [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon\u201d.\nMilley conceded that the large rubber object was probably pushed off track by powerful wind.\n\nThis report, released seven months after the incident, has confirmed exactly what the Chinese government stated at the time: its balloon was not spying on the United States, and only accidentally entered its airspace.\nThe US government has still insisted that the Chinese balloon had technology that could have potentially been used to gather information \u2013 although it has not clarified if that technology was focused specifically on collecting data on weather patterns, which is what Beijing said it was doing.\nRegardless, in another massive blow to Washington\u2019s narrative, CBS News acknowledged in its report that, \u201cAfter the Navy raised the wreckage from the bottom of the Atlantic, technical experts discovered the balloon\u2019s sensors had never been activated while over the Continental United States\u201c.\nSo even if the Chinese balloon had the technological capacity to spy on the United States, as Washington claims, the sensor was never turned on.\n\nThis is not the first time a senior US official has admitted that the Chinese balloon was not spying.\nIn June, Pentagon press secretary Brigadier General Pat Ryder made very similar comments.\n\u201cWe\u2019re aware that [the balloon] had intelligence collection capabilities, but it was our \u2014 and it has been our \u2014 assessment now that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States\u201d, the Defense Department spokesman said, in remarks quoted by ABC News.\nThese statements confirm that Geopolitical Economy Report was accurate in its analysis in February, which synthesized existing evidence at the time and concluded that the Chinese balloon had likely been blown off course by unexpected weather.\nUS admits weather pushed Chinese balloon off course, US shot down hobbyists\u2019 $12 balloon in $2M missile attack\n\nDespite these bombshells proving the entire scandal to be manufactured, Washington and the US media turned this weather accident into a diplomatic crisis, milking the incident to demonize China and depict it as a grave \u201cthreat\u201d.\nThe nationwide freakout was reminiscent of crude propaganda from the first cold war, when the US government produced \u201cDuck and Cover\u201d films instructing students to hide under their desks in the case of a sudden Soviet nuclear strike, or when Hollywood churned out blockbuster movies imploring North Americans to suspect their neighbors of being dastardly Russian communist spies.\nToday, the United States is waging a new, second cold war. Moscow is still a target, but this time Washington\u2019s main adversary is Beijing.\nAs CNN put it bluntly in February, \u201cthe Chinese balloon crisis could be a defining moment in the new Cold War\u201d.\nDuring the manufactured scandal, the US State Department claimed the \u201chigh altitude balloon\u2019s equipment was clearly for intelligence surveillance\u201d, and was \u201ccapable of conducting signals intelligence collection operations\u201d.\nThe Pentagon referred to the rubber object as a \u201cmaneuverable Chinese surveillance balloon\u201d that \u201cviolated U.S. airspace and international law, which is unacceptable\u201d.\nThe White House accused Beijing of operating a \u201cglobal\u201d espionage program, stating, \u201cWe know that these [Chinese] surveillance balloons have crossed over dozens of countries on multiple continents around the world, including some of our closest allies and partners\u201d.\nHawkish US politicians, like Republican Congressman Mike Gallagher, the chair of the House of Representatives\u2019 Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, declared that the large rubber object \u201cis a threat right here at home. It is a threat to American sovereignty, and it is a threat to the Midwest\u201d.\nFox News brought on air neoconservative activists from think tanks funded by the weapons industry, who argued that Beijing was using the balloon to spy on the US to \u201cprepare the battlefield\u201d for war.\nNATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg even claimed the rubber object was a threat to other Western governments.\nWhile standing next to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Stoltenberg insisted, \u201cThe balloon over the United States confirms a pattern of Chinese behavior where we see that China has invested heavily in new capabilities, including different types of surveillance and intelligence platforms\u2026 We need to be aware of the constant risk of Chinese intelligence and step up what we do to protect ourselves and react in a prudent and responsible way\u201d.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Debt ceiling hypocrisy: US boosts military budget while restricting food stamps for poor. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Argentina, Dick Cheney, dollar, food stamps, imperialism, Japan, Joe Biden, Kevin McCarthy, military, neoliberalism, SNAP, welfare", "output": "US politicians from both parties agree: the deficit doesn\u2019t matter. In their bipartisan deal to raise the debt ceiling, Biden and Republicans are boosting military spending to $886 billion while making it harder for poor people to receive food stamps and welfare.\n\nThe US government reached its debt limit of $31.4 trillion in early 2023. This unleashed a deluge of debate as to whether or not the Treasury was going to default, and how a deeply divided Congress could come to an agreement to raise the debt ceiling.\nThe constant chatter in the mainstream corporate media overlooked the real controversy, however. The reality is that practically no one in Washington truly cares about the US national debt.\nIn fact, in a bipartisan deal negotiated in late May to raise the debt ceiling, Democratic President Joe Biden and Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy agreed not to cut but rather to increase the already massive military budget from roughly $800 billion to $886 billion.\nAt the same time, the Biden-McCarthy deal makes it more difficult for poor people in the United States to get access to food stamps and welfare.\n\nThe US debt ceiling is a manufactured problem. It is a political football that is used every few years to justify cutting government funding for the very few social programs that do exist.\nUS public debt is denominated in dollars. It is money that the government could print and pay off.\nDoing so would certainly fuel inflation. (And given the status of the dollar as the global reserve currency, that inflation would be exported to other countries as well.) But the US government has a precedent for doing so.\nThe US central bank, the Federal Reserve, effectively printed $8 trillion from 2008 until 2022, over 14 years of quantitative easing, to inflate an enormous asset bubble that made the rich even richer.\n\nUnlike the United States, however, many foreign countries, especially those in the Global South, cannot simply print money to pay off their debts. Their monetary sovereignty is heavily restricted.\nThe government debt of many Global South nations is denominated in foreign currencies, primarily the US dollar. Yet they can\u2019t print US dollars; only Washington can do so.\nThis has left countries like Argentina trapped in odious debt, denominated largely in US dollars, that is essentially unpayable, fueling an inflation crisis \u2013 and giving rise to fascistic, far-right demagogues.\nMany countries hold national debt denominated in dollars because the greenback is the global reserve currency.\nSo the United States can maintain a gargantuan trade deficit with the world, sucking in the surplus produced by foreign workers, racking up trillions in debt, but its money doesn\u2019t significantly devalue because there is so much international demand for it. And wealthy elites across the planet hold much of their wealth in dollar-denominated assets \u2013 like the Treasury securities that make up the national debt.\nThis is the exorbitant privilege of the US dollar.\nIt is clear that virtually no one in Washington actually believes that the debt ceiling is important, because the vast majority of the members of both hegemonic political parties happily vote every year to keep increasing the military budget \u2013 which is on the path to reach $1 trillion by 2030.\nBack in the 2000s, when Republican George W. Bush was president, his neoconservative Vice President Dick Cheney boasted that \u201cdeficits don\u2019t matter\u201d.\nCheney approvingly cited the previous Republican president from the 1980s, lecturing Bush\u2019s Treasury Secretary Paul O\u2019Neill:\u00a0\u201cYou know, Paul, [Ronald] Reagan proved deficits don\u2019t matter\u201c.\nThe Bush administration further proved this by spending trillions of dollars to wage the so-called \u201cwar on terror\u201d. Washington invaded Afghanistan, then invaded Iraq, while expanding the US military\u2019s footprint all around the world.\nWhere did the trillions of dollars needed to wage those wars come from? The government just spent it. It didn\u2019t care about the debt ceiling, because Washington can create dollars \u2013 something no other country in the world can do.\nThe deal between President Biden and House Speaker McCarthy reflects the same logic shared by Cheney.\nDebt ceiling bill reflects the bipartisan consensus in Washington: cut social spending to further enrich military contractors pic.twitter.com/l1RSjXBxDf\n\u2014 Stephen Semler (@stephensemler) June 1, 2023\n\nWhile Republicans on the floor of the Congress demanded that Washington impose austerity measures, they eagerly joined Democrats in increasing the military budget from around $800 billion in 2023 to $886 billion in 2024.\n(Many major media outlets reported that the agreement boosted US military spending to $885 billion, but the precise number is $886.3 billion.)\nBloomberg reported clearly on this hypocrisy:\nRepublican lawmakers who oppose the debt-ceiling bill argue it doesn\u2019t do enough to cut spending or reduce the deficit. Yet when defense is concerned, many argue the government ought to be spending more, not less.\nUnder the deal passed by the House on Wednesday evening [May 31] and sent to the Senate, defense spending would get the 3.3% increase the president proposed for the coming year \u2014 even as other programs are cut.\n\u2026\nThe administration\u2019s $886.3 billion national security budget request for fiscal 2024 provides the biggest-ever defense spending increase and also one of the largest peacetime budgets when adjusted for inflation.\nThe US would be spending more on defense than the next 10 nations combined.\nHowever, even these staggering official figures are an underestimate.\n\nThe Congressional Budget Office divides US discretionary spending between \u201cdefense\u201d and \u201cnondefense\u201d.\nIn 2023, \u201cdefense\u201d expenditure was reported as roughly $800 billion, with \u201cnondefense\u201d as $936 billion. But those figures are misleading, because the so-called nondefense spending included $131 billion of benefits for military veterans.\nSo if you subtract veterans\u2019 benefits from nondefense and add it to defense, military expenditure was at least $931 billion, or 54.5% of 2023 discretionary spending.\nThis is just the official discretionary spending on paper. In reality, the US military frequently spends much more. The Pentagon has failed every single audit it has ever tried,\u00a0and there are tens of trillions of dollars of spending that is completely unaccounted for.\nThe point is that the approximately $800 billion military budget in 2023 was already an underestimate, which suggests that the new $886.3 billion that Biden and McCarthy agreed on for 2024 is likely a lowball as well.\nMeanwhile, US military spending is off the charts, when compared to other countries.\n\nIn 2022, US military expenditure made up 39% of global spending. Washington spent 10 times more on its military than Russia, and three times more than China (despite the fact that China has four times the US population).\nUS military spending in 2022 was actually estimated at $877 billion (significantly higher than the official discretionary budget). That was larger than the next 10 biggest military spenders combined.\nSo Washington spent more on its military than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, and Ukraine, all together. And many of those countries are US allies.\nUS military spending was higher than the next 10 countries combined in 2022. Five years ago, it was higher than only the next nine. How much safer do y\u2019all feelhttps://t.co/VIq8pwChRI pic.twitter.com/FX47O8Uego\n\u2014 Stephen Semler (@stephensemler) April 29, 2023\n\nIn short, this bipartisan agreement in which the Democratic president and the Republican speaker of the House agreed to increase military spending to (a minimum of) $886 billion makes it very clear that both corporate parties in the United States recognize that the national debt is not a real problem. They agree with Dick Cheney: \u201cReagan proved deficits don\u2019t matter\u201d.\nWhile increasing the military budget, the Biden-McCarthy deal simultaneously makes it more difficult for poor people in the United States to receive food stamps and welfare.\nThe agreement states that people aged 54 and under have to work at least 80 hours a month in order to receive food stamps.\nThis deal could potentially push hundreds of thousands of people in the United States off of receiving food stamps and welfare.\nThis is despite the fact that these social support programs have already been significantly slashed.\nFormer President Bill Clinton campaigned on the promise that he would \u201cend welfare as we know it\u201d, and he basically did so.\nDonald Trump also tried to significantly cut food stamps. (Although a court blocked his plan.)\nHunger is a serious problem in the United States. A 2020 report by the Brookings Institution found that more than 16% of households with children did not have enough food. That was one out of six children.\nThe food stamp program is officially known as SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.\nAccording to data from the Department of Agriculture, four-fifths (81%) of US households that receive SNAP have either a child, an elderly individual, or an individual with a disability.\nIn 2022, one-fifth of children in the US lived in families that received food stamps.\nAs of February 2023, 42.5 million people in the US received food stamps. That is 13% of the US population: more than one out of every 10 people.\nThis is a vitally important social program, because poverty remains a very significant problem in the United States. This is painfully visible with the growing homelessness in major cities.\nMeanwhile, inequality is increasing; billionaires and millionaires keep getting wealthier; the rich get richer and the poor are getting poorer.\nAs president, Donald Trump oversaw $1.5 trillion in tax cuts. A 2019 study found that these resulted in billionaires paying a lower tax rate than the bottom half of US households.\n\u201cIn 2018 the richest 400 families in the US paid an average effective tax rate of 23% while the bottom half of American households paid a rate of 24.2%\u201d, The Guardian reported.\nThe newspaper added, \u201cTaxes on the rich have been falling for decades. In 1960 the 400 richest families paid as much as 56% in taxes, by 1980 the rate had fallen to 40%\u201d.\nWhen he ran for office in 2016, Trump had outlandishly claimed he would pay off the US national debt within eight years.\nInstead, the national debt rose by nearly $7.8 trillion\u00a0during Trump\u2019s four years in office.\n\u201cThe growth in the annual deficit under Trump ranks as the third-biggest increase, relative to the size of the economy, of any U.S. presidential administration\u201d, ProPublica reported.\n\nIt is very easy to explain why there is such a massive national debt in the United States: The rich pay fewer and fewer taxes (while the tax burden actually is increasing on poor and working people); and the US government has spent trillions of dollars waging wars around the world, maintaining 800 foreign military bases and launching 251 foreign military interventions just since 1991, according to data from the Congressional Research Service.\nMoreover, for more than a decade, the US Federal Reserve ran what was effectively a free money program for the rich, printing some $8 trillion to pump up one of the largest asset bubbles in human history, inflating the prices of stocks, bonds, and real estate.\nThese assets are owned by rich people, not the poor. It was trillions of dollars going into the pockets of the richest people in the United States \u2013 and into those of elites in other parts of the world.\nThis was the most massive act of welfare in human history. Welfare for the rich.\nFollowing the 2008 financial crash, in 14 years of quantitative easing, the Fed \u201cprinted\u201d (digitally, at least) trillions of dollars to buy up treasuries and mortgage-backed securities, including toxic assets that practically no one wanted to invest in.\nWho were the beneficiaries? The rich. Because in the United States, the wealthiest 10% of people own nearly 90% of stocks.\nThe insult to injury is that, while Washington was pouring money into this substantial welfare for the rich, it was cutting the paltry welfare for the poor.\nThe last detail that is ignored in mainstream media discussion of the US debt ceiling is the role of the dollar as the global reserve currency.\nMany economists from the school of modern monetary theory (MMT) have noted that the debt ceiling is an arbitrary, manufactured scandal, because it is debt that the US government owes in dollars.\nIf the government wanted, it could simply print that money to pay off the debt. It would create inflation, but it would be possible.\nBut few MMT proponents acknowledge the fact that this is only really possible in the United States because of its unique status as the issuer of the global reserve currency, and its role at the center of the imperialist world system.\nOne of the very few economists who has explained this is Michael Hudson. His book Super Imperialism shows how the international financial system was essentially designed to give the United States a free lunch.\nMost governments around the world, especially in the Global South, cannot simply print money in order to pay off their debt, because much of it is denominated in a foreign currency, commonly dollars.\nFor many countries in the Global South, when the government needs finance, it will sell eurobonds \u2013 government debt denominated in a foreign currency. (Despite the name,\u00a0a eurobond has nothing to do with the euro.)\nWhen these Global South nations \u2013 like, say, Ghana, Zambia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or Argentina \u2013 sell eurobonds denominated in US dollars, their economies have to actually produce value in order to get access to those dollars to pay off their debt.\nWhen they import crucial commodities like oil and gas, capital goods like machine parts and vehicles, or other technologies, they need dollars to pay for them (lest they risk a local currency devaluation).\nThe US economy does not have to produce anything of value. Washington can simply print the dollars needed to pay off its debts or import foreign goods and services.\nThis is precisely how the United States has maintained the world\u2019s largest current account deficit for decades.\nThis means that the US government consistently imports way more than it exports, and at a level that no other country on Earth can come close to.\nCountries by their current account balance, averaged from years 1980 to 2008 (red is a deficit, green is a surplus)\nIn addition to its massive trade deficit with the rest of the world, there is a massive inflow of investments into securities in the United States, leading to a capital account surplus. (The inverse of the current account is the capital account.)\nArgentina also frequently has a current account deficit. It largely exports cheap, low value-added agricultural goods, while importing energy, high value-added capital goods, and technologies.\nThis has led to a severe devaluation of Argentina\u2019s currency, the peso.\u00a0Triple-digit inflation is eroding away the life savings and living standards of Argentine workers.\nThe US current account deficit is much larger than Argentina\u2019s, but Washington\u2019s debt is denominated in dollars, which it can print; Buenos Aires\u2019 debt is also mostly denominated in dollars, which it cannot print.\nArgentina is unable to pay the massive debt it owes in dollars, largely to Western vulture funds like BlackRock and to the US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF), and its central bank is thus constantly bleeding foreign exchange reserves in an attempt to service debt payments, pushing the peso into freefall.\nThat is a fundamental difference between the US and Argentina.\nWhen most countries have a consistent current account deficit, their national currencies are devalued. They have to sell their currency in foreign exchange markets in order to get access to the foreign currencies they use to buy the excess imports.\nBecause of the hegemony of the US dollar, because of the design of the US-centered imperialist world system, that means they usually have to get access to dollars.\nSo the Argentine peso has significantly weakened in relation to the US dollar.\nWhen countries with chronic current account deficits see their currencies devalued, it decreases the living standards and purchasing power of workers, often making it prohibitively expensive to buy imported products like phones or computers.\nBut what this also does, simultaneously, is make exports in those countries more competitive, because it is now cheaper for those goods to be bought by foreign clients.\nTheoretically, at least on paper, this process could thus lead the deficit country to move toward a more balanced current account over time, with a better balance of payments with other countries.\nHowever, in the United States, the dollar does not significantly devalue, despite the massive current account deficit, because of its status as the global reserve currency: Washington\u2019s exorbitant privilege.\nOutside of Argentina, very few people want pesos. Unless you\u2019re buying goods or services from Argentina, the currency is not useful. And even much of the invoicing for Argentina\u2019s international trade is done in dollars. (Although that is changing as Buenos Aires and Beijing seek to de-dollarize their commercial exchange.)\nVery few people outside of Argentina are investing in Argentine assets denominated in the peso. They\u2019re using US dollars.\nHowever, because of the exorbitant privilege of the dollar, the US can keep importing, and importing, and importing, absorbing the surplus of the world, sucking in the drain of the surplus value produced by foreign workers.\nAs for the massive flow of dollars out into the rest of the world, they are frequently invested in assets in the United States, like securities on Wall Street, or in real estate, or Treasury bonds \u2013 that is to say, the national debt!\nThis is the \u201cexorbitant privilege\u201d that France\u2019s Finance Minister and future President Val\u00e9ry Giscard d\u2019Estaing famously complained about in the 1960s.\nThe US economy doesn\u2019t need to produce $100 worth of value, through the labor of its workers, in order to buy $100 worth of products. The US government can print that money. (And it is basically free, because most of that \u201cprinting\u201d is digital; it\u2019s not even physical cash; it\u2019s numbers on a computer screen on the balance sheets of the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury.)\nSo if the US needs to rectify its balance of payments and fund imports, the Treasury can sell bonds denominated in its own currency.\nOn the other hand, workers in other countries, especially those in the Global South, have to produce constant surplus; they have to break their backs working in order to produce $100 worth of value to get 100 dollars.\nA sizeable part of those 100 dollars then often flow immediately back out of the country to pay interest on the debt owed to vulture funds on Wall Street, to asset management firms like BlackRock, which are investing the capital of rich oligarchs and gobbling up assets around the world.\nSo yes, the MMT theorists are correct; the US government can print dollar to pay off its national debt.\nSome creative economists have proposed that the Treasury could even mint a $1 trillion platinum coin, so Congress won\u2019t have to raise the debt ceiling in the future. That is technically possible.\nHowever, most governments around the world cannot do this.\nAs for the small handful of other countries that, like the United States, have relatively stable economies but large national debts, what makes them different is they mostly have current account surpluses.\nJapan, for instance, has a gargantuan national debt of over 260% of GDP (roughly double the US debt-to-GDP ratio of 130%).\n\nHowever, unlike the US, Japan has a chronic current account surplus. It is a manufacturing powerhouse.\nMoreover, like the US, Japan\u2019s debt is largely denominated in its own currency, the yen, which Tokyo can print.\nIn fact, Japan\u2019s central bank owned a staggering 52% of government bonds as of the end of 2022. This is national debt owed by one part of the government to another part of the government.\nEven further, more than 90% of Japan\u2019s debt was held domestically, with just 8% owed to foreigners, as of the end of 2021.\n\nJapan is also a key part of the US-led imperialist system. This is what gives Japan the economic and political ability to maintain this debt relationship and to denominate its bonds in yen, in a way that many countries cannot do.\nThis is particularly true for countries in the Global South that are targeted by the United States for regime change, war, sanctions, and economic blockades.\nThese nations are heavily restricted in their options for getting access to finance, which is needed to build infrastructure and develop the economy.\nVery few investors are going to buy the debt of a country under US sanctions, of a nation facing the prospects of external destabilization and war \u2013 which would mean they probably wouldn\u2019t get paid back for their investment.\nThe point of all of this is that the relative \u201cunimportance\u201d of the US national debt, as acknowledged by Dick Cheney and many MMT theorists alike, is largely a product of its position at the center of the imperialist world-system of global accumulation.\nIf you are a poor country in the Global South, yes, you can print more and more of your currency to pay for social programs, but if that is not matched by corresponding economic activity and growth, if there is not a demand for your currency for importing the products that your economy produces, and especially if your country is dependent on importing commodities and capital goods, it is likely going to lead to significant inflation, which could devastate your economy.\nThe final factor to emphasize is the sheer, blunt force of the US military, with its nearly trillion-dollar annual budget and 800 foreign bases.\nIf Washington simply decided to default one day, and refused to pay its foreign debts, no foreign power could invade the US and force it to do so. The same cannot be said for most other countries, especially small ones with few resources in the periphery of the imperialist world system.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Peru coup: CIA agent turned US ambassador met with defense minister day before president overthrown. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CIA, coup, Lisa Kenna, Mike Pompeo, Pedro Castillo, Peru", "output": "The US ambassador in Peru, Lisa Kenna, worked for the CIA for 9 years, as well as the Pentagon. One day before the coup against elected left-wing President Pedro Castillo, Kenna met with Peru\u2019s defense minister, who then ordered the military to turn against Castillo.\n\n(Se puede leer este informe en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nThe US ambassador in Peru, a veteran CIA agent named Lisa Kenna, met with the country\u2019s defense minister just one day before democratically elected left-wing President Pedro Castillo was overthrown in a coup d\u2019etat and imprisoned without trial.\nPeru\u2019s defense minister, a retired brigadier general, ordered the military to turn against Castillo.\n\nThe coup set off mass protests all across Peru. The unelected regime has unleashed brutal violence, and police have killed numerous demonstrators.\nMeanwhile, the US government has staunchly supported Peru\u2019s unelected coup regime, which declared a nation-wide \u201cstate of emergency\u201d and deployed the military to the streets in an attempt to crush the protests.\nEsto no es la Guerra de las Galaxias es Chorrillos, Lima pic.twitter.com/KFluRVJFAu\n\u2014 HezSocial (@ZLaicos) December 15, 2022\n\nMost governments in Latin America have criticized or even refused to recognize Peru\u2019s unelected coup regime, including Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Honduras, Venezuela, Cuba, and various Caribbean nations.\nThe CIA has organized many coups against democratically elected left-wing leaders in Latin America, from Guatemala\u2019s President Jacobo \u00c1rbenz in 1954 to Chile\u2019s President Salvador Allende in 1973.\nWhen the Donald Trump administrated nominated Lisa Kenna to be ambassador to Peru in 2020, the State Department released a \u201ccertificate of competency\u201d that revealed that, \u201cBefore joining the Foreign Service, she served for nine years as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.\u201d\nThis important fact is curiously absent from most of Kenna\u2019s bios, including her page on the US embassy\u2019s official website.\n\nUnder Trump, Kenna also served as executive secretary of the State Department and was \u201csenior aide\u201d to Trump\u2019s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who previously headed the CIA.\nIn regard to his work for the notorious spy agency, Pompeo admitted in 2019, \u201cI was the CIA director.\u00a0We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses.\u201d\nAt a Congressional nomination hearing in 2020,\u00a0Kenna admitted that, as executive secretary, she saw \u201cnearly all\u201d of the memos that were sent to Pompeo, adding, \u201cI am aware of the vast majority of\u201d calls made to and by him.\nKenna also previously worked for the Defense Department and served State Department roles in Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Swaziland, and Pakistan.\nWhen President Joe Biden entered in January 2021, he kept Kenna as ambassador in Peru.\nThe current US Ambassador in Peru. pic.twitter.com/iUAbnR6Hzp\n\u2014 Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) December 13, 2022\n\nOn December 6, 2022, Kenna met with Gustavo Bobbio Rosas, a retired brigadier general from the Peruvian military who had officially been appointed as defense minister the day before. (A local media outlet reported that the meeting was on December 5, but that appears to have been an error.)\nPeru\u2019s Ministry of Defense published a photo of their friendly chat.\nAt the time of this meeting, it was known in Peru that the notoriously corrupt, oligarch-controlled congress was preparing for a new vote to overthrow democratically elected left-wing President Pedro Castillo.\nAhora ? | Ministro de Defensa, Gustavo Bobbio, se re\u00fane con la embajadora de @USEMBASSYPERU, Lisa Kenna, para abordar temas de inter\u00e9s bilateral. ???? pic.twitter.com/9p7JuKNx75\n\u2014 Mindef Per\u00fa (@MindefPeru) December 6, 2022\n\nArticle 113 of Peru\u2019s constitution allows the unicameral congress to remove presidents simply by voting to declare that they have a \u201cmoral incapacity,\u201d in a process known as \u201cvacancy.\u201d\nPeru\u2019s congress is well known for its extreme corruption. In the infamous \u201cMamanivideos\u201d scandal, congress members from the far-right Fuerza Popular party were filmed bribing other congress members to vote against impeaching previous right-wing President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski.\nFuerza Popular is run by the family members of Alberto Fujimori, the far-right dictator who ruled Peru with an iron fist from 1990 until 2000. With the support of the US government, Fujimori committed genocide, sterilizing approximately 300,000 Indigenous people, while killing, torturing, and disappearing large numbers of leftist dissidents.\nThe Mamanivideos scandal showed that it is quite easy for Peru\u2019s rich oligarchs to buy votes in congress to overthrow democratically elected presidents.\nAnd as soon as Castillo entered office on July 28, 2021, the congress tried to do exactly this.\nJust one day after the US ambassador met with Peru\u2019s defense minister, on December 7, 2022, the right-wing-dominated congress launched a parliamentary coup against Castillo, using article 113.\nThis was the third coup attempt in just over a year by Peru\u2019s congress, which in September 2022 had a mere 7% approval rating.\nHoping to stop the coup, Castillo responded by trying to dissolve the congress. This is allowed in cases of obstructionism by article 134 of Peru\u2019s constitution.\nDefense Minister Bobbio immediately denounced the president\u2019s actions. He published a video resigning from his position (that he had only held for three days).\nPronunciamiento| Presento mi renuncia de manera irrevocable a mi cargo de Ministro de Defensa. pic.twitter.com/efFC0cwZ34\n\u2014 Gustavo Bobbio Rosas (@GustavoBobbio_) December 7, 2022\n\nIn the video, Bobbio told Peru\u2019s armed forces not to support President Castillo and to oppose his attempt to dissolve the coup-plotting congress.\nBobbio claimed Castillo was launching a \u201ccoup attempt,\u201d but in reality Bobbio was instructing the Peruvian military to support a coup against the democratically elected president, on behalf of a notoriously corrupt oligarch-controlled congress that had almost no support from the population.\nWhile Bobbio ordered the military to rebel against the president, the US government promptly attacked Castillo.\nFormer CIA agent and current\u00a0Ambassador Kenna tweeted, \u201cThe United States categorically rejects any extra-constitutional act by President Castillo to prevent the congress from fulfilling its mandate.\u201d\nLos Estados Unidos insta enf\u00e1ticamente al presidente Castillo a revertir su intento de cerrar el Congreso y permitir que las instituciones democr\u00e1ticas de Per\u00fa funcionen seg\u00fan la Constituci\u00f3n. Alentamos al p\u00fablico peruano a mantener la calma durante este tiempo incierto.\n\u2014 Lisa Kenna (@USAmbPeru) December 7, 2022\n\nKenna failed to mention article 134 of Peru\u2019s constitution, which states:\nThe President of the Republic is authorized to dissolve the Congress if it has censured or denied its confidence to two Councils of Ministers [the official name of Peru\u2019s cabinet]. The dissolution decree contains the call for elections for a new Congress.\nWhen Castillo moved to dissolve the congress, he cited article 134 and he made it clear that it was only going to be a \u201ctemporary\u201d closure. The president said new congressional elections would be held as soon as possible.\nKenna ignored all of this context. Instead, the ambassador declared, \u201cThe United States emphatically urges President Castillo to reverse his attempt to close the congress and allow the democratic institutions of Peru to function according to the constitution.\u201d\nBy this, the CIA veteran meant that Castillo should simply allow the anti-democratic, oligarch-controlled congress to launch a coup against him.\nThe US embassy in Peru subsequently published an official statement echoing exactly what Kenna had said.\nThis was Washington\u2019s green light for Peru\u2019s corrupt, right-wing-dominated congress to overthrow President Castillo, and for the state security services to arrest him, without trial.\npic.twitter.com/cyDlKaxiC8\n\u2014 Embajada EEUU Per\u00fa (@USEMBASSYPERU) December 7, 2022\n\nMere hours after Castillo was imprisoned, the oligarch-controlled congress appointed his vice president, Dina Boluarte, as leader of the country.\nBoluarte promised on the floor of the congress that she would create \u201ca political truce to install a government of national unity\u201d \u2013 that is, a pact with the right wing.\nBoluarte had been expelled in January 2022 from the leftist Per\u00fa Libre party that Castillo had campaigned with. She proudly declared that she \u201chad never embraced the ideology\u201d of the socialist political party.\nThe day after the coup, on December 8, the State Department gave its rubber stamp to Boluarte\u2019s unelected regime.\n\u201cThe United States welcomes President Boluarte and hopes to work with her administration to achieve a more democratic, prosperous, and secure region,\u201d stated Brian A. Nichols, the US assistant secretary for western hemisphere affairs.\n\u201cWe support her call for a government of national unity and we applaud Peruvians while they unite in their support of democracy,\u201d the top State Department official added.\nEE. UU. da la bienvenida a la presidenta Boluarte y espera trabajar con su administraci\u00f3n para lograr una regi\u00f3n m\u00e1s democr\u00e1tica, pr\u00f3spera y segura. Apoyamos su llamado a un gobierno de unidad nacional y aplaudimos a los peruanos mientras se unen en apoyo de su democracia. -BAN\n\u2014 Brian A. Nichols (@WHAAsstSecty) December 8, 2022\n\nIn the mean time, the Peruvian people were filling the streets, condemning the coup against their elected president.\nPeru\u2019s police responded with violence, harshly cracking down, killing several protesters.\nOn December 14, the coup regime imposed a national \u201cstate of emergency\u201d for 30 days, and said it might also declare a curfew.\nAt the same time, the coup regime also said it plans to sentence Castillo to 18 months in \u201cpreventative prison,\u201d without a proper trial that resembles anything remotely like due process.\nJust one day before the coup regime made these authoritarian announcements, former CIA agent and current US Ambassador met with Peru\u2019s unelected leader, Dina Boluarte, and reiterated Washington\u2019s wholehearted support.\nLa presidenta @DinaErcilia Boluarte recibi\u00f3 a la embajadora de @USEMBASSYPERU, Lisa Kenna, quien reiter\u00f3 el pleno respaldo de su pa\u00eds a la institucionalidad democr\u00e1tica en el Per\u00fa y a las acciones del gobierno constitucional para estabilizar la situaci\u00f3n social. ???? pic.twitter.com/30EqAa75lx\n\u2014 Presidencia del Per\u00fa ?? (@presidenciaperu) December 13, 2022\n\nKenna praised the right-wing \u201cunity government\u201d that Boluarte pledged to form, adding, \u201cWe hope to strengthen our bilateral relationship.\u201d\nMe reun\u00ed con la presidenta Boluarte para reiterarle el compromiso de los EE.UU. con la defensa de la democracia y el respeto a las instituciones. Junto con la @presidenciaperu y el gobierno de unidad que se comprometi\u00f3 a formar, esperamos fortalecer nuestra relaci\u00f3n bilateral.\n\u2014 Lisa Kenna (@USAmbPeru) December 13, 2022\n\nBrian Nichols, the top State Department official on Latin America, added with a touch of deep irony, \u201cWe support the Peruvian people and their constitutional democracy.\u201d He urged protesters to \u201creject violence.\u201d\nOn the same day, Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, and Colombia released a joint diplomatic statement with a completely contrary message, supporting elected President Castillo, saying he was the victim of \u201canti-democratic harassment.\u201d\nApoyamos al pueblo peruano y a su democracia constitucional. Alentamos a los Peruanos a juntarse pacificamente en apoyo a las reformas que Per\u00fa necesita y a rechazar la violencia. Trabajaremos con @presidenciaperu para avanzar estas metas. -BAN https://t.co/AnrrDnxUzi\n\u2014 Brian A. Nichols (@WHAAsstSecty) December 13, 2022\n\nIn a press briefing on December 13, the State department was asked about the protests in Peru.\nState Department spokesman Ned Price \u2013 who, like Lisa Kenna, was also a CIA agent \u2013 emphasized Washington\u2019s steadfast support for Peru\u2019s coup regime.\n\u201cWe do commend Peruvian institutions and civil authorities for safeguarding democratic stability,\u201d he said, as Peru\u2019s repressive police killed protesters.\nJust witnessed a protestor shot in head by police outside our hotel in #lima. Not sure he survived. Police response becoming more violent tonight  #DinaBoluarte #sosperu #PedroCastillo #ProtestasContraElCongreso #protestasenlima #Peru #ahora pic.twitter.com/8HJe3cTxvC\n\u2014 M M (@MMinperu) December 13, 2022\n\nInstead of condemning the rampant police brutality, the US State Department blamed the protesters themselves. Price stated, \u201cwe are troubled by scattered reports of violent demonstrations and by reports of attacks on the press and private property, including businesses.\u201d\n\u201cWhen it comes to Peruvian President Dina Boluarte, we of course do recognize her as such. We will continue to work with Peru\u2019s democratic institutions, and we look forward to working closely with President Boluarte and all branches of the government in Peru,\u201d the former CIA agent stressed.\nState Department on Peru ?? (Tuesday's daily presser):\n\u2013 Commends Peru's institutions and authorities \"for safeguarding democratic stability\"\n\u2013 \"troubled by (..) violent demonstrations\" and \"reports of attacks on the press and private property\"\n\u2013 recognizes Dina Boluarte pic.twitter.com/AVj3F1cOds\n\u2014 Camila (@camilapress) December 15, 2022\n\nIn addition to serving as a CIA agent for nine years and current US ambassador to Peru, Lisa Kenna worked as a:\nAt a Congressional nomination hearing on July 23, 2020, Kenna boasted of her US-supremacist worldview, stating, \u201cThe longer I have been in public service, the more I am convinced that America is the world\u2019s most exceptional nation.\u201d\nShe also vowed, \u201cI will maintain the United States\u2019 vital relationship with Peru which has long been one of our closest partners in the region. Recently, Mission Peru has performed heroically to sustain our strong partnership and serve our fellow Americans in these challenging times.\u201d\nAt the time of the hearing, Peru had a right-wing government, led by President Mart\u00edn Vizcarra.\nKenna praised Peru\u2019s conservative government, \u201cas founder of the Lima Group,\u201d for backing the United States in its right-wing coup attempt against Venezuela\u2019s democratically elected President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, claiming, \u201cThe U.S. and Peru are also growing our shared support for a peaceful return to democracy in Venezuela.\u201d\nShe also pledged in the hearing that, as US ambassador to Peru: \u201cI commit to meet with democratically oriented opposition figures\u201d; \u201cWe also commit to meet with independent, local press in Peru\u201d; and \u201cI am committed to meeting with human rights, civil society, and other non governmental organizations in the United States and in Peru.\u201d\nClarification: This article originally reported that the meeting between the US ambassador and Peruvian defense minister was on December 5, two days before the coup, based on an article in a local newspaper, but that media outlet appears to have been mistaken, and the actual meeting was on December 6, the day before the coup.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Biden dice que Latinoam\u00e9rica es el \u2018patio delantero\u2019 de EEUU, Trump dice \u2018patio trasero\u2019 \u2013 Escoge tu sabor de neocolonialismo. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Am\u00e9rica Latina, colonialismo, Doctrina Monroe, Joe Biden, Latinoam\u00e9rica", "output": "\u00bfCu\u00e1l es la diferencia entre republicanos y dem\u00f3cratas? Trump dice \u201cpatio trasero\u201d y Biden dice \u201cpatio delantero\u201d. De otro modo, comparten el 95% de las mismas pol\u00edticas imperialistas y capitalistas.\n\n(You can read this article in English here.)\nLa gente en Am\u00e9rica Latina a menudo me pregunta cu\u00e1l es la diferencia entre republicanos y dem\u00f3cratas. Para las personas fuera de Estados Unidos, los dos partidos hegem\u00f3nicos parecen tan similares que es dif\u00edcil diferenciarlos.\nLa realidad, por supuesto, es que el Partido Republicano y el Partido Dem\u00f3crata son pr\u00e1cticamente id\u00e9nticos. Cuando miramos m\u00e1s all\u00e1 de todas las batallas superficiales de la Guerra Cultural que libran para distraer al p\u00fablico estadounidense, podemos ver claramente que los dos partidos de la clase dominante comparten el 95% de las mismas pol\u00edticas \u2014 y est\u00e1n financiados por los mismos oligarcas capitalistas y corporaciones explotadoras, para servir sus intereses econ\u00f3micos obedientemente.\nLa administraci\u00f3n de Joe Biden ha hecho que esto sea innegable. El presidente dem\u00f3crata hizo campa\u00f1a con promesas de revertir las desastrosas pol\u00edticas del republicano Trump, s\u00f3lo para continuar con la gran mayor\u00eda de ellas.\nEn una conferencia de prensa el 19 de enero, el actual presidente dem\u00f3crata revel\u00f3 accidentalmente cu\u00e1l es la verdadera diferencia entre \u00e9l y el ex mandatario republicano: Trump piensa que Am\u00e9rica Latina es el patio trasero del imperio estadounidense, mientras que Biden insiste en que es el \u201cpatio delantero\u201d de Washington.\nPuede ver los comentarios de Biden en la\u00a0transcripci\u00f3n oficial publicada en la p\u00e1gina oficial de la Casa Blanca:\n\u201cSol\u00edamos hablar, cuando yo era un ni\u00f1o en la universidad, sobre el \u2018patio trasero de Estados Unidos'\u201d, dijo en la rueda de prensa. \u201cNo es el patio trasero de Estados Unidos.\u00a0Todo al sur de la frontera mexicana es el patio delantero de Estados Unidos\u201d.\nU.S. maintains its Monroe Doctrine as Biden assures that Latin America is \"America's front yard\" pic.twitter.com/VhNxIVdV4Z\n\u2014 Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) January 20, 2022\n\nAs\u00ed que ahora, cuando la gente en Latinoam\u00e9rica me pide que describa las diferencias entre republicanos y dem\u00f3cratas, tengo la respuesta perfecta: los republicanos piensan que eres su patio trasero, mientras que los dem\u00f3cratas piensan que eres su patio delantero.\nElige tu sabor favorito de neocolonialismo.\nBiden ha estado en el poder por exactamente un a\u00f1o a partir de hoy, el 20 de enero. Y no ha logrado nada significativo. (Su retirada de Afganist\u00e1n merece una menci\u00f3n honor\u00edfica, pero se ve eclipsada en gran medida por las pol\u00edticas belicosas de Biden contra el resto del mundo, sin mencionar las devastadoras sanciones que su administraci\u00f3n ha impuesto a Afganist\u00e1n, que est\u00e1n matando de hambre a millones de civiles.)\nLejos de romper con Trump, Biden ha redoblado las peores pol\u00edticas del ex presidente de extrema derecha:\nMientras tanto, dentro de Estados Unidos, el propio Partido Dem\u00f3crata de Biden ha bloqueado todos los intentos de aprobar una legislaci\u00f3n importante.\nEl gobierno de EEUU es tan antidemocr\u00e1tico, tan comprometido con el capital, que se ha convertido en un desastre disfuncional. Su fachada \u201cdemocr\u00e1tica\u201d se ha derretido, y todo lo que queda es un r\u00e9gimen autoritario controlado por oligarcas multimillonarios, una dictadura de la clase capitalista de manual.\nLo \u00fanico que puede hacer el imperio estadounidense es hacer lo que siempre ha hecho: intensificar su agresi\u00f3n imperial en el extranjero, derramar dinero sin cesar en las fauces abiertas del Complejo Militar-Industrial, tratar de domar el apetito voraz del culto a la muerte del capitalismo \u2014 y usar la guerra en el extranjero para distraer la atenci\u00f3n de la\u00a0muerte masiva, la desigualdad vertiginosa, la pobreza creciente, la crisis de gente sin hogar, la brutalidad policial y el encarcelamiento masivo dentro de Estados Unidos.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US troops are occupying Syria\u2019s oil fields. Congress refuses to withdraw them. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Bernie Sanders, Congress, Elizabeth Warren, Rand Paul, Senate, Syria", "output": "The US military has illegally occupied Syrian sovereign territory since 2014, preventing Damascus from accessing its own oil and wheat fields. The Senate voted 13-84, rejecting a resolution to withdraw US troops.\n\nThe US military has occupied Syrian sovereign territory since 2014, preventing Damascus from accessing its own oil and wheat fields.\nA top Pentagon official has acknowledged that Washington\u2019s strategy is to starve Syria\u2019s central government of revenue it needs to rebuild, after a decade of war fueled by foreign powers devastated the country.\nFormer US President Donald Trump boasted in 2020: \u201cThey say, \u2018He left troops in Syria\u2019. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They\u2019re protecting the oil. I took over the oil\u201d.\nThe United States has at least 900 troops in Syria. Syria\u2019s internationally recognized government has repeatedly called for them to leave, meaning the US military presence is illegal according to international law.\n\nThis issue has come up in Congress several times in recent years.\nOn December 7, the Senate voted 13-84, rejecting a resolution to withdraw the US troops.\nThe joint resolution, S.J.Res.51, \u201cdirect[ed] the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Syria that have not been authorized by Congress\u201d.\nOf the 100 members of the Senate, which is roughly evenly split between both parties, seven Democrats voted for the resolution, along with one left-wing independent who caucuses with the Democrats (Bernie Sanders) and five Republicans.\nThe senators who voted to withdraw US troops from Syria were the following:\nDemocrats (7)\nIndependent (1)\nRepublicans (5)\nThe US Senate vote on whether or not to withdraw troops from Syria, on December 7, 2023\nThe resolution had been introduced by Rand Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican senator from Kentucky.\nThe proposed legislation noted that US military forces have been active in Syria since September 22, 2014.\nSince 2016, the resolution disclosed, US troops in Syria have attacked the Syrian government and its allies, including Iranian and Russian fighters, at least 11 times.\nBoth the Donald Trump and Joe Biden administrations repeatedly launched airstrikes in Syria against government and allied forces.\nIn March 2023, a senior United Nations official, Farhan Haq, inspired controversy when he falsely claimed \u201cthere\u2019s no US armed forces inside of Syria\u201d. (Chinese reporter Edward Xu corrected Haq\u2019s lie, while calling out the UN\u2019s hypocrisy on Ukraine.)\nUN lies about US military occupation of Syria, reporter calls out Ukraine hypocrisy\n\nThe US corporate media was once quite open about this fact.\nBack in 2018, neoconservative Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin bragged, \u201cIn Syria, we \u2018took the oil\u2019\u201d. He emphasized that \u201cthe United States and its partners control almost all of the oil\u201d in the country.\nThen President Trump had claimed at the time that he wanted to withdraw US troops from Syria, but Rogin complained that, \u201cif the United States leaves, that oil will likely fall into the hands of Iran\u201d.\nTrump listened to hawkish critics like Rogin and decided to backtrack, instead leaving the US troops \u2013 who remain there today.\nNPR stated clearly in 2020, \u201cU.S. forces in northeastern Syria have a relatively new mission: securing oil fields not only from ISIS, but also from Syrian government and Russian forces\u201d.\nTrump sat down for an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham that same year. The US president explained:\nTRUMP: They say, \u2018He left troops in Syria\u2019. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They\u2019re protecting the oil. I took over the oil.\nINGRAHAM: We\u2019re taking, we\u2019re not taking\u2013\nTRUMP: Maybe we will, maybe we won\u2019t.\nINGRAHAM: They\u2019re protecting their facility.\nTRUMP: I don\u2019t know, maybe we should take it. But we have the oil. Right now, the United States has the oil. So, they say, \u2018He left troops in Syria\u2019. No, I got rid of all of them, other than we\u2019re protecting the oil. We have the oil.\nIn 2019, a neoconservative US government official overseeing Syria policy, Dana Stroul, boasted that \u201cone-third of Syrian territory was owned via the US military, with its local partner the Syrian Democratic Forces\u201d, or SDF.\nThe Kurdish-majority SDF have acted as a US proxy, using oil revenue to fund their separatist operations, destabilizing Syria\u2019s central government.\nAs Geopolitical Economy Report editor Ben Norton wrote at the time, Stroul emphasized that this Syrian land \u201cowned\u201d by Washington was \u201cresource-rich\u201d and constituted the \u201ceconomic powerhouse of Syria, so where the hydrocarbons are\u2026 as well as the agricultural powerhouse\u201d, with many wheat fields.\nWhen Biden entered office in 2021, his administration appointed Stroul as deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, the top Pentagon official crafting US policy for West Asia.\nThe top Pentagon Middle East policy official, neocon Dana Stroul, confirmed Biden is keeping troops to illegally occupy sovereign Syrian territory\nStroul once boasted that the US military \"owns\" 1/3rd of Syria, including its oil-rich \"economic powerhouse\"pic.twitter.com/NIEJ9elxhs https://t.co/01kZ22dhJ4\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) August 15, 2021\n\nThe United States had roughly 40,000 troops stationed in West Asia (known popularly as the Middle East), as of October 2023.\nIn addition to the 900 in Syria, the US has 2500 troops deployed to Iraq, where their presence also violates the country\u2019s sovereignty and international law.\nU.S. troops and military contractors have been targeted in attacks by Iranian-backed militia groups since Hamas' attack against Israeli civilians and soldiers.\nThe attacks could reverse efforts in recent years to reduce U.S. presence in the Middle East. https://t.co/a7nOI8fOmL pic.twitter.com/rEMyumnOa9\n\u2014 Axios (@axios) October 31, 2023\n\nOn January 3, 2020, US President Trump ordered a drone strike that assassinated top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, along with a major Iraqi commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.\nIn response to Trump\u2019s blatant act of war on its soil, Iraq\u2019s democratically elected parliament voted in January 2020 to expel the US troops occupying the country.\nTrump ignored the Iraqi parliament\u2019s vote, instead threatening to impose sanctions on Baghdad.\nBiden, a Democrat, has continued his Republican predecessor\u2019s policy, prolonging the military occupation of both Iraq and Syria, in flagrant violation of the nations\u2019 sovereignty.\nNEW: U.S. forces have been attacked 4 times by Iranian-proxy forces since yesterday's air strikes, 3 times last night and once this morning- all in Syria. No injuries or damage to bases have been reported. This marks 52 attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria since Oct 17. pic.twitter.com/zDJ7Z8VapK\n\u2014 Liz Friden (@Liz_Friden) November 13, 2023\n\nThe war in Gaza that broke out in October has also spilled over to other countries in the region.\nIn addition to indiscriminately killing Palestinian civilians, including thousands of children, in one of the most brutal bombing campaigns in history, Israel has also attacked Lebanon, and even bombed infrastructure in Syria, such as airports in Damascus and Aleppo.\nThis has led resistance forces in Syria and Iraq to launch attacks on the US troops illegally occupying their countries. The Biden administration responded with air strikes against these fighters.\nAccording to the Pentagon, US troops in the region were attacked at least 52 times from October 17 to November 13.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: EEUU secuestr\u00f3 y encarcel\u00f3 al diplom\u00e1tico venezolano Alex Saab por comprar alimentos. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Alex Saab, CLAP, Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, Venezuela", "output": "El diplom\u00e1tico venezolano Alex Saab esencialmente fue secuestrado por Estados Unidos porque estaba comprando comida para el programa de alimentos del gobierno, los CLAP, para apoyar al pueblo de Venezuela.\n\n(You can read this article in English here.)\nTraducido por Michelle Ellner\n\u201cNo es un delito cumplir una misi\u00f3n diplom\u00e1tica. No es un delito eludir sanciones que perjudican a todo un pa\u00eds. No puede ser ilegal ayudar a un pueblo\u201d. Camilla Fabri Saab hizo estas vehementes declaraciones al explicar la situaci\u00f3n en la que se encuentra la detenci\u00f3n ilegal y la extradici\u00f3n -el secuestro, en esencia- de su marido, el diplom\u00e1tico venezolano Alex Saab.\nSaab es pr\u00e1cticamente desconocido en Estados Unidos, donde actualmente permanece en una prisi\u00f3n de Miami, pero ha sido vital para la capacidad de Venezuela de sobrevivir a la brutal guerra econ\u00f3mica emprendida por Estados Unidos.\nSaab es un preso pol\u00edtico cuyo caso tiene paralelismos con el de Julian Assange. Ambos han sido objeto de alcance extraterritorial por parte de las autoridades estadounidenses, ya que ninguno de los dos es ciudadano estadounidense y sus presuntos delitos tuvieron lugar fuera del pa\u00eds. Assange est\u00e1 en la c\u00e1rcel por decir la verdad. Saab est\u00e1 en la c\u00e1rcel por ayudar a alimentar a los venezolanos.\nSaab se enfrenta a un cargo de conspiraci\u00f3n para cometer lavado de dinero por su participaci\u00f3n en el programa de vivienda de Venezuela y fue sancionado por la administraci\u00f3n Trump en 2019 por su trabajo con el CLAP de Venezuela, un programa que env\u00eda alimentos y otros art\u00edculos de primera necesidad a las familias venezolanas.\nReferido rutinariamente en los medios de comunicaci\u00f3n como un empresario colombiano, Saab goza de doble nacionalidad venezolana y colombiana adem\u00e1s de ser diplom\u00e1tico. Fue nombrado enviado especial de Venezuela en abril de 2018, m\u00e1s de dos a\u00f1os antes de su detenci\u00f3n.\nSeg\u00fan la Convenci\u00f3n de Viena y la Ley de Relaciones Diplom\u00e1ticas de Estados Unidos, un diplom\u00e1tico no puede ser detenido por una potencia extranjera. Esto incluye a los diplom\u00e1ticos que est\u00e1n en tr\u00e1nsito entre los pa\u00edses emisores y receptores, Venezuela e Ir\u00e1n, en el caso de Saab.\nAlex Saab volaba de Venezuela a Ir\u00e1n cuando su avi\u00f3n se detuvo para repostar en Cabo Verde, un pa\u00eds insular situado en la costa occidental de \u00c1frica. Fue detenido sin orden judicial y retenido en Cabo Verde durante casi 500 d\u00edas mientras se desarrollaba en los tribunales una prolongada batalla sobre su extradici\u00f3n a Estados Unidos.\nFue golpeado, le fue negada la atenci\u00f3n m\u00e9dica y se le mantuvo aislado. Cabo Verde hizo caso omiso a una sentencia de un tribunal regional que ordenaba su liberaci\u00f3n, as\u00ed como a una decisi\u00f3n del Comit\u00e9 de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas que suspend\u00eda su extradici\u00f3n. Ni su familia ni sus abogados fueron informados de su extradici\u00f3n hasta despu\u00e9s de que se produjo.\nEn resumen, Saab fue secuestrado dos veces: una cuando su avi\u00f3n estaba repostando y otra cuando fue trasladado a Estados Unidos.\nEstados Unidos argumenta que la extradici\u00f3n fue legal y que cualquier violaci\u00f3n de la Convenci\u00f3n de Viena fue cometida por Cabo Verde. David Rivkin, uno de los abogados de Saab, dice que el hecho de que \u201cCabo Verde haya violado absolutamente su obligaci\u00f3n legal no proporciona ninguna excusa a Estados Unidos\u201d.\nRivkin describe el caso contra Saab como \u201csin precedentes\u201d, dada la\u00a0 amplia y protectora visi\u00f3n que Estados Unidos ha mantenido habitualmente sobre la inmunidad diplom\u00e1tica. Saab tiene una comparecencia en abril ante el Tribunal de Apelaci\u00f3n del Und\u00e9cimo Circuito sobre esta misma cuesti\u00f3n.\n\u201cEstados Unidos no puede tener un mundo en el que terceros pa\u00edses puedan molestar a los diplom\u00e1ticos estadounidenses, y si se establece una norma que dice que los diplom\u00e1ticos de terceros pa\u00edses pueden ser molestados por Estados Unidos, es inevitable que ocurra lo mismo con los diplom\u00e1ticos estadounidenses. Este enjuiciamiento no tiene ninguna base legal y no redunda en los intereses a largo plazo del propio Estados Unidos\u201d, explica Rivkin.\nM\u00e1s all\u00e1 de la cuesti\u00f3n crucial de la inmunidad diplom\u00e1tica, los cargos y el caso contra Saab son claramente pol\u00edticos. Durante a\u00f1os, Estados Unidos ha perseguido a figuras clave en Venezuela, incluso poniendo recompensas sobre el presidente Maduro y otros, como parte de sus intentos de derrocar al gobierno.\nEstos intentos, que incluyen librar una guerra econ\u00f3mica b\u00e1rbara e ilegal que ha diezmado la econom\u00eda de Venezuela, han provocado un aumento de la migraci\u00f3n y han causado la muerte de decenas de miles de venezolanos. Camila Saab califica con raz\u00f3n las sanciones de Estados Unidos como un \u201cacto de guerra contra toda la poblaci\u00f3n venezolana\u201d.\nSu marido desempe\u00f1\u00f3 un papel clave en la mitigaci\u00f3n de las terribles consecuencias de las sanciones. Se involucr\u00f3 por primera vez con Venezuela al conseguir contratos para la Gran Misi\u00f3n Vivienda, un programa social del gobierno que ha construido 3,9 millones de viviendas para los venezolanos de clase trabajadora desde 2011, la mayor\u00eda bajo las sanciones impuestas al pa\u00eds.\nLuego Saab obtuvo contratos para el programa venezolano CLAP, a trav\u00e9s del cual 7 millones de familias venezolanas reciben cajas de alimentos y bienes esenciales cada mes.\nLas sanciones no s\u00f3lo dificultan la vida de los venezolanos, sino que hacen que sea un reto hacer negocios con Venezuela. Los bancos se niegan a realizar transacciones (incluso cuando son perfectamente legales). Las compa\u00f1\u00edas de seguros suben los precios o se retiran por completo. Las compa\u00f1\u00edas navieras suben las tarifas. Los vendedores exigen dinero en efectivo y no operan a cr\u00e9dito.\nEn lugar de retirarse de Venezuela, como hicieron muchos empresarios, Saab decidi\u00f3 seguir con el pueblo venezolano y pas\u00f3 del sector privado al p\u00fablico, convirti\u00e9ndose en diplom\u00e1tico encargado de encontrar \u201csoluciones pr\u00e1cticas\u201d al \u201cbloqueo econ\u00f3mico y financiero\u201d impuesto a Venezuela desde 2015, lo cual inclu\u00eda la negociaci\u00f3n de acuerdos comerciales con Ir\u00e1n.\nLa relaci\u00f3n econ\u00f3mica con Ir\u00e1n ha sido fundamental para ayudar a la recuperaci\u00f3n de la industria petrolera de Venezuela y, por extensi\u00f3n, de su econom\u00eda.\nSaab desempe\u00f1\u00f3 un papel fundamental en los acuerdos comerciales entre Ir\u00e1n y Venezuela para todo tipo de productos, desde gasolina y repuestos hasta alimentos y medicinas. Seg\u00fan Forbes, Saab era un blanco de Estados Unidos porque ten\u00eda \u201clos medios y los conocimientos t\u00e9cnicos para ayudar a mantener discretamente toda una econom\u00eda en movimiento bajo los ojos de un mundo vigilante\u201d.\nSaab ha negado las acusaciones en su contra y se\u00f1ala una investigaci\u00f3n suiza que se abandon\u00f3 luego de tres a\u00f1os por falta de pruebas.\n\u201cLos m\u00e9ritos de las acusaciones son d\u00e9biles a primera vista. Implican actividades que no tuvieron lugar en Estados Unidos y su conexi\u00f3n con Estados Unidos es muy tenue\u201d, dice el abogado David Rivkin.\nSu detenci\u00f3n en Cabo Verde, a instancias del gobierno estadounidense, se produjo apenas unos meses despu\u00e9s de que Trump anunciara una campa\u00f1a de \u201cm\u00e1xima presi\u00f3n\u201d sobre Venezuela. Su extradici\u00f3n a Estados Unidos descarril\u00f3 el di\u00e1logo entre el gobierno y la oposici\u00f3n venezolana.\nEstados Unidos planea ahora \u201cpresionar\u201d a Saab \u201cpara que arroje luz sobre la red econ\u00f3mica de Venezuela tras las sanciones\u201d, seg\u00fan Forbes. Despu\u00e9s de soportar ser torturado en Cabo Verde, la palabra presi\u00f3n se queda corta.\n\u201cDesde el d\u00eda que \u00e9l vol\u00f3 a Ir\u00e1n, nos han perseguido a todos. Nos han acosado en los medios de comunicaci\u00f3n, nos han demonizado, no nos han dejado verle\u201d, dijo Camilla Saab, describiendo lo que ha sufrido su familia.\nAlex Saab, sobreviviente de c\u00e1ncer, no ha podido tomar sus medicamentos diarios desde su detenci\u00f3n. Ha perdido 65 libras. Sus padres murieron de COVID-19 mientras \u00e9l estaba encarcelado en Cabo Verde.\nSu familia ha sufrido tambi\u00e9n. Sus hijos adultos fueron sancionados por la administraci\u00f3n Trump. Su hija menor nunca lo ha conocido. Sin embargo, en todas sus comunicaciones, Saab mantiene su lealtad al pueblo venezolano.\nAl perseguirlo, Camila Saab cree que Estados Unidos est\u00e1 enviando un mensaje: \u201cIntentan intimidar, pero el pueblo venezolano resiste y sigue en su lucha por la soberan\u00eda. Estados Unidos no es la polic\u00eda del mundo. Liberen a Alex Saab\u201d.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US blew up Nord Stream pipelines connecting Russia to Germany, journalist Seymour Hersh reports. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CIA, George Friedman, Germany, Joe Biden, Mike Pompeo, NATO, Ned Price, Nord Stream, Norway, Russia, Seymour Hersh, Stratfor, US Navy, Victoria Nuland, Zbigniew Brzezinski", "output": "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported the US government destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines that delivered Russian gas to Germany. The Biden administration approved the CIA operation, which used explosives and Navy divers, with help from NATO member Norway.\n\nRenowned investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has reported that the US government destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines that delivered Russian gas to Germany.\nThe pipelines were blown up with explosives in a covert operation that was planned by the CIA and carried out by divers from the US Navy, Hersh reported.\nNATO member Norway also played a key role, using its Navy and Secret Service to assist in the attack.\nThe remotely triggered explosives were placed on the Nord Stream pipelines in June 2022, during NATO military exercises in the Baltic Sea. They were subsequently blown up on September 26.\nThe operation was reportedly approved by US President Joe Biden and overseen by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland.\nHersh\u2019s report is based on an internal \u201csource with direct knowledge of the operational planning\u201d. The source admitted that the sabotage of the pipelines constituted \u201can act of war\u201d.\n\nSeymour\u00a0Hersh is one of the most highly respected journalists in the world. He won the Pulitzer Prize, the top award in Western journalism, for his reporting on US war crimes in Vietnam.\nHe has spent decades building up sources inside the US government. Hersh has also earned accolades for exposing US atrocities and cover-ups targeting Iraq, Iran, and Syria.\nThe Biden White House and CIA both vehemently denied Hersh\u2019s report on the Nord Stream pipelines, claiming it is false.\nAccording to US law, the White House and CIA can lie to the public about the existence of covert operations. In his own reporting on joint CIA-NATO sabotage operations inside Russian territory, prominent journalist and US military veteran Jack Murphy noted, \u201cUnder Title 50 of the U.S. Code which authorizes covert actions, the CIA can lawfully deny the existence of these operations to everyone except the so-called \u2018Gang of Eight\u2019\u201d \u2013 a reference to top level US Congressional officials.\nHersh explained in his report that the Biden administration decided to carry out the Nord Stream sabotage operation using the CIA and Navy divers, not US Special Operations forces, to avoid the legal obligation to notify the Gang of Eight.\n\nThe Pulitzer prize-winning journalist published the bombshell article at his personal account on the blogging website Substack on February 8. In an accompanying piece, Hersh explained that he decided to use Substack because he has faced a long history of censorship from the mainstream corporate media outlets he has worked with, which litter his reports \u201cwith Pentagon denials\u201d and act in \u201ctheir publishers\u2019 economic interests\u201d.\nAfter Nord Stream was sabotaged, many US media outlets absurdly accused Russia of destroying its own pipelines. Hersh pointed out that these reports were not organic; they were \u201cspurred on by calculated leaks from the White House\u201d.\nWhile the US press fueled these outlandish conspiracy theories, the German media reported that the\u00a0CIA had warned Berlin weeks before about possible attacks on gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea.\nReuters also revealed that a reconnaissance jet from the US Navy flew near the Nord Stream wreckage just hours after the explosion.\n\nAccording to Hersh, the Biden administration\u2019s meetings planning to destroy Nord Stream began in December 2021 \u2013 more than two months before Russia invaded Ukraine.\nThe CIA developed the sabotage strategy by early 2022, before Russia sent in its troops on February 24, 2022.\nAs Geopolitical Economy Report previously noted, President Biden personally threatened on February 7, 2022 that, \u201cIf Russia invades\u201d Ukraine, \u201cthen there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it\u201d.\nUnder Secretary of State Nuland made similar comments in a press conference on January 27, 2022, stating, \u201cWith regard to Nord Stream 2, we continue to have very strong and clear conversations with our German allies, and I want to be clear with you today: If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.\u201d\nCIA analyst turned State Department spokesman Ned Price used the exact same prepared phrase a day before, telling NPR, \u201cI want to be very clear: if Russia invades Ukraine one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward\u201d.\nA month before Russia invaded, the neoconservative 3rd in command of the State Dep't, Victoria Nuland (main architect of the 2014 coup in Ukraine), threatened:\n\u201cI want to be clear with you today: If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward\u201d pic.twitter.com/nuX1ChSC51\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022\n\nAccording to Hersh, the sabotage operation was carried out by divers from the US Navy\u2019s Diving and Salvage Center, which is located in Florida\u2019s Panama City. They put explosives on all four pipelines that make up Nord Stream.\nThe Nord Stream system consists of two main pipelines, each of which has two smaller pipelines, known as Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2. The attack destroyed three of the four.\nImmediately after the attack, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken gloated, \u201cUltimately this is also a tremendous opportunity. It\u2019s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy\u2026 That\u2019s very significant, and that offers tremendous strategic opportunity for the years to come\u201d.\nUS Secretary of State Antony Blinken on the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines:\n\"It\u2019s a tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy\"\n\"We've significantly increased our [gas] production\u2026 We\u2019re now the leading supplier of LNG to Europe\" pic.twitter.com/vS9SgDUd2i\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022\n\nAccording to Seymour Hersh\u2019s report, the \u201cNorwegians were key\u201d in the attack on Nord Stream.\nThe US used NATO member Norway as its base of operations. Hersh noted that \u201cthe U.S. military has vastly expanded its presence inside Norway\u201d in recent years, using the Scandinavian nation to spy on Russia.\nEvery year, in June, NATO holds military exercises in the Baltic Sea known as Baltic Operations 22, or BALTOPS 22.\nDuring these exercises, off the coast of Denmark\u2019s Bornholm Island, NATO divers practiced placing mines, tracking them, and destroying them.\nAfter the trap had been placed on Nord Stream in June, the Norwegian navy followed US orders and dropped a sonar buoy to set off the C4 explosives on September 26, Hersh wrote.\nNorway even surrendered its sovereignty to the US military in 2022, passing the Supplementary Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA), which makes Washington the legal authority in northern parts of the country, preventing the local government from prosecuting US soldiers.\nCurrent NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was himself Norway\u2019s former prime minister. Hersh observed that Stoltenberg is an aggressive war hawk who has collaborated with US intelligence agencies, and his source referred to the NATO chief as \u201cthe glove that fits the American hand\u201d.\nHersh added: \u201cThe Norwegians may have had other interests as well. The destruction of Nord Stream\u2014if the Americans could pull it off\u2014would allow Norway to sell vastly more of its own natural gas to Europe\u201d.\nWhat Hersh did not mention in his article is another striking detail: Just hours after Nord Stream was sabotaged, NATO members Norway, Denmark, and Poland announced the official opening of a new natural gas pipeline, the Baltic Pipe.\nThe Baltic Pipe was built with funding from the European Union, and was meant expressly as an alternative to Nord Stream.\n\nSince the Nord Stream pipelines were blown up, Norway has replaced Russia as Europe\u2019s largest supplier of pipeline gas.\nNorwegian gas shipments to Germany in particular have reached record highs. In 2021, Norway had provided Germany with less then 20% of its gas supply. By 2022, that figure had shot up to 33%.\nMeanwhile, the United States has also become the world\u2019s largest liquified natural gas (LNG) exporter (tied with Qatar).\nEuropean imports made up the \u201clion\u2019s share\u201d of US LNG exports in 2022, quickly replacing Asia as the new top market.\n\nIn its move away from cheap Russian pipeline gas, Europe imported record amounts of much more expensive LNG in 2022, enriching fossil fuel corporations and importers.\n\nIn a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Russia on January 26, 2023, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland declared with pride, \u201cI am, and I think the administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea\u201d.\n3rd in command of the US State Dept, Ukraine coup architect Victoria Nuland, told Republican Senator Ted Cruz this January 26:\n\u201cI am and I think the administration is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea\u201d pic.twitter.com/pfLpzZlldY\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 9, 2023\n\nNuland was responding to questions from Republican Senator Ted Cruz. Like Cruz, Nuland is a hard-line neoconservative.\nNuland was a key figure in the violent US-backed coup in 2014 that overthrew Ukraine\u2019s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral government and installed a pro-Western regime.\nAnother high-profile neoconservative politician in Europe, Radek Sikorski, the former foreign minister and defense minister of Poland, expressed his gratitude to Washington one day after the attack on Nord Stream.\n\u201cThank you, USA,\u201d Sikorski tweeted, sharing a photo of the wreckage in the Baltic Sea, as the pipelines leaked environmentally destructive gas into the atmosphere.\n\nBefore Nord Stream was physically attacked, the United States had waged economic warfare against the pipelines.\nThe US government had sanctioned companies involved in the project, and even repeatedly threatened to impose sanctions on German firms.\nDue to US pressure, Nord Stream 2 was never officially opened, even after it was completed in September 2021, following years of construction and billions of dollars of investment from various European companies.\nIn 2020, Donald Trump\u2019s CIA Director turned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged that the US government would \u201cdo everything we can\u201d to stop Nord Stream 2. He said the pipeline was \u201cdangerous\u201d and a \u201cthreat\u201d, boasting, \u201cWe\u2019re the toughest administration ever on Russia\u201d.\nAfter US Secretary of State Blinken called the attacks on Nord Stream a \"tremendous opportunity\" (3 times), Canada's Foreign Minister M\u00e9lanie Joly echoed:\n\"We have increased our production\" and \"exported to the US for it to be sent to Europe\"\nShe advertised a new LNG facility pic.twitter.com/Mi5lcbppid\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 8, 2022\n\nNord Stream 1, which was opened in 2011, under the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel, provided Germany with a\u00a0cheap, plentiful source of natural gas.\nThis concerned the United States, which has long worried that German economic integration with Russia would challenge Washington\u2019s hegemony.\nUS imperial strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as President Jimmy Carter\u2019s national security advisor and oversaw the CIA proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, warned of the danger of a German-Russian alliance in his 1997 book \u201cThe Grand Chessboard\u201d.\nA \u201cRusso-German or a Russo-French flirtation\u201d would come at \u201cthe detriment of Europe\u2019s transatlantic connection with America\u201d, Brzezinski wrote, emphasizing that preventing \u201cthe emergence of a dominant and antagonistic Eurasian power remains central to America\u2019s capacity to exercise global primacy\u201d.\nAs the\u00a0website UnHerd noted, another prominent US imperial strategist, George Friedman, wrote in 2010 that \u201cthe mere possibility that [Russia] might collaborate with Europe and particularly Germany opens up the most significant threat in the decade, a long-term threat that needs to be nipped in the bud\u201d.\nFriedman served as chair of Stratfor, a private intelligence company that is so closely linked to US spy agencies that it is popularly known as the \u201cshadow CIA\u201d.\nIn a 2015 speech, Friedman stated clearly: \u201cThe primordial interest of the United States, over which, for a century, we have fought wars \u2014 the First, Second, and Cold War \u2014 has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united they are the only force that could threaten us, and to make sure that that doesn\u2019t happen\u201d.\nUS imperial strategist and ex chair of \"shadow CIA\" Stratfor, George Friedman, said in 2015:\n\"The primordial interest of the U.S., over which for a century we have fought wars \u2014 the First, Second, and Cold War \u2014 has been [to sabotage] the relationship between Germany and Russia\" pic.twitter.com/Huhaje2HOE\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 11, 2023\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Wikileaks: US supported Khmer Rouge to weaken Soviet-allied Vietnamese communists. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Cambodia, Khmer Rouge, Soviet Union, USSR, WikiLeaks", "output": "Classified 1978 diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show the US government supported the Khmer Rouge, in order to maintain \u201cstability\u201d in Cambodia and weaken the Vietnamese communists, which were allied with the Soviet Union.\n\nFormerly classified 1978 diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks show that the US government supported the Khmer Rouge, in order to maintain \u201cstability\u201d in Cambodia and weaken the Vietnamese communists, which were allied with the Soviet Union.\nThe State Department sent a cable to six US embassies in Asia on 11 October 1978 stating, \u201cWe believe a national Cambodia must exist even though we believe the Pol Pot regime is the world\u2019s worst violator of human rights.\u201d\nThe Phnom Penh Post reported:\nYet while the US government was aware of the horrific actions of the Pol Pot regime, with a July 21 cable from the US Embassy in Laos estimating 2 million people had died at its hands, it refused overtures from the country\u2019s previous leadership to challenge the Pol Pot government\u2019s right to represent Cambodia at the United Nations.\nA 16 December US State Department cable to the UN stated, \u201cIf the Pol Pot regime was toppled, this could result in indefinite guerrilla warfare in Cambodia.\u201d\nThe US government insisted that, in spite of the roughly 1 to 2 million people killed by the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot maintained \u201cstability\u201d in Cambodia, and that was most important.\nRenowned muckraking journalist John Pilger, who witnessed firsthand the brutality of Pol Pot\u2019s regime, has detailed how the US and UK helped give rise to the Khmer Rouge in the first place.\nPilger explained in detail in 2000:\nDeclassified United States government documents leave little doubt that the secret and illegal bombing of then neutral Cambodia by President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger between 1969 and 1973 caused such widespread death and devastation that it was critical in Pol Pot\u2019s drive for power. \u201cThey are using damage caused by B52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda,\u201d the CIA director of operations reported on 2 May 1973. \u201cThis approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of young men. Residents say the propaganda campaign has been effective with refugees in areas that have been subject to B52 strikes.\u201d In dropping the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on a peasant society, Nixon and Kissinger killed an estimated half a million people. Year Zero began, in effect, with them; the bombing was a catalyst for the rise of a small sectarian group, the Khmer Rouge, whose combination of Maoism and medievalism had no popular base.\nAfter two and a half years in power, the Khmer Rouge was overthrown by the Vietnamese on Christmas Day, 1978. In the months and years that followed, the US and China and their allies, notably the Thatcher government, backed Pol Pot in exile in Thailand. He was the enemy of their enemy: Vietnam, whose liberation of Cambodia could never be recognised because it had come from the wrong side of the cold war. For the Americans, now backing Beijing against Moscow, there was also a score to be settled for their humiliation on the rooftops of Saigon.\nTo this end, the United Nations was abused by the powerful. Although the Khmer Rouge government (\u201cDemocratic Kampuchea\u201d) had ceased to exist in January 1979, its representatives were allowed to continue occupying Cambodia\u2019s seat at the UN; indeed, the US, China and Britain insisted on it. Meanwhile, a Security Council embargo on Cambodia compounded the suffering of a traumatised nation, while the Khmer Rouge in exile got almost everything it wanted. In 1981, President Jimmy Carter\u2019s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said: \u201cI encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot.\u201d The US, he added, \u201cwinked publicly\u201d as China sent arms to the Khmer Rouge.\nIn fact, the US had been secretly funding Pol Pot in exile since January 1980. The extent of this support \u2013 $85m from 1980 to 1986 \u2013 was revealed in correspondence to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On the Thai border with Cambodia, the CIA and other intelligence agencies set up the Kampuchea Emergency Group, which ensured that humanitarian aid went to Khmer Rouge enclaves in the refugee camps and across the border. Two American aid workers, Linda Mason and Roger Brown, later wrote: \u201cThe US government insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed . . . the US preferred that the Khmer Rouge operation benefit from the credibility of an internationally known relief operation.\u201d Under American pressure, the World Food Programme handed over $12m in food to the Thai army to pass on to the Khmer Rouge; \u201c20,000 to 40,000 Pol Pot guerillas benefited,\u201d wrote Richard Holbrooke, the then US assistant secretary of state.\nI witnessed this. Travelling with a UN convoy of 40 trucks, I drove to a Khmer Rouge operations base at Phnom Chat. The base commander was the infamous Nam Phann, known to relief workers as \u201cThe Butcher\u201d and Pol Pot\u2019s Himmler. After the supplies had been unloaded, literally at his feet, he said: \u201cThank you very much, and we wish for more.\u201d\nIn November of that year, 1980, direct contact was made between the White House and the Khmer Rouge when Dr Ray Cline, a former deputy director of the CIA, made a secret visit to a Khmer Rouge operational headquarters. Cline was then a foreign policy adviser on President-elect Reagan\u2019s transitional team. By 1981, a number of governments had become decidedly uneasy about the charade of the UN\u2019s continuing recognition of the defunct Pol Pot regime. Something had to be done. The following year, the US and China invented the Coalition of the Democratic Government of Kampuchea, which was neither a coalition nor democratic, nor a government, nor in Kampuchea (Cambodia). It was what the CIA calls \u201ca master illusion\u201d. Prince Norodom Sihanouk was appointed its head; otherwise little changed. The two \u201cnon-communist\u201d members, the Sihanoukists, led by the Prince\u2019s son, Norodom Ranariddh, and the Khmer People\u2019s National Liberation Front, were dominated, diplomatically and militarily, by the Khmer Rouge. One of Pol Pot\u2019s closet cronies, Thaoun Prasith, ran the office at the UN in New York.\nIn Bangkok, the Americans provided the \u201ccoalition\u201d with battle plans, uniforms, money and satellite intelligence; arms came direct from China and from the west, via Singapore. The non-communist fig leaf allowed Congress \u2013 spurred on by a cold-war zealot Stephen Solarz, a powerful committee chairman \u2013 to approve $24m in aid to the \u201cresistance\u201d.\nUntil 1989, the British role in Cambodia remained secret. The first reports appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, written by Simon O\u2019Dwyer-Russell, a diplomatic and defence correspondent with close professional and family contacts with the SAS. He revealed that the SAS was training the Pol Pot-led force. Soon afterwards, Jane\u2019s Defence Weekly reported that the British training for the \u201cnon-communist\u201d members of the \u201ccoalition\u201d had been going on \u201cat secret bases in Thailand for more than four years\u201d. The instructors were from the SAS, \u201call serving military personnel, all veterans of the Falklands conflict, led by a captain\u201d.\nThe Cambodian training became an exclusively British operation after the \u201cIrangate\u201d arms-for-hostages scandal broke in Washington in 1986. \u201cIf Congress had found out that Americans were mixed up in clandestine training in Indo-China, let alone with Pol Pot,\u201d a Ministry of Defence source told O\u2019Dwyer-Russell, \u201cthe balloon would have gone right up. It was one of those classic Thatcher-Reagan arrangements.\u201d Moreover, Margaret Thatcher had let slip, to the consternation of the Foreign Office, that \u201cthe more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government\u201d. In 1991, I interviewed a member of \u201cR\u201d (reserve) Squadron of the SAS, who had served on the border. \u201cWe trained the KR in a lot of technical stuff \u2013 a lot about mines,\u201d he said. \u201cWe used mines that came originally from Royal Ordnance in Britain, which we got by way of Egypt with marking changed . . . We even gave them psychological training. At first, they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them how to go easy . . .\u201d\nThe Foreign Office response was to lie. \u201cBritain does not give military aid in any form to the Cambodian factions,\u201d stated a parliamentary reply. The then prime minister, Thatcher, wrote to Neil Kinnock: \u201cI confirm that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them.\u201d On 25 June 1991, after two years of denials, the government finally admitted that the SAS had been secretly training the \u201cresistance\u201d since 1983. A report by Asia Watch filled in the detail: the SAS had taught \u201cthe use of improvised explosive devices, booby traps and the manufacture and use of time-delay devices\u201d. The author of the report, Rae McGrath (who shared a joint Nobel Peace Prize for the international campaign on landmines), wrote in the Guardian that \u201cthe SAS training was a criminally irresponsible and cynical policy\u201d.\nWhen a UN \u201cpeacekeeping force\u201d finally arrived in Cambodia in 1992, the Faustian pact was never clearer. Declared merely a \u201cwarring faction\u201d, the Khmer Rouge was welcomed back to Phnom Penh by UN officials, if not the people. The western politician who claimed credit for the \u201cpeace process\u201d, Gareth Evans (then Australia\u2019s foreign minister), set the tone by calling for an \u201ceven-handed\u201d approach to the Khmer Rouge and questioning whether calling it genocidal was \u201ca specific stumbling block\u201d.\nKhieu Samphan, Pol Pot\u2019s prime minister during the years of genocide, took the salute of UN troops with their commander, the Australian general John Sanderson, at his side. Eric Falt, the UN spokesman in Cambodia, told me: \u201cThe peace process was aimed at allowing [the Khmer Rouge] to gain respectability.\u201d\nThe consequence of the UN\u2019s involvement was the unofficial ceding of at least a quarter of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge (according to UN military maps), the continuation of a low-level civil war and the election of a government impossibly divided between \u201ctwo prime ministers\u201d: Hun Sen and Norodom Ranariddh.\nThe Hun Sen government has since won a second election outright. Authoritarian and at times brutal, yet by Cambodian standards extraordinarily stable, the government led by a former Khmer Rouge dissident, Hun Sen, who fled to Vietnam in the 1970s, has since done deals with leading figures of the Pol Pot era, notably the breakaway faction of Ieng Sary, while denying others immunity from prosecution.\nOnce the Phnom Penh government and the UN can agree on its form, an international war crimes tribunal seems likely to go ahead. The Americans want the Cambodians to play virtually no part; their understandable concern is that not only the Khmer Rouge will be indicted.\nThe Cambodian lawyer defending Ta Mok, the Khmer Rouge military leader captured last year, has said: \u201cAll the foreigners involved have to be called to court, and there will be no exceptions . . . Madeleine Albright, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush . . . we are going to invite them to tell the world why they supported the Khmer Rouge.\u201d\nThe 1978 documents released by WikiLeaks also indicate that the Chinese government joined the United States in supporting the Khmer Rouge. At the time, a decade after the Sino-Soviet split, Beijing was an ally of Washington; the two were united in their intense antipathy toward the Soviet Union, which they both targeted for overthrow.\nThe Phnom Penh Post reported that \u201cChinese support for Cambodia was driven by fear of Vietnamese expansionism in the region,\u201d and the Vietnamese were important allies of the Soviets.\nThe newspaper added that China had gone so far as to claim that the \u201creports of mass killings in Cambodia were untrue.\u201d\nThose who follow Middle Eastern politics may notice that the US policy toward the Khmer Rouge sounds a lot like the US policy in West Asia today, echoing Washington\u2019s support for hyper-repressive theocratic Gulf monarchies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and NATO\u2019s backing of Khmer Rouge-style Salafi-jihadist death squads in Syria, Libya, and Yemen.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Trump wanted US military attacks on Venezuela, Defense Secretary Mark Esper details in book. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Alex Saab, Donald Trump, Iran, Mark Esper, Mauricio Claver-Carone, National Security Council, Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, Robert O'Brien, Russia, Venezuela, William Barr", "output": "Donald Trump\u2019s former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper published a book revealing that top US officials frequently discussed military strikes on Venezuela, attacks by special operations forces, training and arming insurgents to launch an invasion, and cyberwarfare.\n\nFormer US Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper published a memoir detailing how the Donald Trump administration repeatedly discussed military attacks on Venezuela.\nEsper revealed that President \u201cTrump had been fixated on Venezuela since the early days of his administration,\u201d writing that, \u201cAgain and again, Trump would ask for military options\u201d to overthrow President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro.\nTop US officials pressed hard \u201cfor military action,\u201d Esper said, and National Security Council meetings on Venezuela \u201calways began with the consideration of military options, rather than on the other end of the spectrum\u2014diplomacy,\u201d Esper wrote.\nIn addition to direct military strikes on Venezuela, senior US officials proposed attacking with special operations forces, training and arming insurgents to launch an invasion, using cyberwarfare, intercepting ships, and imposing a naval blockade, the defense secretary disclosed.\nHe accused the Trump administration of \u201ccapricious use of the armed forces,\u201d arguing, \u201cAll this did was militarize our foreign policy.\u201d\nEsper, a former vice president for weapons corporation Raytheon, devoted a 30-page chapter to Venezuela in a book he released this May, titled \u201cA Sacred Oath: Memoirs of a Secretary of Defense During Extraordinary Times.\u201d\nEsper clearly wrote the book in a way that portrays himself and the Pentagon in the most positive light, and therefore sought to minimize his role in the disastrous and ultimately unsuccessful US coup attempts against Venezuela. But he did acknowledge some of the very aggressive actions taken by the Trump administration.\nSome parts of the memoir were however redacted by the Defense Department, including information about the US hybrid war operations targeting Venezuela.\n\n\u201cTrump had been fixated on Venezuela since the early days of his administration, with an eye toward using military force to oust Maduro,\u201d Mark Esper wrote in the book.\nIn January 2019, the Trump administration initiated a coup attempt by declaring that little-known right-wing politician Juan Guaid\u00f3 was supposed \u201cinterim president\u201d of Venezuela. (Guaid\u00f3 has never participated in a presidential election.)\nEsper revealed that it was due to State Department pressure that \u201cdozens of other countries recognized Guaid\u00f3 as the legitimate president of Venezuela.\u201d The State Department also pushed the Organization of American States (OAS) to back the unelected coup leader.\nThe former defense secretary acknowledged in his memoir that Guaid\u00f3 attempted a violent coup d\u2019etat on April 30, 2019, using \u201ca group of Venezuelan military officials and civilian personnel in an uprising to remove Maduro.\u201d But he conceded that the putsch \u201cfailed due to insufficient support from senior military officers.\u201d\n\u201cThe failure of Guaid\u00f3 and his fellow plotters marked the end of a critical phase in the Trump administration\u2019s attempts to rid the Venezuelan people of Maduro,\u201d Esper lamented.\nHe added, however, that \u201cgetting rid of Maduro still seemed to be a bucket list item for Trump,\u201d and, \u201cAgain and again, Trump would ask for military options.\u201d\nExplaining why Trump was so committed to overthrowing Venezuela\u2019s government, the former secretary of defense argued that the US president wanted to control the country\u2019s oil, just as he had publicly justified the continued military occupation of Syria to \u201ckeep the oil.\u201d\n\u201cTrump simply seemed to view these things as opportunities to make money, which didn\u2019t surprise me, given his business background and view of wealth as a metric of success,\u201d Esper wrote.\nThe secretary of defense supported the coup attempt in Venezuela, but was wary of the military option.\n\u201cI also wanted to see Maduro ousted. However, we had to do it the right way, the smart way,\u201d he said.\nVenezuelan coup leader Juan Guaid\u00f3 at Donald Trump\u2019s state of the union address in February 2020\nIn February 2020, Trump invited Guaid\u00f3 as a special guest to his state of the union address, in which the unelected Venezuelan coup leader was given a standing ovation by virtually all members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike.\nWhen Guaid\u00f3 met with Trump in the White House, they were joined by Mark Esper. The defense secretary recalled asking Guaid\u00f3, \u201cWould your people really be willing to organize, train, and fight?\u201d Guaid\u00f3 said, \u201cYes, they would.\u201d\nAfter the Oval Office meeting, Esper disclosed, he, Guaid\u00f3, and fellow coup-plotters discussed plans for the United States to train fighters in Colombia to later launch an attack on neighboring Venezuela.\nThey raised the possibility of \u201ca smaller, special operation targeted directly at Maduro,\u201d he recounted.\nEsper wrote: \u201cOne of Guaid\u00f3\u2019s colleagues looked at me from across the table and said something like, \u2018We have some plans you [the U.S. government] know we are working on, they\u2019re just not ready yet.\u2019 There was some quick reference to Florida too.\u201d\nThree months later, in May 2020, dozens of right-wing insurgents attempted an invasion of Venezuela, known as Operation Gideon. They were led by two former US Army special operations comandos.\nA Venezuelan army defector who helped plan a botched May 2020 invasion, Cl\u00edver Alcal\u00e1, said the coup-plotters were in touch with the CIA and other US government agencies\nThey had Washington's approval to try to violently overthrow President Nicol\u00e1s Madurohttps://t.co/GHYCrcZnm8\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 2, 2022\n\nThe invasion was organized by a Florida-based mercenary firm, Silvercorp USA, which is run by another ex Green Beret named Jordan Goudreau.\nGoudreau said in a breach-of-contract lawsuit that he had met with US government officials at a Miami county golf resort owned by Trump, and that they assured him of Washington\u2019s support for the operation.\nLawyers for a Venezuelan army defector who helped to plan the botched invasion, Cliver Alcal\u00e1, likewise emphasized that the coup-plotters were in contact with the CIA, National Security Council (NSC), and Department of the Treasury.\nIn his book, Esper personally denied knowledge of this operation. But he wrote, \u201cI often wondered if this was the plan referred to by Guaid\u00f3\u2019s team at the White House back in February and, if so, to what degree was the NSC aware and involved.\u201d\n(From left to right) US National Security Advisor Robert O\u2019Brien, Vice President Mike Pence, President Donald Trump, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark A. Milley, and Deputy Director for Special Operations Marcus Evans\nMark Esper\u2019s memoir \u201cA Sacred Oath\u201d clearly aims to shield the Defense Department from criticism, instead putting much of the blame for Washington\u2019s failed coup attempts in Venezuela on Trump\u2019s National Security Council.\nThe NSC held meetings \u201cto discuss military options for Venezuela,\u201d and the \u201cNSC team was even more enthusiastic about them\u201d than Trump was, Esper recalled.\nThe NSC\u2019s senior director for western hemisphere affairs, Mauricio Claver-Carone, \u201cwas pressing the hardest for military action,\u201d in \u201coutright advocacy for aggressive action.\u201d\nTrump\u2019s neoconservative National Security Advisor John Bolton, an architect of the Iraq War who oversaw the coup attempt in Venezuela, disclosed in his 2020 book, \u201cThe Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,\u201d that he had personally appointed Claver-Carone.\n\u201cEvery one of these NSC meetings, it seemed, always began with the consideration of military options, rather than on the other end of the spectrum\u2014diplomacy,\u201d Esper wrote.\nThe defense secretary said he cautioned against direct military attacks, given the possibility of escalation and potential deaths of US soldiers.\nAt the same time, however, Esper did avidly back the coup attempt in Venezuela. He also showed an imperialist attitude, asserting in his book, \u201cIn my view, we had to maintain our primacy in the Western Hemisphere.\u201d\nDespite Esper\u2019s hawkishness, he was apparently not belligerent enough for the neoconservatives surrounding him.\u00a0\u201cThe president felt the Pentagon wasn\u2019t doing enough on this issue \u2014he had been saying it for over three years, others told me,\u201d Esper said.\nThe defense secretary pushed back, listing the many actions the US military was taking to threaten Venezuela. These included Naval \u201coperations off the coast of Venezuela\u201d and \u201cAir Force B-52 bomber training flights\u201d that were \u201cpartnering with allied air forces in the region as a show of force.\u201d\nTrump with his new National Security Advisor Robert C. O\u2019Brien in September 2019\nThe US hybrid war on Venezuela was largely overseen by Trump\u2019s ultra-hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton, a deeply ideological neoconservative.\nAnother key figure involved in the coup plotting was Trump\u2019s special envoy for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, a convicted war criminal who helped lead the Ronald Reagan administration\u2019s Contra terrorist war on Nicaragua in the 1980s. In his book, \u201cThe Room Where It Happened,\u201d Bolton described Abrams affectionately as a close \u201cold friend.\u201d\nBut in September 2019, Trump fired Bolton, and replaced him with another bellicose veteran of the George W. Bush administration, Robert C. O\u2019Brien.\nEsper recalled in his memoir that \u201cO\u2019Brien and his team were pushing hard for some type of military action against Cuba and Venezuela to cut off Caracas\u2019s access to goods and cash.\u201d\nIn June 2020, Trump and top US national security officials held another Venezuela-related meeting, in which \u201cthe NSC proposed again that we pursue a military operation.\u201d\nNational Security Advisor \u201cO\u2019Brien went straight for the jugular, proposing a military strike on\u2026 a seaport in northeastern Venezuela, where a large complex for loading and unloading petroleum products on and off ships is located,\u201d Esper wrote. (The name of the port was redacted by the Pentagon.)\nO\u2019Brien wanted to \u201cfurther disrupt their energy supplies and provoke more unrest,\u201d Esper explained, with \u201ceither an air strike or the use of Navy SEALs.\u201d\nWe \u201cwere now discussing a military assault on Venezuela,\u201d the defense secretary recalled.\nEsper said he opposed any proposals for military attacks, partially because they \u201ccould escalate into a conflict and likely rally the Venezuelan people behind Maduro.\u201d\nGiven these fears, Esper wrote, \u201cWe pivoted to less direct options, such as cyber operations, or [REDACTED] activities supported by the United States but conducted by the opposition.\u201d\nMark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, \u201cthought we should look at irregular warfare options, such as the U.S. training and arming of Venezuelan expatriates,\u201d he recounted. (More information about this was redacted by the Defense Department.)\n\u201cThe United States had a long history with these types of operations. It was an idea worth developing,\u201d Esper wrote.\nThe defense secretary added, \u201cMilley and I had discussed this several times before.\u201d\nThe Trump administration\u2019s goal \u201cwas to shut off Venezuela\u2019s oil revenue,\u201d Mark Esper explained. Illegal US sanctions escalated into a full embargo in August 2019.\nThe United Nations\u2019 top expert on sanctions, Alena Douhan, would later go on a fact-finding mission to Venezuela, in February 2021. She found that \u201cunilateral sanctions increasingly imposed by the United States, the European Union and other countries have exacerbated the [economic crisis].\u201d\nThe Venezuelan \u201cgovernment\u2019s revenue was reported to shrink by 99% with the country currently living on 1% of its pre-sanctions income,\u201d wrote Douhan, in her capacity as UN special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights.\nBut despite this brutal economic embargo, Venezuela\u2019s oil sector did not completely collapse. Part of this was because of support from allies.\nEsper noted in his memoir that the Trump administration was furious when Iran began providing support to Venezuela. In 2020, Tehran started sending oil tankers to Caracas, delivering lighter crude and diluents that Venezuela needed to process and refine its heavy crude.\n\u201cThere was good cause for concern about this deepening collaboration between them, and with Russia and China as well, especially when it involved a country in our hemisphere,\u201d Esper wrote.\n\u201cFor Trump personally, this was like waving red flags in front of an enraged bull,\u201d he added.\nEsper complained about this growing alliance between Venezuela and Iran, calling it \u201ctroubling.\u201d\nHe noted that, back in 2007, Venezuelan President Hugo Ch\u00e1vez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared an \u201caxis of unity\u201d against US imperialism \u2013 although Esper was careful to write \u201cimperialism\u201d in scare quotes.\n\u201cWe needed to keep the pressure on, and find new ways to advance our policy aims,\u201d Esper concluded.\nHe wrote that \u201cNSC staff pushed the idea of a blockade\u201d \u2013 a physical blockade by the US military. Esper said he opposed the policy, noting that \u201cblockades are considered an act of war under international law.\u201d\nSo the NSC raised the possibility of \u201cinterdicting ships that are carrying Venezuelan oil,\u201d suggesting \u201cthat the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard identify these ships, stop them, and seize them.\u201d\nUS officials claimed that Iran, Russia, and China were allegedly using these ships to sell weapons to Venezuela.\nIn this June 2020 meeting with Trump, the top US officials \u201cagreed to develop kinetic and nonkinetic options, both overt and [REDACTED], that could disrupt Venezuela\u2019s oil and arms shipments.\u201d\nThis culminated in August 2020, when the US government intercepted four tankers and illegally seized 1.1 million barrels of fuel being sent to Venezuela, allegedly by Iran. This operation was essentially an act of international piracy. Esper praised the criminal action as \u201ca great initiative by Justice and State.\u201d\nIn addition to intercepting foreign ships, Esper noted that the Trump administration heated up the hybrid war on Venezuela by accusing the Maduro government, without any evidence, of \u201cnarco-terrorism\u201d and drug trafficking.\nAccording to Esper, this idea was proposed by\u00a0Trump\u2019s Attorney General William Barr,\u00a0a former CIA agent and longtime member of far-right theocratic sect Opus Dei.\nEsper endorsed this strategy, writing, \u201cThank goodness we were now talking about enhanced drug interdiction efforts in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, off the coast of California, instead of something far more dubious. This made a whole lot more sense to me.\u201d\nTrump\u2019s Attorney General William Barr charging the Venezuelan government with \u201cnarco-terrorism\u201d and drug trafficking in March 2020\nIn his book \u201cA Sacred Oath,\u201d former Defense Secretary Mark Esper also discussed the US government-backed kidnapping of Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab.\nIn June 2020, Saab was arrested by Cape Verde, at the order of the United States. In clear violation of international law and diplomatic immunity, the Trump administration demanded the extradition of Saab. This eventually succeeded under the Joe Biden administration in October 2021.\nEsper admitted that \u201cSaab was reportedly on a special mission to negotiate a deal with Iran for Venezuela to receive more fuel, food, and medical supplies.\u201d\n\u201cSaab was a very important player,\u201d Esper wrote. \u201cIt was important to get custody of him.\u201d\nThe former defense secretary recalled that the State and Justice Departments had asked the Pentagon to deploy special operations forces to Cape Verde to make sure that Saab was extradited to the United States.\nWithout presenting any concrete evidence, some US officials claimed that Russia and Iran were preparing covert ops to try to free Saab and take him out of Cape Verde.\nEsper acknowledged that \u201cthere was no proof\u201d of this, stating clearly, \u201cI never thought the threat was real in the first place.\u201d\nBut he agreed to commit teams from US Africa Command (AFRICOM) and the Coast Guard to support Cape Verde and make sure that Saab\u2019s extradition went through.\nTrump and the State Department were not content. They wanted more, requesting that the US Navy send a warship to patrol around Cape Verde.\nEsper responded, \u201cI don\u2019t support the proposed action. They first have to show me some evidence that Russia, Iran, or Venezuela is planning to grab Saab.\u201d\n\u201cThe president fired me a few weeks later,\u201d the former secretary of defense wrote. \u201cWith me out of the way, the Venezuela hawks pressed my successor for a warship, which he quickly approved. Not long after that, the USS San Jacinto deployed from Norfolk, Virginia, en route to Cape Verde to keep an eye\u2014somehow\u2014on Saab while supposedly deterring outside intervention.\u201d\nEsper noted that it cost $52,000 per day to keep this US Navy warship in Cape Verde.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US blocks Gaza peace proposal at UN for 3rd time, holding world hostage. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Gaza, Israel, Palestine, Security Council, United Nations", "output": "The US government has paralyzed the United Nations, voting against the rest of the world and preventing peace in Gaza by vetoing three different resolutions in the Security Council. Meanwhile, Washington continues giving weapons to Israel.\n\nThe United States has used its veto power in the United Nations Security Council three times in less than two months to kill resolutions calling for peace in Gaza.\nMeanwhile, Washington is sending billions of dollars worth of weapons to Israel, directly assisting the country as it commits war crimes against Palestinian civilians.\n\nOn December 8, the Security Council voted on a resolution that called for an \u201cimmediate humanitarian ceasefire\u201d and the unconditional release of all hostages.\nThe United States was the only country on the 15-member council that voted against the measure.\n#BREAKING United States vetoes Security Council draft resolution that would have demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, and immediate and unconditional release of all hostages\nVOTEIn Favour: 13Against: 1 (US)Abstain: 1 (UK) pic.twitter.com/hY0YcJ1JKF\n\u2014 UN News (@UN_News_Centre) December 8, 2023\n\nThis resolution had been introduced by the United Arab Emirates, and had the support of more than 90 UN member states.\nThe 13 Security Council members that voted for the measure were Albania, Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Russia, Switzerland, and the UAE.\nClose US ally the United Kingdom was the only country to abstain in the vote.\nUN Security Council vote (on December 8) calling for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza:\nFOR (13)????????Albania????????Brazil????????China????????Ecuador????????France????????Gabon????????Ghana????????Japan????????Malta????????Mozambique????????Russia????????Switzerland????????UAE(????????Backed by 90+ UN member states and Secretary-General\u2026 https://t.co/b0FM7mhLEn\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 9, 2023\n\nThe United States helped to design the United Nations after World War II, concentrating power in the Security Council and giving permanent seats with veto power to the victors: the US, UK, France, USSR (now Russia), and China.\nMany countries in the Global South have called to expand the Security Council and to eliminate the veto.\nChina and Russia have repeatedly expressed support for expanding the council. But Washington has adamantly opposed the initiative.\nGlobal South leaders are particularly frustrated by the fact that the UK and France, each of which has a population of fewer than 70 million people, both have permanent seats on the Security Council, but not many of the most populous countries on Earth, such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nigeria, or Brazil.\nBrazil\u2019s left-wing President Lula da Silva stressed this November that the failure of the UN to bring peace to Palestine demonstrates that the system is \u201cbroken\u201d and has a \u201clack of credibility\u201d.\n\u201cThe UN needs change\u201d, Lula said, calling to expand the Security Council and remove the veto.\n\u201cThe UN of 1945 does not work in 2023\u201d, the Brazilian leader added.\nUN Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres has publicly called for a ceasefire in Gaza, but was rejected by Washington.\nGuterres took the extraordinary measure of invoking article 99 of the UN Charter, for the first time in five decades.\nArticle 99 states, \u201cThe Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security\u201d.\nThe Associated Press noted, \u201cArticle 99 is extremely rarely used. The last time it was invoked was during fighting in 1971 that led to the creation of Bangladesh and its separation from Pakistan\u201d.\nIn the case of the Bangladeshi national liberation war of 1971, Pakistan\u2019s right-wing military regime ethnically cleansed and committed genocide against Bengalis, with the support of the US government \u2013 specifically President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger.\nThe genocidal situation in Palestine is strikingly similar today.\nThis November, top UN experts warned that \u201cgrave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians\u2026 point to a genocide in the making\u201d.\nThe UN experts wrote:\n[Israeli officials] illustrated evidence of increasing genocidal incitement, overt intent to \u201cdestroy the Palestinian people under occupation\u201d, loud calls for a \u2018second Nakba\u2019 in Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory, and the use of powerful weaponry with inherently indiscriminate impacts, resulting in a colossal death toll and destruction of life-sustaining infrastructure.\nThe Wall Street Journal reported on December 1 that the \u201cU.S. has provided Israel with large bunker buster bombs, among tens of thousands of other weapons and artillery shells\u201d.\nIn less than two months, Washington sent Israel approximately 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells.\nIn fact, Gaza is now one of the most heavily bombed areas in history, according to a report in the Financial Times.\nGaza is one of the most heavily bombed areas in history\n\nThe United States voted against two similar resolutions in October.\nOn October 16, the US and its allies the UK, France, and Japan voted against a measure introduced by Russia that called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.\nThe Western powers killed a UN Security Council resolution that proposed a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza\nThe resolution was proposed by Russia\n5 countries voted for the ceasefire:???????? China???????? Gabon???????? Mozambique???????? Russia???????? UAE\n4 voted against:???????? France???????? Japan???????? UK???????? US\u2026 pic.twitter.com/6UMfoRRqQH\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 17, 2023\n\nTwo days later, the US unilaterally vetoed a resolution introduced by Brazil that urged \u201chumanitarian pauses\u201d in Gaza.\nThe UK abstained in that vote. Russia did too, but as a form of protest, arguing that the resolution was too weak, instead urging a ceasefire.\nUS vetoes Security Council resolution that would have called for \u201chumanitarian pauses\u201d to deliver lifesaving aid to millions in Gaza\nFavor: 12 (Albania, Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland,UAE)Against: 1 (US)Abstain: 2 Russia, UK pic.twitter.com/y4tiAbRMUQ\n\u2014 UN News (@UN_News_Centre) October 18, 2023\n\nAt the Security Council meeting on December 8, Russia\u2019s UN representative, Dmitriy Polyanskiy, warned that the United States was \u201cleaving scorched earth in its wake\u201d.\nChina\u2019s ambassador, Zhang Jun, stated, \u201cThe task required of the Council is very clear and definitive \u2013 act immediately, achieve a ceasefire, protect civilians and avoid a human catastrophe on a larger scale\u201d.\n\u201cThe task required of the Council is very clear and definitive \u2013 act immediately, achieve a ceasefire, protect civilians and avoid a human catastrophe on a larger scale\u201d \u2013 Zhang Jun, Permanent Representative of China pic.twitter.com/VY9LEf2vKs\n\u2014 UN News (@UN_News_Centre) December 8, 2023\n\n139 of the 193 members of the United Nations recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, but it is not officially a UN member state \u2013 because the United States has prevented it from becoming one.\nPalestine does however have observer status in the UN (along with the Vatican).\nThe representative of the observer state of Palestine, Riyad Mansour, participated in the December 8 Security Council session.\n\u201cMillions of Palestinian lives hang in the balance, every single one of them is sacred and worth saving\u201d, he cautioned.\nBy failing to approve a ceasefire, the Security Council is ensuring that Israeli \u201cwar criminals are given more time to perpetrate their crimes\u201d, Mansour added.\nThe Palestinian representative asked, \u201cHow can this be justified? How can anyone justify the slaughter of an entire people?\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CIA veteran hosting anti-China \u2018Uyghur diaspora\u2019 podcast funded by US government. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "arts, China, CIA, culture, John Bair, National Endowment for Democracy, NED, The New Wild, Uyghurs", "output": "The \u201cWEghur Stories\u201d podcast claims to speak on behalf of \u201cthe Uyghur diaspora,\u201d and uses intersectional feminist rhetoric to demonize China. But it\u2019s co-created and hosted by an ex CIA agent, with funding from the US embassy in France.\n\nThe US embassy in France is funding an anti-China podcast that purports to speak on behalf of the Uyghur Muslim community, but was in fact co-created and is co-hosted by a non-Uyghur CIA veteran.\nWEghur Stories describes itself as \u201cthe first podcast entirely about the Uyghur diaspora,\u201d and says it is \u201cworking to create a conversation within and about the global Uyghur diaspora.\u201d\nThe co-creator, co-host, and producer of WEghur Stories, John Bair, describes himself on the podcast\u2019s official website merely as an \u201cAmerican writer who specializes in helping other people tell their stories.\u201d\nBut Bair is much more than that; he is a CIA veteran who specializes in information warfare.\nIt is not difficult to find ties between Bair and the notorious spy agency, which has organized anti-democratic coups d\u2019etat around the world and has been complicit in targeted assassinations, torture, and drug trafficking.\nBair is a member of the board of directors of a Washington, DC-based advocacy group called Foreign Policy for America (FP4A).\nThe text of Bair\u2019s biography on the FP4A website is completely different from his WEghur Stories bio, although both use the same photo.\nThe FP4A page reveals that Bair \u201cis an alumnus of the CIA, where he served as an intelligence analyst, chief of staff, and public communications officer.\u201d It adds that Bair \u201cworks at the intersection of national security and communications.\u201d\n\nThe shady past of this co-host of a \u201cUyghur diaspora\u201d podcast was first reported\u00a0on Twitter by Arnaud Bertrand, a computer engineer and businessman who lives in Shanghai, China.\nBertrand was also quick to notice that the show is funded by the US government.\nThe bottom of the WEghur Stories website discloses that this \u201cpodcast is made possible with support of the Embassy of the United States of America, France.\u201d\n\nThe US embassy in Brussels has likewise paid Facebook to post ads promoting the podcast.\nGot a US Embassy ad about this on Facebook today pic.twitter.com/SUQEBR3mb4\n\u2014 internet forum user ? (@gemorrelman) February 2, 2022\n\nThe US government has spent millions of dollars funding Uyghur secessionist groups in China\u2019s western Xinjiang province, which is geostrategically located at the heart of Beijing\u2019s Belt and Road Initiative, a massive global infrastructure program that Washington has desperately tried to disrupt.\nUyghur separatist organizations in the diaspora that admit to seeking the \u201cfall of China\u201d have also been bankrolled by the US government\u2019s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA cutout created by the Ronald Reagan administration.\nIn an effort to demonize and destabilize China, the US government has accused China of supposedly committing \u201cgenocide\u201d against the Uyghur minority \u2013 even while the State Department\u2019s own lawyers concluded that \u201cthere was insufficient evidence to prove genocide,\u201d Foreign Policy magazine reported.\nThe US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a CIA cutout created by the Ronald Reagan administration.\nHere the NED openly admits what we have been reporting for years at @TheGrayzoneNews: This CIA cutout bankrolls anti-China Uyghur separatist groupshttps://t.co/PijIA7Jnkq https://t.co/MVfGgAG8Nx\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 11, 2020\n\nThe WEghur Stories podcast reflects how US government-sponsored groups and intelligence agencies are increasingly appropriating identity politics to advance Washington\u2019s foreign-policy interests.\nOne of the most cynical examples of this strategy is an episode titled \u201cBeing Uyghur Women,\u201d which exploits liberal feministic rhetoric to push anti-China propaganda.\nThis episode, which is co-hosted by Bair \u2013 the non-Uyghur white male CIA veteran \u2013 opens with a monologue on the importance of \u201cempowering our women,\u201d stating that \u201cwomen should not be the entrusted and passive guardian of culture under the shadow of the male or state gaze.\u201d\n\nThe episode condemns the government in Beijing as a violent patriarchal regime, declaring that, \u201cIn China, gender equality by engaging women in the workforce has never been achieved in any meaningful way,\u201d and that Chinese women suffer from \u201crampant discrimination.\u201d\nDenouncing \u201cthe Chinese government\u2019s brutality,\u201d the episode proclaims, \u201cWe need to engage and critique patriarchy, stand tall against violence towards women and the queer community.\u201d\n\u201cWe should allow ourselves to be angry to grieve, and fight the Chinese state\u2019s violence against us,\u201d the podcast insists.\nThis rhetoric is very reminiscent of a recruitment advertisement the CIA published in 2021, in which an employee of the infamous spy agency proudly declared that she is an intersectional feminist.\nIn the video, the CIA agent describes herself in a poetic monologue as \u201cintersectional,\u201d a \u201cwoman of color,\u201d and \u201ca cis-gender millennial whose been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder.\u201d\n\u201cI refuse to internalize misguided patriarchal ideas of what a woman can or should be,\u201d the CIA officer proclaimed.\n\nWEghur Stories is produced by a \u201cmultidisciplinary art lab\u201d called The New Wild. Like the podcast, this company creates art that coincidentally coincides with US foreign-policy interests.\nOther projects produced by The New Wild include \u201cEverybody Is Gone (Or, the Happiest Muslims in the World),\u201d which the lab describes as \u201ca large-scale art installation and performance whose process and outcomes are centered around offering reparative spaces to the Uyghur community, an ethnic Muslim minority group that is currently experiencing extreme oppression at the hands of the Chinese government.\u201d\nCIA veteran Bair served as director of communications for \u201cEverybody Is Gone,\u201d and\u00a0The New Wild openly admits that the project \u201cseeks to draw widespread public attention to the crisis, facilitate collective action to end it, and counteract the Chinese government\u2019s objectives by providing a platform and resources for Uyghur art and culture to be preserved, perpetuated, and celebrated.\u201d\nIn short, this art is a propaganda tool that explicitly aims to \u201ccounteract the Chinese government\u2019s objectives\u201d (and, by sheer coincidence, advances the US government\u2019s objectives in the process).\n\nAnother The New Wild production, called \u201cTear a Root from the Earth,\u201d is a musical that tells the story of how the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s hurt an Afghan family. The book for the dramatic work was written by John Bair, the CIA veteran.\nThe New Wild likewise produced a multimedia solo performance, \u201cLetters From Home,\u201d which focuses on \u201cCambodia suffering through the genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge,\u201d and \u201cthe hope inherent in immigration and the American dream.\u201d\nWEghur Stories and similar productions show how art and media can be repurposed to serve as a political weapon \u2013 one that just so happens to advance US foreign-policy objectives.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Ukraine\u2019s Zelensky sends love letter to US corporations, promising \u2018big business\u2019 for Wall Street. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "BlackRock, Chamber of Commerce, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Mykhailo Fedorov, National Association of State Chambers, neoliberalism, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, Wall Street", "output": "In a video address to a US corporate lobby group, Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky thanked companies like BlackRock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Starlink, insisting \u201ceveryone can become a big business by\u201d investing in Ukraine, where \u201cwe are defending freedom and property\u201d.\n\nUkraine\u2019s Western-backed leader Volodymyr Zelensky sent a love letter to US companies, thanking \u201csuch giants of the international financial and investment world as BlackRock, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs\u201d for buying up his country\u2019s assets.\n\u201cEveryone can become a big business by working with Ukraine\u201d, he enticed, claiming that the reconstruction of his nation \u201cwill be the largest economic project of our time in Europe\u201d.\n\nZelensky likewise praised the Starlink company of billionaire Elon Musk for its technological support, and he called for more Western weapons shipments, including Patriot missiles and Abram tanks.\nThe Ukrainian leader delivered these remarks in a January 23 video address to US corporate lobby group the National Association of State Chambers.\n\u201cWe are defending freedom and property\u201d, Zelensky declared, portraying the proxy war between NATO and Russia in Ukraine as a battle for the soul of the Western-led capitalist order.\nIn a speech to a US corporate lobby group, Ukraine's Zelensky thanked Black Rock, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Elon Musk's Starlink, promising:\n\u201cEveryone can become a big business by\u201d buying up Ukrainian assets\n\u201cWe are defending freedom and property\u201d\nMore: https://t.co/fNZplLUr2n pic.twitter.com/XGZTBab9q9\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 25, 2023\n\nZelensky\u2019s government has imposed some of the world\u2019s most aggressive anti-worker policies, passing legislation that \u201cdeprives around 73% of workers of their right to union protection and collective bargaining\u201d, which even the US government-funded Solidarity Center of the AFL-CIO labor federation condemned as a \u201csignificant assault on worker rights in Ukraine\u201c.\nZelensky\u2019s staunchly anti-worker, anti-union, and pro-corporate ideology came through clear in the neoliberal rhetoric of the speech he gave to the US chamber of commerce organization.\nHe compared governing Ukraine to running a business, and thanked the corporate executives at the conference \u201cfor this opportunity to address those who create the globally important economic strength of America\u201d.\nThe Ukrainian president\u2019s office published on its official website a transcript of the speech, titled \u201cAfter the end of the war, American business can become a locomotive of global economic growth\u201d.\n\u201cThanks to the leadership of the United States of America, which has consolidated the world in defense of freedom, we see how to win this battle\u201d, Zelensky effused.\nThe speech sounded less like the words of a stateman and more like an advertisement by a used car salesman \u2013 except he is not selling cars; he is selling his country to foreign mega-corporations.\nZelensky boasted (emphasis added):\nWe have already managed to attract attention and have cooperation with such giants of the international financial and investment world as Black Rock, J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs.\nSuch American brands as Starlink or Westinghouse have already become part of our, Ukrainian, way.\nYour brilliant defense systems \u2013 such as HIMARS or Bradleys \u2013 are already uniting our history of freedom with your enterprises. We are waiting for Patriots. We are looking closely at Abrams.\nThousands of such examples are possible!\nAnd everyone can become a big business by working with Ukraine. In all sectors \u2013 from weapons and defense to construction, from communications to agriculture, from transport to IT, from banks to medicine.\nI believe that freedom must always win. And, I invite you to work with us right now.\nIn comments clearly seeking to appeal to US conservatives,\u00a0Zelensky also used the speech to repeatedly condemn \u201cthe Iranian regime\u201d, which he demonized as Russia\u2019s \u201cterrorist ally\u201d.\nZelensky was addressing the 2023 winter meeting of the National Association of State Chambers in Boca Raton, Florida.\nThe Indiana Chamber of Commerce tweeted proudly, \u201cOur President Kevin Brinegar is among state chamber leaders at the National Assocation of State Chambers winter meeting in Florida hearing from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He thanked U.S. business leaders for support and for promoting free enterprise\u201d.\nOur President Kevin Brinegar is among state chamber leaders at the National Assocation of State Chambers winter meeting in Florida hearing from Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He thanked U.S. business leaders for support and for promoting free enterprise. #ukraine https://t.co/8Ijea6H6mP\n\u2014 Indiana Chamber (@IndianaChamber) January 23, 2023\n\nIn September 2022,\u00a0Zelensky symbolically rang the opening bell at the New York Stock Exchange via video stream.\nThe Ukrainian leader declared that his country was \u201copen for business\u201d, with more than $400 billion in \u201cinvestment options\u201d.\nAt the same time, Zelensky published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal calling on Western corporations to \u201cInvest in the Future of Ukraine\u201d.\nKiev\u2019s economic ministry launched a program called Advantage Ukraine, which it boasted offers profitable \u201cpublic private partnerships, privatization and private ventures\u201d, with the help of a \u201cUSAID-supported project team of investment bankers and researchers\u201d.\nThe Ukrainian government cited corporate executives at Google, Alphabet, and Microsoft, who urged more Western companies to buy up the country\u2019s assets.\nUkraine\u2019s Zelensky told Wall Street his country is \"open\" for corporations to exploit it with $400 billion in state selloffs\nEconomist Michael Hudson says Ukraine's vicious anti-labor policies are reminiscent of Chile's fascist Pinochet regimehttps://t.co/QconroKORI\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) September 9, 2022\n\nGeopolitical Economy Report has also reported on the Ukraine Reform Conference and Ukraine Recovery Conference, meetings in which Western governments and corporations have met with top Ukrainian officials to plan aggressive neoliberal shock therapy \u2013 like the kind that was imposed on the Russian Federation in the early 1990s, which led to 3.2 million excess deaths, according to UNICEF.\nIn a meeting in Switzerland in July 2022, Western and Ukrainian government representatives published economic blueprints that called for Kiev to cut labor laws, \u201copen markets\u201d, drop tariffs, deregulate industries, and \u201csell state-owned enterprises to private investors\u201d.\nZelensky has used the emergency of the war to ram through harsh anti-labor legislation, suspending collective bargaining rights and essentially making it illegal for most workers to form a union.\nEconomist Michael Hudson compared Zelensky\u2019s extreme neoliberal policies to those of Chile\u2019s far-right US-backed former dictator Augusto Pinochet.\nWestern governments and corporations met in Switzerland to plan harsh neoliberal economic policies to impose on post-war Ukraine, calling to cut labor laws, \u201copen markets,\u201d deregulate industries, and \u201csell state-owned enterprises to private investors.\u201dhttps://t.co/J0n8db8ZLr\n\u2014 Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticaEcon) July 29, 2022\n\nIn December 2022, Zelensky held a video conference with billionaire Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world\u2019s largest asset manager.\nIn a press release, the Ukrainian government made it clear that BlackRock is overseeing its reconstruction process.\nZelensky\u2019s office said BlackRock will \u201cadvise the Ukrainian government on how to structure the country\u2019s reconstruction funds\u201d, and is \u201ccoordinating the efforts of all potential investors and participants in the reconstruction of our country, channelling investment into the most relevant and impactful sectors of the Ukrainian economy\u201d.\nThis means that, under Western tutelage, Ukraine has essentially privatized and outsourced its economic policy to BlackRock, one of the world\u2019s most powerful corporations.\nBlackRock, which manages more than $8 trillion in assets, is a robber baron\u2019s oligopolistic dream. The \u201cbig three\u201d US asset managers BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street are the largest shareholders in nearly 90% of S&P 500 companies.\n\nUkraine\u2019s vice prime minister and minister of digital transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, published a video in July 2022 that clearly illustrated Kiev\u2019s neoliberal vision for the future.\nThe Ukrainian government\u2019s economic plan looked like a scene out of a libertarian science-fiction film, where everything is privatized and corporations are free to exploit anyone without any regulation.\nUkraine 2030 \u2014 the freest and most digital country in the world. Without bureaucracy, but with strong tech industry. Cashless & paperless. This is the future we are building. pic.twitter.com/XWs4E1pPGJ\n\u2014 Mykhailo Fedorov (@FedorovMykhailo) July 14, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US gov\u2019t blatantly lies about NATO expansion to militarily encircle Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Antony Blinken, NATO, Russia, Ukraine", "output": "Secretary of State Antony Blinken claimed the US-led military alliance \u201cNATO never promised not to admit new members.\u201d This is a lie contradicted by multiple Western government documents.\n\nThe US government is trying to rewrite the past, acting as though no one else on the planet knows history.\nThe Joe Biden administration has rejected Russia\u2019s demand to stop expanding the NATO military alliance, which Washington leads.\nSecretary of State Antony Blinken falsely claimed that \u201cNATO never promised not to admit new members\u201d \u2013 a lie clearly contradicted by Washington\u2019s own internal documents.\nDeclassified records from the US, Soviet/Russian, German, British, and French governments show that Blinken\u2019s predecessor, Secretary of State James Baker, promised the USSR back in 1990 that NATO would not expand \u201cone inch eastward\u201d after German reunification.\nThis is an undeniable fact, a matter of public record, revealed in these documents published by the National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington, DC.\nThe National Security Archive noted that Secretary of State Baker reassured Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev \u201cnot once, but three times\u201d that NATO would expand \u201cnot one inch eastward,\u201d in a February 9, 1990 meeting.\nBaker told the final Soviet leader that Washington agreed that, \u201cnot only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO\u2019s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.\u201d\n\nBut, ignoring this documented fact, the Biden administration has tried to erase history, while repurposing woke Tumblr rhetoric to push its \u201cintersectional\u201d imperialist agenda.\nBlinken accused Moscow of \u201cgaslighting\u201d about NATO\u2019s intentions \u2013 while the US and its Western allies support neo-Nazis in Ukraine to try to militarily encircle Russia.\nIn reality, Washington is the one gaslighting the world, falsely claiming that NATO never pledged not to expand, when everyone knows it did.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: USA vs the world: Blockade on Cuba opposed by 97% of countries at UN. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Cuba, Israel, sanctions, Ukraine, UN, United Nations", "output": "The world voted 187 to 2 at the United Nations General Assembly for an end to the illegal US embargo against Cuba. Only Israel supported Washington, while Ukraine abstained.\n\nUS officials frequently talk about the \u201crules-based international order\u201d, and label other countries as \u201crogue states\u201d if Washington doesn\u2019t like their policies.\nBut a look at votes in the United Nations clearly shows that the United States consistently opposes the will of the entire international community.\n\nThe world saw a striking example of this on November 2, when almost every country on Earth supported a UN General Assembly resolution that called to end the US embargo against Cuba.\nOnly two countries voted against the measure: the United States and Israel.\nJust one country abstained: Ukraine.\n\nThe world has for the most part voted the same way for 31 consecutive years.\nIn 2022, the vote was 185 to two, with two abstentions. At that time, Brazil was ruled by far-right, pro-US leader Jair Bolsonaro, who abstained. But now that Brazil\u2019s left-wing President Lula da Silva is back in power, he has joined with the rest of the international community in opposing illegal US sanctions.\nEntire world votes 185 to 2 against blockade of Cuba \u2013 US and Israel are rogue states at UN\n\nWashington has maintained a suffocating blockade against Cuba for more than 60 years. This has starved the country of an estimated $159 billion, or approximately 150% of Cuba\u2019s entire GDP.\nThe US embargo prevents Cuba from importing certain technologies, machine parts, medicines, and even foods, despite Washington\u2019s misleading claim to have \u201chumanitarian exemptions\u201d \u2013 a rhetorical sleight of hand that in reality does not apply when foreign firms are afraid of secondary sanctions and therefore do not bother the risk of trading with Cuba.\nIllegal US sanctions make it exceedingly difficult for Cuba to get access to international financing, and cut off communication with many risk-averse foreign banks.\nThe US blockade has directly contributed to many preventable deaths of Cubans, who have perished because their country was not able to import specific medicines, medical equipment, or machine parts that were needed to treat them.\nWashington\u2019s goal behind this criminal blockade is very clear: \u201cto bring about hunger, desperation, and overthrow of government\u201d.\nIn an internal State Department cable from 1960, the year after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro, top US diplomats regretfully conceded that \u201cthe majority of Cubans support Castro\u201d and \u201cthere is no effective political opposition\u201d.\nThe US State Department therefore concluded:\nThe only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship.\nIf the above are accepted or cannot be successfully countered, it follows that every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. If such a policy is adopted, it should be the result of a positive decision which would call forth a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.\nCuba\u2019s Foreign Ministry published a report for UN member states in July 2023, which detailed how illegal US sanctions have devastated the country.\nIn the year from March 1, 2022 to February 28, 2023, Cuba estimated that the US blockade caused losses of $4.87 billion, or around $13 million per day.\nThis is a massive economic blow for a small island nation whose GDP is just over $100 billion.\nCuba calculated that, \u201cAt current prices, the accumulated losses during the over 60 years of application of this policy amount to USD 159,084,300,000\u201d, or roughly 150% of GDP.\nMoreover, Havana said GDP growth in 2022 would have likely been 9%, were it not for the illegal US embargo.\n\u201cThe blockade directly causes extreme harm through the combined effects of its various measures, pursuing its cruel, practical aim of depriving the country of the inflow of funds essential for the purchase of food, supplies, equipment, spare parts, technologies and software\u201d, the report stated.\n\u201cNo other nation has been obliged to take on a social and development program under such conditions of prolonged systematic\nhostility on the part of the greatest power in human history\u201d, the Cuban government wrote.\n\u201cThe blockade constitutes a massive, flagrant and systematic violation of the human rights of all Cubans. By reason of its express purpose and the political, legal and administrative structures on which it is based, it constitutes an act of genocide under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide\u201d, Havana added.\nCuba noted that more than 80% of its current population has no idea what life is like without the US blockade.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Xi blasts US \u2018containment, encirclement\u2019 of China, Foreign Ministry slams \u2018hysterical neo-McCarthyism\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, Cold War Two, Hua Chunying, new cold war, Qin Gang, Xi Jinping", "output": "President Xi Jinping denounced the US-led Western attempt to \u201ccontain, encircle, and suppress China\u201d. Foreign Minister Qin Gang condemned Washington\u2019s \u201chysterical neo-McCarthyism\u201d and \u201cmalicious confrontation\u201d, opposing the \u201ccold war mentality\u201d.\n\nChinese President Xi Jinping has denounced the US-led Western attempt to \u201ccontain, encircle, and suppress China\u201d.\nForeign Minister Qin Gang likewise warned that the US government is pursuing a \u201chysterical neo-McCarthyism\u201d, and that its \u201cso-called \u2018competition\u2019 means to contain and suppress China in all respects and get the two countries locked in a zero-sum game\u201d.\nChinese political leaders are often very cautious and diplomatic with their language, and they frequently caution against the United States\u2019 \u201ccold war mentality\u201d.\nThese assertive comments show that Beijing is standing up for itself and pushing back as Washington wages an increasingly aggressive new cold war.\n\n\u201cWestern countries headed by the United States have contained, encircled and suppressed China in an all-round way, bringing unprecedentedly severe challenges to China\u2019s development\u201d, Xi said in a speech on March 7, reported by state media outlet Xinhua.\nAcknowledging the growing geopolitical tensions, Xi said China is \u201cfaced with high winds and choppy waters in the international environment\u201d. He added that \u201cthe external environment for China\u2019s development has changed drastically, with uncertainties and unexpected factors increasing remarkably\u201d.\nThe Wall Street Journal noted that \u201cXi\u2019s comments marked an unusual departure for a leader who has generally refrained from directly criticizing the U.S. in public remarks\u2014even as his decadelong leadership has demonstrated a pessimistic view of the bilateral relationship\u201d.\n\u201cXi has typically been more measured and vague regarding the U.S. and other Western countries, referring to them as \u201ccertain\u201d countries rather than naming them explicitly\u201d, the newspaper added.\nThis is him telling the Chinese people that China is under attack by the West as a whole, led by the US.\nWhich is factually undeniable of course but him saying it out loud marks a real turning point. It probably means he's lost hope that a new cold war can be avoided.\n\u2014 Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) March 7, 2023\n\nJohn Pang, a former Malaysian government official who frequently writes for Chinese media outlets, noted that, \u201cUnlike western politicians, Chinese leaders err on the side of understatement and indirectness when discussing external threats, nor are they fond of using it to justify policy. I can\u2019t recall his ever having put this so directly\u201d.\nDespite these challenges, President Xi noted that his country has continued progressing: \u201cChina\u2019s GDP registered an annual growth rate of 5.2 percent over the past five years. We won the critical battle against poverty as scheduled and finished building a moderately prosperous society in all respects\u201d.\nXi also reiterated his commitment to \u201ccommon prosperity for all Chinese people\u201c.\nIn separate remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson\u00a0Hua Chunying said, \u201cThe US claim to \u2018shape the strategic environment in which China operates\u2019 actually reveals the real purpose of its Indo-Pacific Strategy, that is to encircle China\u201d.\nShe was referencing remarks made by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who announced this containment policy in a May 2022 speech.\nHua affirmed, \u201cAsia should be a stage for win-win cooperation rather than a chessboard for geopolitical contest. No Cold War should be reignited, and no Ukraine-style crisis should be repeated in Asia\u201d.\nThe US claim to \u201cshape the strategic environment in which China operates\u201d actually reveals the real purpose of its Indo-Pacific Strategy, that is to encircle China.\n\u2014 Hua Chunying \u534e\u6625\u83b9 (@SpokespersonCHN) March 7, 2023\n\nChina\u2019s new Foreign Minister Qin Gang gave a press conference on March 7 in which he made similar remarks.\nHe referenced the manufactured crisis in February, in which the US military shot down a Chinese balloon that its own experts admitted had likely been blown off course due to the weather.\nQin said this balloon entering US airspace was \u201centirely an accident caused by force majeure\u201d. He noted, \u201cEven the United States did not believe it posed a physical threat\u201d.\n\u201cHowever, in violation of the spirit of international law and international customary practices, the United States acted with a presumption of guilt\u201d, Qin added. \u201cIt overreacted, abused force, and dramatized the accident, creating a diplomatic crisis that could have been avoided\u201d.\nUS officials admitted the Chinese balloon they shot down on February 4 had likely been blown off course by unexpected weather.\nThe US Air Force later spent $2 million using missiles to blow up a $12 hobbyist balloon.https://t.co/kY1r4Cb7Xx\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 21, 2023\n\nNoting that Washington \u201cregards China as its primary rival and biggest geopolitical challenge\u201d, the foreign minister argued that \u201cthe US perception and views of China are seriously distorted\u201d.\nHe stated (emphasis added):\nThe United States claims that it seeks to \u201cout-compete\u201d China but does not seek conflict. Yet in reality, its so-called \u201ccompetition\u201d means to contain and suppress China in all respects and get the two countries locked in a zero-sum game.\nThe United States talks a lot about following rules. But imagine two athletes competing in an Olympic race. If one athlete, instead of focusing on giving one\u2019s best, always tries to trip or even injure the other, that is not fair competition, but malicious confrontation and a foul!\nIts so-called \u201cestablishing guardrails\u201d for China-US relations and \u201cnot seeking conflict\u201d actually means that China should not respond in words or action when slandered or attacked. That is just impossible!\nIf the United States does not hit the brake but continues to speed down the wrong path, no amount of guardrails can prevent derailing, and there will surely be conflict and confrontation. Who will bear the catastrophic consequences?\nSuch competition is a reckless gamble with the stakes being the fundamental interests of the two peoples and even the future of humanity. Naturally China is firmly opposed to all this.\nIf the United States has the ambition to make itself great again, it should also have a broad mind for the development of other countries. Containment and suppression will not make America great, and it will not stop the rejuvenation of China.\nThe Chinese foreign minister was careful to distinguish the people of the United States from the government.\n\u201cMore and more people with vision and insight in the United States are deeply worried about the current state of China-US relations, and have been calling for a rational and pragmatic policy toward China\u201d, he said.\nQin previously served as China\u2019s ambassador to the United States from 2021 to 2023.\nHe affectionately recalled the time he spent working in the US and the friends he made.\n\u201cThe American people, just like the Chinese people, are friendly, kind and sincere, and want a better life and a better world\u201d, he stressed.\nQin concluded (emphasis added):\nI\u2019m convinced that the China-US relationship should be determined by the common interests and shared responsibilities of the two countries and by the friendship between the Chinese and American peoples, rather than by US domestic politics or the hysterical neo-McCarthyism.\nChina will continue to follow the principles put forth by President Xi Jinping, namely, mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation, to pursue a sound and stable relationship with the United States.\nWe hope the US government will listen to the calls of the two peoples, rid of its strategic anxiety of \u201cthreat inflation\u201d, abandon the zero-sum Cold War mentality.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Veterano de la CIA pide guerra contra China y Rusia, amenazando con ataques nucleares. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "armas nucleares, China, CIA, nueva guerra fr\u00eda, Rusia, segunda guerra fr\u00eda", "output": "Un veterano de la CIA y el Pent\u00e1gono, Matthew Kroenig, public\u00f3 un art\u00edculo en una revista elitista en el que pide una guerra de Estados Unidos contra China y Rusia, incluyendo la \u201camenaza de ataques nucleares no estrat\u00e9gicos\u201d.\n\n(You can read this article in English here.)\nUn veterano de la CIA y el Pent\u00e1gono que ahora ayuda a dirigir una de las organizaciones m\u00e1s poderosas de Washington, Matthew Kroenig, ha publicado un art\u00edculo en la influyente revista Foreign Policy en el que pide a Estados Unidos que se prepare para librar la guerra contra China y Rusia.\nKroenig desempe\u00f1\u00f3 importantes funciones estatales de seguridad nacional en las administraciones de los presidentes George W. Bush, Barack Obama y Donald Trump, y tiene una influencia significativa en los c\u00edrculos de la pol\u00edtica exterior de Washington.\nKroenig insisti\u00f3 en que el ej\u00e9rcito estadounidense deber\u00eda \u201camenazar con ataques nucleares no estrat\u00e9gicos\u201d contra China sobre Taiw\u00e1n y contra Rusia sobre Europa.\nRefiri\u00e9ndose al conflicto de Washington con Beijing y Mosc\u00fa como una \u201cnueva guerra fr\u00eda\u201d, tambi\u00e9n pidi\u00f3 aumentar a\u00fan m\u00e1s el presupuesto militar anual de EEUU, que ya es de $768 mil millones. Sostuvo que \u201cEstados Unidos puede permitirse gastar m\u00e1s que Rusia y China al mismo tiempo\u201d.\nEl veterano de la CIA y el Pent\u00e1gono enfatiz\u00f3 que Washington debe enfrentarse a ambas superpotencias euroasi\u00e1ticas, simult\u00e1neamente, para mantener la hegemon\u00eda unipolar estadounidense, que reconoci\u00f3 est\u00e1 en declive.\nKroenig hizo estos argumentos en un art\u00edculo de amplia circulaci\u00f3n, publicado el 18 de febrero en la revista de \u00e9lite Foreign Policy, bajo el t\u00edtulo \u201cWashington debe prepararse para la guerra con Rusia y China\u201d.\n\nMatthew Kroenig actualmente se desempe\u00f1a como subdirector del Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security (Centro Scowcroft para Estrategia y Seguridad) en el Atlantic Council (Consejo Atl\u00e1ntico), un instituto de investigaci\u00f3n de la alianza militar de la OTAN, liderada por Estados Unidos.\nEl Atlantic Council, que est\u00e1 financiado por el gobierno de EEUU, otros gobiernos occidentales, la OTAN y la industria armament\u00edstica, tiene una enorme influencia en Washington y ayuda a crear la pol\u00edtica exterior de cada administraci\u00f3n.\nAdem\u00e1s de su trabajo para la CIA y el Departamento de Defensa en las administraciones de Bush, Obama y Trump, Kroenig fue asesor de seguridad nacional para las campa\u00f1as presidenciales de los republicanos Mitt Romney, en 2012, y Marco Rubio, en 2016.\nTambi\u00e9n es miembro del elite Council on Foreign Relations (Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores), y profesor de gobierno y servicio exterior en la prestigiosa Universidad de Georgetown en Washington.\nEn resumen, Kroenig es una figura muy influyente en los c\u00edrculos de la pol\u00edtica exterior de EEUU, con credenciales impecables, y sus puntos de vista extremadamente agresivos que piden una guerra simult\u00e1nea contra China y Rusia reflejan las opiniones de muchos de sus colegas en Washington.\nMatthew Kroenig resumi\u00f3 la opini\u00f3n de muchas \u00e9lites de la pol\u00edtica exterior de Washington de que Estados Unidos debe hacer la guerra para mantener su control hegem\u00f3nico indiscutible sobre el planeta, escribiendo:\nEstados Unidos sigue siendo la principal potencia mundial con intereses globales, y no puede darse el lujo de elegir entre Europa y el Indo-Pac\u00edfico. En cambio, Washington y sus aliados deber\u00edan desarrollar una estrategia de defensa capaz de disuadir y, si es necesario, derrotar a Rusia y China al mismo tiempo.\nUna de las t\u00e1cticas que Estados Unidos podr\u00eda usar para mantener su hegemon\u00eda unipolar, argument\u00f3 Kroenig, es la amenaza de una guerra nuclear:\nFinalmente, si es necesario,\u00a0Washington siempre podr\u00eda tomar una p\u00e1gina de su libro de jugadas de la Guerra Fr\u00eda y confiar m\u00e1s en las armas nucleares\u00a0para compensar las ventajas locales y convencionales de sus rivales.\u00a0La presencia de armas nucleares t\u00e1cticas estadounidenses en Europa ayud\u00f3 a disuadir al enorme Ej\u00e9rcito Rojo sovi\u00e9tico durante d\u00e9cadas.\u00a0De manera similar,\u00a0Estados Unidos podr\u00eda confiar en amenazar con ataques nucleares no estrat\u00e9gicos\u00a0para disuadir y, como \u00faltimo recurso, frustrar una invasi\u00f3n anfibia china de Taiw\u00e1n o una incursi\u00f3n de tanques rusos en Europa.\nSin duda, existen riesgos asociados con la disuasi\u00f3n nuclear, pero las armas nucleares han desempe\u00f1ado un papel fundamental en la estrategia de defensa de EEUU durante tres cuartos de siglo, y es probable que contin\u00faen haci\u00e9ndolo en las pr\u00f3ximas d\u00e9cadas.\nAdvirtiendo que \u201cMosc\u00fa y Beijing est\u00e1n forjando una asociaci\u00f3n estrat\u00e9gica m\u00e1s estrecha, incluso en asuntos militares\u201d, Kroenig insisti\u00f3 en que Estados Unidos debe aumentar dr\u00e1sticamente el gasto militar, para \u201csuperar a Rusia y China al mismo tiempo\u201d:\nPrimero, Washington deber\u00eda aumentar el gasto en defensa. Al contrario de quienes afirman que los recursos limitados obligar\u00e1n a tomar decisiones dif\u00edciles, Estados Unidos puede permitirse gastar m\u00e1s que Rusia y China al mismo tiempo. Estados Unidos posee el 24 por ciento del PIB mundial en comparaci\u00f3n con un 19 por ciento combinado en China y Rusia. Este a\u00f1o, Estados Unidos gastar\u00e1 $778 mil millones en defensa en comparaci\u00f3n con solo $310 mil millones en Rusia y China.\nAdem\u00e1s, Estados Unidos podr\u00eda llegar a duplicar el gasto en defensa (actualmente el 2,8 por ciento del PIB) y seguir estando por debajo del promedio de la Guerra Fr\u00eda (cerca del 7 por ciento del PIB).\u00a0De hecho, dado que esta nueva Guerra Fr\u00eda es tan peligrosa como la anterior, es necesario un aumento significativo en el gasto de defensa, centrado en las tecnolog\u00edas de defensa emergentes del siglo XXI.\n\u2026\nEn resumen, incluso si esta nueva competencia estrat\u00e9gica se convierte en una carrera armamentista de dos contra uno, es probable que Washington prevalezca.\nHizo un llamado a los aliados de EEUU para que tambi\u00e9n aumenten significativamente su gasto militar y escribi\u00f3: \u201cLos aliados europeos deber\u00edan invertir en armaduras y artiller\u00eda, mientras que los aliados asi\u00e1ticos compran minas navales, misiles arp\u00f3n y submarinos\u201d.\nKroenig se\u00f1al\u00f3 que se espera que la administraci\u00f3n de Joe Biden publique pronto una nueva Estrategia de Defensa Nacional de EEUU, que esencialmente pedir\u00e1 a Washington que se centre exclusivamente en contener a China, no a Rusia. Pero esta estrategia supuestamente se retras\u00f3 debido a la crisis en Ucrania.\nAlgunos legisladores estadounidenses han pedido que se reduzcan las tensiones con Mosc\u00fa y que se intente formar una alianza con Rusia contra China, pero Kroenig argument\u00f3 que esto \u201cno es realista\u201d.\nEsta no es la primera vez que Matthew Kroenig aboga por una guerra estadounidense.\nEn 2012, public\u00f3 un art\u00edculo en Foreign Affairs, el diario oficial del poderoso Council on Foreign Relations, en el que ped\u00eda al ej\u00e9rcito estadounidense que lanzara ataques contra Ir\u00e1n.\n\nEn 2021, Kroenig habl\u00f3 en una conferencia contra Ir\u00e1n organizada por una secta infame que se llama el Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK). Muchos derechistas belicosos en Washington han apoyado este grupo extremista para tratar de lograr un cambio de gobierno en Teher\u00e1n.\nElogi\u00f3 al Consejo Nacional de Resistencia de Ir\u00e1n (NCRI), una fachada del MEK, por la pretendida inteligencia que ha publicado sobre el supuesto programa nuclear de Teher\u00e1n.\n\nCiertamente, Matthew Kroenig no es el \u00fanico funcionario de la inteligencia estadounidense que pide la guerra contra China.\nEn noviembre de 2021, otro veterano de la CIA, David Sauer, public\u00f3 un art\u00edculo de opini\u00f3n en The Hill titulado \u201cEstados Unidos debe prepararse para la guerra con China por Taiw\u00e1n\u201d.\n\u201cPara disuadir a China, Estados Unidos debe aumentar r\u00e1pidamente sus fuerzas en el Pac\u00edfico, continuar fortaleciendo las alianzas militares en la regi\u00f3n para garantizar el acceso a las bases en tiempos de conflicto y acelerar las entregas de equipos militares comprados a Taiw\u00e1n\u201d, escribi\u00f3 Sauer.\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Philosopher Judith Butler repeatedly donated to \u2018top cop\u2019 Kamala Harris. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Black Lives Matter, California, David Graeber, Elizabeth Warren, FEC, Gloria Steinem, Judith Butler, Kamala Harris, Michael Walzer, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky, police, SDF, Syria", "output": "Renowned philosopher Judith Butler repeatedly donated to political campaigns of self-declared \u201ctop cop\u201d Kamala Harris, a center-right neoliberal who imprisoned poor people of color for minor offenses\n\nRenowned postmodern philosopher Judith Butler repeatedly donated to the political campaigns of proud self-declared \u201c\u00a0top cop\u00a0\u201c Kamala Harris, a center-right neoliberal who made her name as a notoriously harsh prosecutor who locked up large numbers of poor people of color for minor offenses.\nIn all, Butler gave at least $1,050 in contributions to Harris\u2019 Senate and presidential campaigns between March 2018 and February 2019:\nWhen Butler\u2019s $300 contribution to Harris\u2019 presidential campaign first began\u00a0circulating on social media, skeptics insisted the donations must have come from a different person named Judith Butler.\nBut I looked up the\u00a0FEC filings, and see what employer is listed on the campaign contribution: UC Berkeley, where\u00a0Butler is a professor\u00a0of comparative literature and critical theory. Indisputable proof that these donations are coming from the celebrated postmodern philosopher.\nPhilosopher Judith Butler\u2019s campaign contribution to Kamala Harris, filed with the FEC\nKeep in mind Kamala Harris is someone who bent over backward to put poor people in jail. The New York Times affectionately described her in a puff piece as \u201ca \u2018Top Cop\u2019 in the Era of Black Lives Matter.\u201d\nHarris publicly made fun of criminal justice reform activists who want to \u201cbuild more schools, less jails.\u201d When protesters say, \u201c\u2018Put money into education not prisons.\u2019 There\u2019s a fundamental problem with that approach,\u201d she insisted.\n\u201cThere should be a broad consensus that there should be serious, and severe, and swift consequence to crime,\u201d the \u201cprogressive prosecutor\u201d maintained.\n\nDuring Harris\u2019 reign as attorney general, from 2011 to 2016, California sent\u00a01,974 people to prison for marijuana-related convictions.\nThe Los Angeles Times reports that she sponsored \u201ca 2010 law to make it a\u00a0misdemeanor for parents\u00a0whose young children miss more than 10% of school days a year without a valid excuse. Parents could be punished with a maximum $2,000 fine, up to a year in county jail or both.\u201d (Harris then laughed\u00a0when discussing this proposal to jail parents over truancy.)\nThe only other contribution from Judith Butler registered by the FEC is a June 2019 donation of $100 to the presidential campaign of Elizabeth Warren, who\u00a0endorsed Trump\u2019s economic war on Venezuela\u00a0and boldly declared that she is \u201ccapitalist to her bones.\u201d\nJudith Butler\u2019s 2019 campaign contribution to Elizabeth Warren, filed with the FEC\nAnd that\u2019s not all: Judith Butler also signed an open letter in 2018 in the\u00a0New York Review of Books, alongside some prominent leftist academics, calling for the United States to continue its military intervention in northeast Syria.\nThe missive publicly requested that Washington \u201ccontinue military support for the SDF\u201d (Syrian Democratic Forces, who were created in a\u00a0rebranding demanded by the US, to better\u00a0wage war on the central government in Damascus).\nJoining Butler as signatories on the pro-intervention letter were\u00a0Debbie Bookchin, the daughter of\u00a0pro-imperialist anarchist hero Murray Bookchin\u00a0(although unlike Bookchin, Butler does at least deserve credit for\u00a0challenging the racist colonialist Zionist movement); along with fellow anarchist luminaries Noam Chomsky and David Graeber; erstwhile Obama aficionado Bill Fletcher;\u00a0imperialism-denying\u00a0scholars\u00a0Michael Hardt\u00a0and\u00a0David Harvey; Iraq War-supporting social democrat\u00a0Michael Walzer; and last but certainly not least, eminent feminist icon\u00a0Gloria Steinem \u2014 a former CIA agent.\nSpeaking of the CIA, Capitalism\u2019s Invisible Army has promoted the growth of postmodernism for decades.\nPostmodernism has long served as a right-wing bludgeon to supplant Marxism in academia. Non- or anti-Marxist forms of \u201cleft-wing\u201d ideology, as advocated by philosophers like Judith Butler (whose academic writing is legendary for its proletarian\u00a0comprehensibility and crystalline clarity of thought), have been supported by powerful, and reactionary, institutions.\nAnd together they succeeded in replacing Marxism, which has been almost entirely eradicated in the gilded halls of neoliberal academe.\nFor more on this history, read the research of scholar Gabriel Rockhill, who shows in articles like \u201cThe CIA Reads French Theory: On the Intellectual Labor of Dismantling the Cultural Left\u201d how the CIA quite liked postmodern philosophers \u2014 Michel Foucault being another favorite of the spooks \u2014 because they were anti-communist, soft on imperialism, and fighting against Marxists.\nRockhill writes:\nThe intelligence agency understands culture and theory to be crucial weapons in the overall arsenal it deploys to perpetuate US interests around the world. The recently released [CIA] research paper from 1985, entitled \u201cFrance: Defection of the Leftist Intellectuals,\u201d examines\u2014undoubtedly in order to manipulate\u2014the French intelligentsia and its fundamental role in shaping the trends that generate political policy. Suggesting that there has been a relative ideological balance between the left and the right in the history of the French intellectual world, the report highlights the monopoly of the left in the immediate postwar era\u2014to which, we know, the Agency was rabidly opposed\u2014due to the Communists\u2019 key role in resisting fascism and ultimately winning the war against it. Although the right had been massively discredited because of its direct contribution to the Nazi death camps, as well as its overall xenophobic, anti-egalitarian and fascist agenda (according to the CIA\u2019s own description), the unnamed secret agents who drafted the study outline with palpable delight the return of the right since approximately the early 1970s.\nMore specifically, the undercover cultural warriors applaud what they see as a double movement that has contributed to the intelligentsia shifting its critical focus away from the US and toward the USSR. On the left, there was a gradual intellectual disaffection with Stalinism and Marxism, a progressive withdrawal of radical intellectuals from public debate, and a theoretical move away from socialism and the socialist party. Further to the right, the ideological opportunists referred to as the New Philosophers and the New Right intellectuals launched a high-profile media smear campaign against Marxism.\nWhile other tentacles of the worldwide spy organization were involved in overthrowing democratically elected leaders, providing intelligence and funding to fascist dictators, and supporting right-wing death squads, the Parisian central intelligentsia squadron was collecting data on how the theoretical world\u2019s drift to the right directly benefitted US foreign policy. The left-leaning intellectuals of the immediate postwar era had been openly critical of US imperialism. Jean-Paul Sartre\u2019s media clout as an outspoken Marxist critic, and his notable role\u2014as the founder of Lib\u00e9ration\u2014in blowing the cover of the CIA station officer in Paris and dozens of undercover operatives, was\u00a0closely monitored by the Agency and considered a very serious problem.\nIn contrast, the anti-Soviet and anti-Marxist atmosphere of the emerging neoliberal era diverted public scrutiny and provided excellent cover for the CIA\u2019s dirty wars by making it \u201cvery difficult for anyone to mobilize significant opposition among intellectual elites to US policies in Central America, for example.\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US post-9/11 wars caused 4.5 million deaths, displaced 38-60 million people, study shows. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Afghanistan, Brown University, drones, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, war, Yemen", "output": "Wars the US waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan following September 11, 2001 caused at least 4.5 million deaths and displaced 38 to 60 million people, with 7.6 million children starving today, according to studies by Brown University.\n\n(Se puede leer esta nota en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nThe wars the United States waged and fueled in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan following September 11, 2001 caused at least 4.5 million deaths, according to a report by Brown University.\nNearly a million of the people who lost their lives died in fighting, whereas some 3.6 to 3.7 million were indirect deaths, due to health and economic problems caused by the wars, such as diseases, malnutrition, and destruction of infrastructure.\nThese were the conclusions of a study conducted by the Cost of Wars project at Brown University\u2019s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.\n\nThe report also analyzed the effects of wars in Libya and Somalia, which were sponsored by Washington.\nThe scholars estimated that, in the countries studied, there are still today 7.6 million children under age 5 who are suffering from acute malnutrition, meaning they are \u201cnot getting enough food, literally wasting to skin and bones, putting these children at greater risk of death\u201d.\nIn Afghanistan and Yemen, this includes nearly 50% of children; and, in Somalia, close to 60%.\n\nIn a separate study in 2021, Brown University\u2019s Cost of Wars project found that the United States\u2019 post-9/11 wars displaced at least 38 million people \u2013 more than any conflict since 1900, excluding World War II.\nThis 2021 report noted that \u201c38 million is a very conservative estimate. The total displaced by the U.S. post-9/11 wars could be closer to 49\u201360 million, which would rival World War II displacement\u201d.\n\nThe May 2023 study, which estimated that US post-9/11 wars killed 4.5 to 4.6 million people, emphasized that large numbers of civilians are still perishing today, due of the lasting consequences of these violent conflicts.\nAlthough the US military withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, \u201ctoday Afghans are suffering and dying from war-related causes at higher rates than ever\u201d, the report noted.\nIn addition to the staggering death tolls, millions more civilians were wounded and suffered other incredible hardships due to these wars.\n\u201cFor instance, for every person who dies of a waterborne disease because war destroyed their access to safe drinking water and waste treatment facilities, there are many more who sicken\u201d, the study highlighted.\nThe 2023 report \u201chighlights many longterm and underacknowledged consequences of war for human health, emphasizing that some groups, particularly women and children, suffer the brunt of these ongoing impacts\u201d.\nPeople living in poverty and those from marginalized groups had higher rates of death and lower life expectancies.\nThe document stressed how the \u201cpost-9/11 wars have caused widespread economic hardship for people in the war zones, and how poverty, in turn, has been accompanied by food insecurity and malnutrition, which have led to diseases and death, particularly amongst children under age five\u201d.\n\nIn virtually all wars, indirect deaths represent the majority of the lives lost. The Brown University researchers pointed out, for example, \u201cIn conflict areas, children are 20 times more likely to die of diarrheal disease than from the conflict itself\u201d.\nDamage to infrastructure that happens during wars is likewise very deadly. \u201cHospitals, clinics, and medical supplies, water and sanitation systems, electricity, roads and traffic signals, infrastructure for farming and shipping goods, and much more are destroyed, damaged and disrupted, with lasting consequences for human health\u201d, the report noted.\nEconomic problems caused by these post-9/11 wars have been devastating.\nTwo decades of US-NATO military occupation of Afghanistan left behind a borderline apocalyptic economic crisis.\nMore than half of Afghanistan\u2019s population is in extreme poverty, living on less than $1.90 per day. A staggering 95% of Afghans do not have enough food.\nIn Yemen, more than 17.4 million people are food insecure, and 85,000 children under age 5 have likely died from starvation.\nEven in countries where large numbers of US troops weren\u2019t deployed on the ground, Washington\u2019s wars have destroyed the lives of countless civilians.\nUS drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia \u201csignificantly impact people\u2019s livelihood sources\u201d, killing workers, destroying farms and businesses, and bankrupting families.\n\u201cThe severe impact of such economic setbacks on populations who depend on the land for their survival cannot be underestimated\u201d, the report emphasized.\nWashington\u2019s so-called counter-terrorism laws in Somalia have also \u201champered humanitarian relief efforts, intensifying the effects of famine\u201d, the researchers noted.\nHundreds of thousands of children have died from famine in the East African nation.\nThe Brown University studies are part of a growing body of scholarship documenting the death tolls of post-9/11 US wars.\nA 2015 report by the Nobel Prize-winning group International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) concluded that 13 years of Washington\u2019s so-called \u201cWar on Terror\u201d caused a total of 1.3 million deaths, including 1 million in Iraq, 220,000 in Afghanistan, and 80,000 in Pakistan.\nIPPNW cautioned that this 2015 figure was \u201conly a conservative estimate. The total number of deaths in the three countries named above could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely\u201d.\nReport: Over 1.2 million killed in US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: NY Times admits Saudi bombing of Yemen could not continue without US support. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "New York Times, Saudi Arabia, Yemen", "output": "The New York Times editorial board acknowledged that Saudi Arabia could not wage war on Yemen without US backing: \u201cthe coalition would be grounded if Washington withheld its support\u201d.\n\nThe editorial board of The New York Times has acknowledged what journalists and activists have said for well over a year: The Saudi Arabia\u2019s brutal bombing campaign, which has ravaged Yemen and created a humanitarian catastrophe, would be impossible were it not for US support.\n\u201cExperts say the coalition would be grounded if Washington withheld its support,\u201d the US newspaper of record wrote in \u201cAmerica Is Complicit in the Carnage in Yemen,\u201d an editorial published on August 17.\nThe United States is complicit in the Saudi carnage in Yemen. https://t.co/WRiWwpQ6fM pic.twitter.com/1AJKIwI7Sw\n\u2014 New York Times Opinion (@nytopinion) August 17, 2016\n\nThis admission comes a bit late, considering the US-backed bombing began in March 2015 \u2014 and, since then, thousands of civilians have been killed; millions have been displaced; more than half of the country, at least 14 million people, are going hungry; and parts of major Yemeni cities have been pulverized.\n\u201cThe United States is complicit in this carnage,\u201d the editorial board conceded. \u201cIt has enabled the coalition in many ways, including selling arms to the Saudis.\u201d\nThe Times continued:\nAlthough many experts believe the threat to be overstated, Mr. Obama agreed to support the Yemen intervention \u2014 without formal authorization from Congress \u2014 and sell the Saudis even more weapons in part to appease Riyadh\u2019s anger over the Iran nuclear deal. All told, since taking office, Mr. Obama has sold the Saudis $110 billion in arms, including Apache helicopters and missiles.\nMr. Obama has also supplied the coalition such indispensable assistance as intelligence, in-flight refueling of aircraft and help in identifying appropriate targets. Experts say the coalition would be grounded if Washington withheld its support. Instead, the State Department last week approved the potential sale of $1.15 billion more in tanks and other equipment to Saudi Arabia to replace items destroyed in the war.\nThe editorial board also recognized a UN report that found the coalition responsible for 60 percent of the deaths and injuries to Yemeni children, along with reports by human rights groups that document war crimes committed by the coalition.\nMany of these basic facts \u2014 which independent journalists have reported on for months\u2014 have been absent from the Times\u2019 coverage of the war.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CIA veteran calls for US war on China and Russia, threatening nuclear strikes, in elite Foreign Policy magazine. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Atlantic Council, China, CIA, Cold War Two, Foreign Policy magazine, Iran, Matthew Kroenig, media, MEK, NATO, new cold war, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine", "output": "A CIA and Pentagon veteran who helps run NATO\u2019s powerful think tank the Atlantic Council, Matthew Kroenig, published an article in elite Foreign Policy magazine calling for US war on both China and Russia, including \u201cthreatening nonstrategic nuclear strikes\u201d and a new arms race. He has also advocated military attacks on Iran.\n\n(Se puede leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nA veteran of the CIA and Pentagon who now helps to run one of the most powerful think tanks in Washington, Matthew Kroenig, has published an article in highly influential Foreign Policy magazine calling for the United States to prepare to wage war on China and Russia.\nKroenig served in important national security state roles in the George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump administrations, and has significant sway in DC foreign-policy circles.\nKroenig insisted that the US military should \u201cthreaten nonstrategic nuclear strikes\u201d on China over Taiwan and Russia over Europe.\nReferring to Washington\u2019s conflict with Beijing and Moscow as a \u201cnew cold war,\u201d he also called for boosting the $768 billion annual US military budget even further, maintaining that \u201cthe United States can afford to outspend Russia and China at the same time.\u201d\nThe CIA and Pentagon veteran emphasized that Washington must take on both Eurasian superpowers, simultaneously, in order to maintain US unipolar hegemony, which he acknowledged is in decline.\nKroenig made these arguments in a widely circulated February 18 article in the elite Foreign Policy magazine, titled \u201cWashington Must Prepare for War With Both Russia and China.\u201d\n\nMatthew Kroenig currently serves as deputy director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council, the de facto think tank of the US-led NATO military alliance.\nThe Atlantic Council, which is funded by the US government, other Western governments, NATO, and the weapons industry, has massive influence in Washington, helping to craft foreign policy for every administration.\nIn addition to his work for the CIA and Defense Department in the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations,\u00a0Kroenig was a national security adviser for the presidential campaigns of Republicans Mitt Romney, in 2012, and Marco Rubio, in 2016.\nHe is also a life member of the elite Council on Foreign Relations, and a tenured professor of government and foreign service at Washington\u2019s prestigious Georgetown University.\nIn short, Kroenig is a highly influential figure in US foreign-policy circles with impeccable credentials, and his extremely hawkish views calling for simultaneous US war on China and Russia reflect the opinions of many of his colleagues in Washington.\nMatthew Kroenig encapsulated the view of many Washington foreign-policy elites that the United States must wage war in order to maintain its unchallenged hegemonic control over the planet, writing:\nThe United States remains the world\u2019s leading power with global interests, and it cannot afford to choose between Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Instead, Washington and its allies should develop a defense strategy capable of deterring and, if necessary, defeating Russia and China at the same time.\nOne of the tactics the United States could use to maintain its unipolar hegemony, Kroenig argued, is the threat of nuclear war:\nFinally, if necessary, Washington could always take a page from its Cold War playbook and rely more heavily on nuclear weapons to offset the local, conventional advantages of its rivals. The presence of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in Europe helped deter the massive Soviet Red Army for decades. Similarly, the United States could rely on threatening nonstrategic nuclear strikes to deter and, as a last resort, thwart a Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan or a Russian tank incursion into Europe.\nTo be sure, there are risks associated with nuclear deterrence, but nuclear weapons have played a foundational role in U.S. defense strategy for three-quarters of a century\u2014and will likely continue to do so for decades to come.\nWarning that \u201cMoscow and Beijing are forging a closer strategic partnership, including on military matters,\u201d\u00a0Kroenig insisted that the United States must drastically increase military spending, to \u201coutspend Russia and China at the same time\u201d:\nFirst, Washington should increase defense spending. Contrary to those who claim that constrained resources will force tough choices, the United States can afford to outspend Russia and China at the same time. The United States possesses 24 percent of global GDP compared to a combined 19 percent in China and Russia. This year, the United States will spend $778 billion\u00a0on defense compared to\u00a0only $310 billion in Russia and China.\nMoreover, the United States could go so far as to double defense spending (currently 2.8 percent of GDP) and still remain below its Cold War average (close to 7 percent of GDP). Indeed, given that this new Cold War is every bit as dangerous as the last one, a meaningful increase in defense spending, focused on the 21st century\u2019s emerging defense technologies, is in order.\n\u2026\nIn short, even if this new strategic competition becomes a two-versus-one arms race, Washington is likely to prevail.\nHe called for US allies to significantly increase their military spending as well, writing, \u201cEuropean allies should invest in armor and artillery while Asian allies buy naval mines, harpoon missiles, and submarines.\u201d\nKroenig noted that the Joe Biden administration is soon expected to publish a new US National Defense Strategy, which will essentially call for Washington to focus exclusively on containing China, not Russia. But this strategy was allegedly delayed because of the Ukraine crisis.\nSome US policymakers have called for easing tensions with Moscow and trying to form an alliance with Russia against China, but Kroenig argued this is \u201cnot realistic.\u201d\nThis is by no means the first time Matthew Kroenig has advocated for a US war.\nIn 2012, he published an article in Foreign Affairs, the official journal of the elite Council on Foreign Relations, calling for the US military to launch attacks on Iran.\n\nIn 2021, Kroenig spoke at an anti-Iran conference organized by the extremist Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) cult, which many hawkish figures in Washington have supported to try to bring about regime change in Tehran.\nHe praised MEK front the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) for supposed intelligence it has gathered on Tehran\u2019s alleged nuclear program.\n\nMatthew Kroenig is certainly not the only US intelligence official calling for war on China.\nIn November 2021, another CIA veteran, David Sauer, published an op-ed in The Hill titled \u201cAmerica must prepare for war with China over Taiwan.\u201d\n\u201cTo deter China, the United States must rapidly build up its forces in the Pacific, continue to strengthen military alliances in the region to ensure access to bases in time of conflict, and accelerate deliveries of purchased military equipment to Taiwan,\u201d Sauer wrote.\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Silicon Valley Big Tech corporations are US military contractors. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Amazon, DHS, Facebook, FBI, Google, Microsoft, Pentagon, Silicon Valley, Twitter", "output": "Silicon Valley Big Tech corporations like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter have thousands of contracts worth tens of billions of dollars with the US government, primarily with the Pentagon, but also with the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and other agencies.\n\nBig Tech corporations in Silicon Valley act essentially as outsourced arms of the United States government.\nGoogle, Amazon, Microsoft, and Facebook have thousands of contracts with the US military, spy agencies, and police, NBC News has reported.\nThey are the computer technology version of the weapons corporations that are the Pentagon\u2019s top contractors: Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman.\nFrom 2004 to 2021, Big Tech corporations Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, and Twitter signed at least $44.7 billion in contracts with US government agencies, the vast majority with the Defense Department, VICE documented.\nFacebook has contracts with the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and has been paid to promote propaganda from US state media outlet Voice of America.\nTwitter also has a contract with DHS, and is paid to promote US state media propaganda.\nJournalist Yasha Levine detailed the close links between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon in his book \u201cSurveillance Valley.\u201d Many of these Big Tech corporations in fact emerged out of the US military-industrial complex.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Analyst suffered 20 years in US prison for helping Cuba, still condemns \u2018suffocating\u2019 blockade. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Ana Bel\u00e9n Montes, blockade, Cuba, DIA, embargo, Puerto Rico", "output": "Former DIA analyst Ana Bel\u00e9n Montes was imprisoned for 20 years for sharing intelligence with Cuba that helped it prevent US attacks and sabotage. Upon being released, she condemned the \u201csuffocating embargo\u201d that makes Cubans \u201csuffer.\u201d\n\nA former intelligence analyst who was imprisoned by the United States government for 20 years for sharing information with Cuba that helped it prevent US attacks against it was freed this January.\nUpon leaving prison, she condemned the six-decade-long US blockade of Cuba and called for more attention to the hardships endured by the Puerto Rican people.\n\u201cWho in the last 60 years has asked the Cuban people if they want the United States to impose a suffocating embargo on them that makes them suffer?\u201d she asked.\n\nAna Bel\u00e9n Montes had been an official at the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). She worked her way up the ranks of the organization, becoming its top Cuba analyst, before she was arrested in 2001.\nIn 2002, Montes was sentenced to 25 years in prison.\nShe was convicted of secretly giving sensitive intelligence to Cuba, helping its revolutionary government prevent US terror attacks and disrupt US sabotage operations.\nAt her trial, Montes declared, \u201cI obeyed my conscience rather than the law\u2026\u00a0giving the island [Cuba] classified information to help it defend itself.\u201d\n\u201cI believe our government\u2019s policy towards Cuba is cruel and unfair, profoundly unneighborly, and I felt morally obligated to help the island defend itself from our efforts to impose our values and our political system on it,\u201d she said.\nThe US Department of Defense, where Montes worked, had a history of planning terror attacks on Cuba. In Operation Northwood in 1962, top US military officials discussed launching false-flag attacks on civilian targets in both Cuba and Florida and falsely blaming them on communists, to try to justify a US military invasion of the island.\nHave you ever heard of Operation Northwood? It was a false flag operation concocted by the #US Joint Chiefs of Staff in March 1962, after the Chief of Operations of the \u2018Cuba Project\u2019, asked them for pretexts to justify #US military intervention in #Cuba. https://t.co/Gmg7LP1AzD pic.twitter.com/PPYpEj5P4m\n\u2014 Helen Yaffe (@HelenYaffe) November 5, 2021\n\nMontes is a national hero in Cuba, and many around the world considered her to be a prisoner of conscience.\nOn January 6, 2023, US authorities allowed Montes to leave prison, having served 20 or her 25 year-sentence. But she is not yet completely free; the US government is going to monitor Montes for the remaining five years, and all of her internet access will be closely followed.\nSoon after her release, Montes published a statement stating, \u201cI encourage those who want to focus on me to, instead, focus on important issues, such as the serious problems that the Puerto Rican people face, or the United States economic embargo against Cuba.\u201d\n\u201cWho in the last 60 years has asked the Cuban people if they want the United States to impose a suffocating embargo on them that makes them suffer?\u201d she added.\nThe international community overwhelmingly opposes the illegal US blockade against Cuba, and every year for decades more than 95% of member states at the United Nations have voted to condemn it.\nThe US State Department admitted in an internal cable in 1960 that its goal in imposing sanctions and eventually an embargo on Cuba was \u201cto weaken the economic life of Cuba\u201d and make \u201cthe greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.\u201d\n\nMontes is Puerto Rican, and upon being released she moved back to her homeland. There, she delivered these remarks (emphasis added):\nI am happier than ever to touch Boricuan soil again. After two quite exhausting decades, and with the need to go back to earning a living, I would like to dedicate myself to a quiet and private existence. Therefore, I will not participate in any media activities.\nI encourage those who want to focus on me to, instead, focus on important issues, such as the serious problems that the Puerto Rican people face, or the United States economic embargo against Cuba.\nWho in the last 60 years has asked the Cuban people if they want the United States to impose a suffocating embargo on them that makes them suffer?\nWhat also deserves attention is the urgent need for global cooperation that stops and reverses the destruction of our environment.\nI as a person am irrelevant. I am not important, while there exist grave problems in our world homeland that demand attention and a demonstration of brotherly love.\nHer lawyer, Linda Backiel, said that this would be Montes\u2019 only public statement and that she would not grant interviews, asking for her privacy to be respected.\nAddressing the court at her trial in October 2002, Montes delivered a passionate speech (emphasis added):\nAn Italian proverb perhaps best describes the fundamental truth I believe in: \u201cAll the world is one country.\u201d\nIn such a \u201cworld-country,\u201d the principle of loving one\u2019s neighbor as much as oneself seems, to me, to be the essential guide to harmonious relations between all of our \u201cnation-neighborhoods.\u201d\nThis principle urges tolerance and understanding for the different ways of others. It asks that we treat other nations the way we wish to be treated \u2013 with respect and compassion. It is a principle that, tragically, I believe we have never applied to Cuba.\nYour honor, I engaged in the activity that brought me before you because I obeyed my conscience rather than the law.\nI believe our government\u2019s policy towards Cuba is cruel and unfair, profoundly unneighborly, and I felt morally obligated to help the island defend itself from our efforts to impose our values and our political system on it.\nWe have displayed intolerance and contempt towards Cuba for most of the last four decades. We have never respected Cuba\u2019s right to make its own journey towards its own ideals of equality and justice.\nI do not understand why we must continue to dictate how the Cubans should select their leaders, who their leaders cannot be, and what laws are appropriate in their land.\nWhy can\u2019t we let Cuba pursue its own internal journey, as the United States has been doing for over two centuries?\nMy way of responding to our Cuba policy may have been morally wrong. Perhaps Cuba\u2019s right to exist free of political and economic coercion did not justify giving the island classified information to help it defend itself. I can only say that I did what I thought right to counter a grave injustice.\nMy greatest desire is to see amicable relations emerge between the United States and Cuba. I hope my case in some way will encourage our government to abandon its hostility towards Cuba and to work with Havana in a spirit of tolerance, mutual respect, and understanding.\nToday we see more clearly than ever that intolerance and hatred \u2013 by individuals or governments \u2013 spread only pain and suffering.\nI hope for a U.S. policy that is based instead on neighborly love, a policy that recognizes that Cuba, like any nation, wants to be treated with dignity and not with contempt. Such a policy would bring our government back in harmony with the compassion and generosity of the American people.\nIt would allow Cubans and Americans to learn from and share with each other. It would enable Cuba to drop its defensive measures and experiment more easily with changes. And it would permit the two neighbors to work together and with other nations to promote tolerance and cooperation in our one \u201cworld-country,\u201d in our only \u201cworld-homeland.\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US gov\u2019t knew NATO expansion to Ukraine would force Russia to intervene. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CIA, Georgia, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, WikiLeaks, William Burns", "output": "Former US Ambassador to Russia William J. Burns, who is now CIA director, admitted in a classified 2008 embassy cable that NATO expansion to Ukraine crosses Moscow\u2019s security \u201credlines\u201d and \u201ccould potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.\u201d\n\n(Se puede leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nSenior US government officials knew as far back as 2008 that the possibility of adding Ukraine to NATO was seen as a serious \u201cmilitary threat\u201d by Russia, one that crosses Moscow\u2019s security \u201credlines\u201d and could force it to intervene.\nYet Western leaders continued insisting that Ukraine would join the US-led military alliance, right up until Russia did indeed intervene in February 2022.\nAt the annual NATO summit back in 2008, the George W. Bush administration publicly called for adding Russia\u2019s neighbors Ukraine and Georgia to the military alliance. NATO\u2019s secretary-general declared that the two countries would eventually become members.\nBut privately, US diplomats knew that this move would be seen as an existential threat by Moscow, and could provoke Russian military intervention in Ukraine.\nThe former US ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns, who is now director of the CIA, warned in a February 2008 embassy cable that Ukraine constituted a security \u201credline\u201d for Moscow.\n\nThe confidential State Department cable was titled \u201cNyet Means Nyet: Russia\u2019s NATO Enlargement Redlines\u201d (\u201cnyet\u201d is Russian for \u201cno\u201d).\nBurns cautioned that the issue of NATO membership for Ukraine \u201ccould potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.\u201d\n\nBurns wrote that Foreign Minister Sergey \u201cLavrov emphasized that Russia was convinced that [NATO] enlargement was not based on security reasons, but was a legacy of the Cold War.\u201d\nThe former US ambassador to Russia, and current CIA director, published a prescient analysis that would foreshadow Moscow\u2019s actions in 2022:\nUkraine and Georgia\u2019s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia\u2019s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.\nBurns\u2019 warnings came true just a few years later.\nThis kind of internal violence did indeed break out in Ukraine, after a US-sponsored coup d\u2019etat in 2014 overthrew a democratically elected government that had maintained a relatively neutral foreign policy, balanced between Russia and the West, and instead installed a staunchly pro-Western and anti-Russian regime.\nIn response to the 2014 putsch, Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the eastern Donbas region rose up against the coup government in Kiev, which they denounced as an illegitimate Western puppet regime.\nIndependence activists declared the creation of two new autonomous states, the Donetsk and Lugansk People\u2019s Republics. The Ukrainian government, with Western military support and weapons, has waged a brutal war against these breakaway republics in the Donbas ever since.\nThousands of Ukrainians have been killed, and hundreds of thousands more have been displaced. Ukraine, which shares a massive 2,300-kilometer border with Russia, has been rocked by violence and instability since the 2014 US-backed coup \u2013 and this constant turmoil has had significant effects inside Russia, especially economically.\nThis was precisely the civil war scenario that Burns had warned about in 2008.\nOn February 21, 2022, Russia officially recognized Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states. Then on February 24, Moscow launched an invasion of Ukraine, which it said aimed to \u201cdemilitarize\u201d and \u201cdenazify\u201d the country.\nRussia\u2019s goal is to force Ukraine to maintain political neutrality, preventing it from being a Western military outpost that could threaten Russia on its borders, potentially with nuclear weapons.\nWhile Western governments and media outlets portrayed the Russian invasion as the crazy decision of a supposed madman, internal US embassy cables showed that Washington knew as far back as 2008 that its push to expand NATO to Ukraine would result in this exactly this outcome: forcing Russia to intervene.\nThe world only knows this thanks to the whistleblowing journalist outlet Wikileaks, which published the\u00a0formerly classified State Department cable by William Burns, and publicized his prophetic warning on Twitter.\n'Nyet Means Nyet: Russia's #NATO Enlargement Redlines' \u2013 #Ukraine Cable from 2008 written by #CIA director William J. Burns, then US ambassador to Moscow https://t.co/rOoxmuwIul pic.twitter.com/KGy0PU4Igg\n\u2014 WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) February 25, 2022\n\nAt every stage leading up the Russian military intervention in Ukraine in February 2022, the United States and its NATO alliance refused to give substantial concessions to Moscow, sabotaging all serious attempts at a diplomatic solution to the crisis.\nSince it signed the Minsk II agreement in 2015, under the supervision of Germany and France, the Ukrainian government has been legally obligated to cease hostilities against the Donbas and create a decentralized system that ensures autonomy for Donetsk and Lugansk.\nBut\u00a0Ukraine adamantly refused to abide by Minsk II, and its Western sponsors did nothing to save the diplomatic agreement.\nSo in December 2021, the Russian Federation sent the US and NATO a series of requests for security guarantees. Principal among these was the demand that the military alliance must not admit Ukraine and Georgia.\nMoscow said that NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia constituted a security \u201cred line\u201d \u2013 recalling the language Ambassador William Burns had used in his 2008 embassy cable.\nFor Russia as a country, regardless of who is president and regardless of the political ideology of the Kremlin, the prospect of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO poses an existential security threat, given that both nations, which were former republics of the Soviet Union, directly border Russia at geostrategic points.\nWhen Nazi Germany invaded the USSR in its 1941 Operation Barbarossa, it tore through and occupied Soviet Ukraine, to try to cut off Moscow\u2019s access to the Black Sea and Caucasus, break off southern cities like Stalingrad, and ultimately surround the Russian heartland.\nIn its December 2021 request, the Russian Federation insisted that the United States and NATO must respond to its demand for security guarantees with legally binding written statements.\nMoscow emphasized that any agreements had to be in writing precisely because NATO has a history of lying to it.\nNotes from a 1991 meeting prove that the US, UK, France, and Germany assured the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand east.\nIt\u2019s part of a growing body of evidence that the West broke its promise to Russia.https://t.co/JY3fcuOVPa\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 21, 2022\n\nIn 1990, the US, Britain, and France repeatedly promised the Soviet Union that they would not expand NATO \u201cone inch eastward\u201d after the reunification of Germany.\nThis is an undeniable historical fact, a matter of public record confirmed by numerous internal documents from Western governments.\nBut NATO later broke that promise, and not once or twice but 14 times. All 14 new member states that it admitted were east of Germany, and many had previously been Soviet allies in Moscow\u2019s former security alliance, the Warsaw Pact.\nA map of NATO expansion\nNATO has militarily encircled Russia more and more by the year.\nEstonia and Latvia, former republics of the Soviet Union, are already NATO member states directly on Russia\u2019s borders.\nIn fact Western militaries, including those of the United Kingdom and France, were using Estonia to run NATO military exercises just 100 kilometers from Russia\u2019s border in late 2021 and early 2022, at the peak of the crisis in Ukraine.\nNATO troops have launched a series of war-games in Estonia, less than 2 hours drive from the Russian border.\nThe \u201cWinter camp\u201d exercise includes troops from Britain and France, and involves armoured vehicles and live-fire drills pic.twitter.com/pEHCPYHNfV\n\u2014 Murad Gazdiev (@MuradGazdiev) January 29, 2022\n\nThe United States and NATO ultimately ignored Russia\u2019s December 2021 request for security guarantees. Leaked copies of their written responses, which they had asked to keep private, show that they refused to grant Moscow any significant concessions, and both insisted that Ukraine could and even should one day join NATO. (NATO\u2019s response was particularly aggressive and disrespectful.)\nIn a speech at the Munich Security Conference on February 19, 2022, the Western military alliance\u2019s hawkish secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, threatened that \u201cif Kremlin\u2019s aim is to have less NATO on Russia\u2019s borders, it will only get more NATO.\u201d\nThe US-led NATO imperialist alliance provoked Russia right up til the end:\nOn February 19, a few days before its intervention in Ukraine, warmongering NATO leader Jens Stoltenberg threatened, \"if Kremlin\u2019s aim is to have less NATO on Russia\u2019s borders, it will only get more NATO\" https://t.co/tiKDynhYqY pic.twitter.com/kd2n6kZmnL\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 25, 2022\n\nInstead of respecting Russia\u2019s security red lines, the United States and several European countries escalated the situation further by sending billions of dollars worth of more weapons to Ukraine.\nPointing to a Russian troop deployment inside its own territory, near its border with Ukraine, Western governments deployed more soldiers to the region as well, driving up the tensions.\nThroughout the entire time, NATO depicted itself as an angelic, innocent \u201cdefensive\u201d alliance. But Russia understands how high the stakes are, clearly seeing the consequences of NATO\u2019s destructive wars on Yugoslavia \u2013 which destroyed and balkanized the country \u2013 Afghanistan, and Libya \u2013 which turned what had been the most prosperous country in Africa into a failed state with open-air slave markets.\nThe 2022 crisis in Ukraine traces its roots back to the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania in 2008, when the George W. Bush administration publicly called for adding Ukraine and Georgia to the US-led military alliance.\nThere were internal divisions within NATO, and some members, namely Germany and France, were uncomfortable with the possibility. But NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared that Ukraine and Georgia eventually \u201cwill become member nations.\u201d\nUkraine\u2019s president at the time was Viktor Yushchenko, a US-backed, pro-Western politician who supported NATO membership.\nBut in the 2010 presidential election, the Ukrainian people voted for a new leader who promised a more balanced foreign policy, Viktor Yanukovych.\nWestern media outlets often refer to\u00a0Yanukovych as \u201cpro-Russian,\u201d but in reality he tried to keep Ukraine neutral, sometimes allying with the West and sometimes allying with Moscow.\nFor\u00a0Washington and Brussels, however, Yanukovych was too independent. So in 2014, the United States sponsored a coup d\u2019etat to overthrow the democratically elected president.\nFar-right extremists and neo-Nazis played a key role as the violent muscle behind this putsch.\nMeanwhile, behind the scenes, senior US diplomats like hardline anti-Russian hawk Victoria Nuland were conspiring with friendly Ukrainian politicians to create a pro-Western puppet regime right on Russia\u2019s borders.\n\nA leaked 2014 phone recording shows that Nuland and other US officials had handpicked the top officials who would run Ukraine\u2019s government after the Washington-backed coup.\nThe Joe Biden administration brought Nuland back in 2021, appointing her third-in-command of the State Department, where she helped to shape US policy toward Russia, pushing for an extremely aggressive strategy.\nNuland is a key figure in Washington\u2019s neoconservative foreign-policy circles. Before she helped run the Obama and Biden State Departments, Nuland was Vice President Dick Cheney\u2019s principal deputy foreign policy adviser from 2003 to 2005, during the Iraq War.\nNuland\u2019s mentor Cheney has himself made it clear that the United States will never tolerate a strong and independent government in Moscow. Cheney sought to break up Russia itself after the overthrow of the Soviet Union.\nBack in 1992, the Pentagon drafted a new belligerent US defense strategy, overseen by a neoconservative ally of Nuland and Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz. It clearly stated that Washington\u2019s \u201cfirst objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival\u2026 deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.\u201d\nThe zero-sum game mentality behind this Wolfowitz Doctrine, which insists that the US empire must run the world without any opposition, and which refuses to countenance the possibility of Russia having its own security interests, still undergirds Washington\u2019s foreign policy to this day.\nThe US \u201cmaximum-pressure\u201d strategy against Moscow that this imperial doctrine has inspired, under the watch of anti-Russia hawks like Nuland, helped provoke exactly what Ambassador William Burns warned about in 2008: a Russian military intervention in Ukraine.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Criminals welcome as US recruits foreign proxies to wage \u2018irregular war\u2019 on adversaries. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CIA, Iran, News York Times, Nick Turse, Pentagon, Russia, SOCOM, special operations, Special Operations Command, Ukraine, Yahoo News, Zach Dorfman", "output": "The US military trains and arms foreign fighters as \u201cproxies\u201d to wage \u201cirregular warfare\u201d against adversaries, and the Pentagon does not vet them to see if they have committed atrocities, according to documents obtained by the New York Times.\n\nThe United States military recruits foreign fighters to serve as \u201cproxies\u201d in order to wage \u201cirregular warfare\u201d against Washington\u2019s adversaries, and the Pentagon does not vet them to see if they have a history of committing atrocities, according to declassified documents obtained by the New York Times.\nThese \u201csurrogate\u201d fighters are armed and trained by the Pentagon\u2019s Special Operations Command.\nThey are key players in a growing number of secretive \u201cshadow wars\u201d that Washington is waging across the planet.\nUS special operations commandoes were deployed to 154 countries, or roughly 80% of the nations on Earth, as of 2020.\n\n\u201cU.S. Special Operations forces are not required to vet for past human rights violations by the foreign troops they arm and train as surrogates\u201d, the New York Times reported on May 14.\n\u201cAmerican commandos pay, train and equip foreign partner forces and then dispatch them on kill-or-capture operations\u201d, the newspaper noted.\nThe Times disclosed two Pentagon programs in which \u201csurrogate\u201d forces are used: Section 127e, known as \u201c127 Echo\u201d, which gets $100 million per year to train \u201ccounterterrorism\u201d proxies; and Section 1202, which is allotted $15 million per year to recruit proxies to wage \u201cirregular warfare\u201d.\nThis unconventional warfare is \u201caimed at disrupting nation-state rivals via operations that fall short of full armed conflict \u2014 including sabotage, hacking and information campaigns like propaganda\u201d, the newspaper wrote.\nU.S. Special Operations forces are not required to vet for past human rights violations by the foreign troops they arm and train as surrogates, newly disclosed documents show. https://t.co/9MIV0cvw74\n\u2014 The New York Times (@nytimes) May 14, 2023\n\nThe proxies recruited by the US military are vetted, but only \u201cto detect counterintelligence risks and potential threats to American forces\u201d, not for any \u201cviolations of human rights \u2014 such as rape, torture or extrajudicial killings\u201d, the Times clarified.\nThe newspaper explained:\nProxy forces are an increasingly important part of American foreign policy. Over the past decade, the United States has increasingly relied on supporting or deputizing local partner forces in places like Niger and Somalia, moving away from deploying large numbers of American ground troops as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan.\nEven as that strategic shift is meant to reduce the risk of American casualties and blowback from being seen as occupiers, training and arming local forces creates other hazards.\nThe Pentagon refused to tell the Times what countries these programs are active in. However, previous reports have noted that the US military ran its irregular warfare operation in Ukraine, where it trained forces for an eventual proxy war with Russia, years before Moscow\u2019s 2022 invasion.\nBy its very nature, US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has been notoriously secretive about its activities around the world.\nInvestigative journalist Nick Turse reported that US special operations forces were active in 154 countries in 2020, covering approximately 80 percent of the planet.\nIn a 2021 story in The Intercept, Turse wrote:\nU.S. Special Operations Command has grown exponentially over the last 20 years. \u201cSpecial operations-specific funding\u201d topped out at $3.1 billion in 2001, compared with $13.1 billion now. Before 9/11, there were roughly 43,000 special operations forces. Today, there are 74,000 military personnel and civilians in the command. Two decades ago, an average of 2,900 commandos were deployed overseas in any given week. That number now stands at 4,500, according to SOCOM spokesperson Ken McGraw.\nAs the command\u2019s global reach has grown, so has the toll on America\u2019s commandos. While special operations forces make up just 3 percent of American military personnel, they have absorbed more than 40 percent of the casualties, mainly in conflicts across the Greater Middle East.\nSOCOM\u2019s irregular warfare campaign was previously acknowledged in reporting by Yahoo News.\n\u201cIn the final month of his presidency, Donald Trump signed off on key parts of an extensive secret Pentagon campaign to conduct sabotage, propaganda and other psychological and information operations in Iran\u201d, wrote the media outlet\u2019s national security correspondent Zach Dorfman, in a 2021 article on Washington\u2019s \u201cshadow war\u201d.\nDorfman said that Washington\u2019s goal was \u201cto undermine the Iranian people\u2019s faith in their government as well as shake the regime\u2019s sense of competence and stability\u201d.\nFormer top US officials described the operation as \u201cirregular warfare\u201d, and\u00a0it included \u201ca 200-page package of options, involv[ing] \u2018things that would cause the Iranians to doubt their control over the country'\u201d.\nDorfman is very friendly with US spy agencies. At Yahoo News, he has also disclosed similar irregular warfare operations targeting Russia, but run by the Central Intelligence Agency.\n\u201cThe CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel\u201d, he revealed in a report published in January 2022 \u2013 a month before Russia invaded Ukraine.\nThis CIA program training Ukrainian paramilitaries in the southern United States was initiated in 2015, Dorfman disclosed.\nIn March 2022, a month after Moscow invaded, Yahoo News revealed that the CIA had another program training elite Ukrainian forces inside their country. That CIA initiative began in 2014.\nThese operations were overseen by the CIA, however. What is unique about the New York Times\u2019 May 2023 report is that it sheds light on similar programs in which the US military arms and trains proxy forces abroad.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CNN and MSNBC hire CIA/Pentagon officials as talking heads \u2013 and they push for more war. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CIA, CNN, James Clapper, James Spider Marks, Jeremy Bash, John Kirby, Lisa Monaco, Michael Hayden, MSNBC, North Korea, Pentagon, Philip Mudd, Russia, Syria", "output": "Top TV networks CNN and MSNBC hired a slew of former CIA and Pentagon officials as analysts, who use the media to push for war and an even more hawkish US foreign policy.\n\n(This article was first published in The Real News.)\nAmericans frequently\u00a0boast of how free and independent their press ostensibly is. According to mainstream NGO Reporters Without Borders, media freedoms in the United States come in at a measly 43rd place globally. But even overlooking that fact, some of the liberties that do indeed exist are being whittled down.\nIt is not just the government that is cracking down on press freedoms in the U.S. (although it certainly\u00a0is). In recent years, leading corporate media networks have also, of their own accord, abrogated their independence by directly hiring former top government officials as analysts and commentators.\nThe latest example of the revolving door between U.S. intelligence agencies and the corporate media came on February 1, when NBC News\u00a0announced that John Brennan, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, had been hired as a senior national security and intelligence analyst for NBC News and MSNBC.\nBrennan joins a slew of other former senior U.S. intelligence officers who can now be seen across television.\nIn April 2017, CNN\u00a0added three new government officials to its ranks.\nMichael Hayden, the only person to have served as the director of both the CIA and the National Security Agency, was hired as a CNN national security analyst.\nHayden is not exactly known for being a friend of journalists. As I previously reported for Salon, Hayden has likened Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Glenn Greenwald to the devil and disparaged other prominent investigative journalists, such as Seymour Hersh, Laura Poitras and Jane Mayer. He also joked about putting whistleblower Edward Snowden on the drone assassination program\u2019s kill list.\nJohn Kirby, the former spokesperson for the State Department, was also hired as a military and diplomatic analyst for CNN.\nKirby was previously a press secretary for the Pentagon and served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations. That is to say, he spent years playing the media on behalf of the U.S. Department of Defense, and subsequently became a prominent voice in the very media he had worked for so long.\nMoreover, Lisa Monaco, who was homeland security advisor under President Barack Obama, joined CNN\u2019s ranks as a senior national security analyst. Upon her promotion to the president\u2019s top counterterrorism advisor, Monaco had taken over the previous position of new MSNBC analyst Brennan, as CNN itself\u00a0noted\u00a0at the time.\nThat\u2019s not all. Later in 2017, CNN likewise hired James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence under Obama and previous head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as a national security analyst.\nLawmakers have called for Clapper to face perjury charges\u00a0for lying under oath. During congressional testimony in 2013, the top spy chief was asked if the NSA was collecting any of the data of Americans; he insisted the agency was not doing so. Months later, Edward Snowden showed otherwise, with the help of journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras \u2014 all of whom have been excoriated by CNN national security analyst Hayden.\nThese new hires joined CNN military and national security analyst James \u201cSpider\u201d Marks, a retired major general who previously led the U.S. Army Intelligence Center; along with longtime CNN counterterrorism analyst Philip Mudd, an intelligence agency veteran who helped lead counterterrorism operations at both the CIA and the FBI, and who sat on the White House National Security Council.\nMany of these U.S. government officials were frequent guests on corporate media networks before becoming regular paid contributors. Top CIA and FBI official Mudd boasts on his website, for instance, that \u201che has been featured by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, BBC, MSNBC, al-Jazeera, NPR, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.\u201d\nThe latest figure to cross through the revolving door from the U.S. intelligence community into the media, former CIA Director Brennan, is far from the only top government official MSNBC has added to its roster.\nNBC and its subsidiary hired as a national security analyst Jeremy Bash, who previously served as the chief of staff for both the Pentagon and the CIA.\nBash is also the founder and managing director of the Washington, D.C.-based advisory firm Beacon Global Strategies, which, as I detailed in AlterNet, is populated by former government officials and is closely linked to UAE ambassador to the U.S. Yousef al-Otaiba, one of the most influential foreign diplomats.\nIt will come as no surprise that the former government officials hired by corporate media networks have toed the U.S. government line in their analyses on air.\nAll have openly demanded more aggressive U.S. actions against Russia in particular.\nAs the media watchdog FAIR noted, Bash has all but called for war on Moscow.\nHayden has warned, as CNN puts it, \u201cthat Russia is still trying to influence American minds.\u201d\nMonaco has defended \u201cthe imposition of unprecedented sanctions\u201d as necessary \u201cconsequences\u201d for Moscow.\nClapper has implied the\u00a0Kremlin is pulling the strings over Trump.\nKirby has fearmongered about Russian jets\u00a0\u2014 while promoting uber-bellicose Senator\u00a0John McCain.\nOn Syria, they have been equally hawkish. After a Syrian military attack on the district of Khan Shaykhun, in al-Qaeda-controlled Idlib province, Bash took to NBC News to propose \u201cairstrikes from U.S. military aircraft or cruise missile strikes from U.S. naval warships operating off the coast of Syria. The objective\u2026 would be to\u00a0punish Assad.\u201d In order to do this, Bash added, \u201cWe\u2019d effectively have to push Russia aside, because they are there. And that\u2019s not something I\u2019m sure this White House is willing to do.\u201d\nWhen Trump responded by attacking the Syrian government, launching 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles on its Shayrat airbase and destroying some 20 percent of the Syrian military\u2019s operational\u00a0planes, according to the Pentagon, Bash applauded. In an NBC News report, the former Pentagon and CIA official praised the strike\u00a0for sending \u201can important message to Assad\u201d and a \u201ccritical message\u201d to other countries targeted by the U.S., such as Iran and North Korea.\nFormer CIA and NSA director Hayden likewise penned an op-ed in\u00a0The Hill\u00a0extolling \u201cthe first real military action of the Trump era.\u201d On CNN, Hayden saluted Trump for his \u201cremarkable flip.\u201d\nFor some of these spy chiefs-cum-analysts, nevertheless, Trump\u2019s missile strike on Syria was not quite aggressive enough. On CNN, Mudd lamented\u00a0that the dramatic attack was not enough to deter Russia. On the same network, General Marks\u00a0wishfully observed that the strike\nis not like Kentucky basketball, one and done; this is the start of a series of operations. We will continue to maintain a very strong intelligence presence on top of this target. And we\u2019ll be able to roll more Tomahawks and we\u2019ll be able to escalate and we\u2019ll be able to do additional types of operations in order to achieve the results that we\u2019re looking for, which is number one politically, I think we\u2019ve done that and we\u2019ve sent a very strong message. But to degrade and ultimately, eliminate his WMD, weapons of mass destruction capability and his ability, Assad\u2019s ability to deliver.\nSimilarly, these government officials turned reliably hawkish pundits have called for more threatening action against North Korea.\nKirby has declared\u00a0that \u201cthe credibility of the threat from North Korea is palpable.\u201d\nHayden has defended\u00a0the Trump administration\u2019s extremely belligerent posturing.\nBoth Hayden and Bash have called for an aggressive approach on North Korea.\nClapper has proposed more sanctions\u00a0on the country as a way forward.\nCNN even created a hologram animation showing what war would look like with North Korea, starring General Marks.\nThe embrace of former top U.S. officials as go-to employees and this willing abandonment of putative independence by the corporate media further underscores just how closely the press mirrors the government on issues of war, national security, and foreign policy.\nThis approach combines the worst of both worlds: while Americans are told that their media apparatus is free because it is not state owned, the news broadcasts on their televisions are replete with pugnacious talking heads who have spent most of their lives working for the government, and its notoriously violent military and intelligence agencies.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CIA is training Ukrainian paramilitaries to \u2018kill Russians\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CIA, Maidan, Russia, Ukraine", "output": "The CIA is training far-right Ukrainian nationalists to \u201ckill Russians\u201d and wage an \u201cinsurgency\u201d against Moscow.\n\nThe CIA has, since 2015, been training Ukrainian special forces and paramilitaries to \u201ckill Russians.\u201d\nThe covert program started under US President Barack Obama and was subsequently expanded by both Donald Trump and Joe Biden.\nThe CIA has also been in Ukraine\u2019s eastern Donbas region advising anti-Russian fighters.\nThis is according to a January 13 report in Yahoo News, titled \u201cCIA-trained Ukrainian paramilitaries may take central role if Russia invades.\u201d\n\u201cThe CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel,\u201d reported Yahoo News\u2019 national security correspondent Zach Dorfman.\nA former CIA official told the outlet, \u201cThe United States is training an insurgency.\u201d\nThe CIA\u2019s goal is to teach Ukrainian fighters \u201cto kill Russians,\u201d he said.\nAn excerpt from the Yahoo News report in which a former CIA officer says the \u201cUnited States is training an insurgency\u201d to \u201ckill Russians\u201d\nTo understand Moscow\u2019s perspective on what is happening in Ukraine, imagine this scenario: What would the United States do if Russia orchestrated a violent coup d\u2019etat in Mexico \u2013 as Washington did in Russia\u2019s neighbor Ukraine in 2014 \u2013 then Russian spy agencies spent years training Mexican gangs to kill North Americans, and sent them to the US border to fight an \u201cinsurgency\u201d?\nThat is what Washington is doing on the Russian border.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US funds \u2018independent journalists\u2019 in Cuba to spread propaganda, ex CIA spy admits. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CIA, Cuba, disinformation, information war, La Prensa, National Endowment for Democracy, NED, Nicaragua, propaganda, Venezuela", "output": "Former CIA analyst Fulton Armstrong told The Guardian that, in Cuba, \u201ca lot of the so-called independent journalists are indirectly funded by the US\u201d. They spread anti-government disinformation with the support of the NED.\n\n(Se puede leer esta nota en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nA former top CIA spy has admitted that the United States funds anti-government propagandists in Cuba who portray themselves as \u201cindependent journalists\u201d.\nMajor British newspaper The Guardian spoke with CIA veteran Fulton Armstrong, whom it described as \u201cthe US intelligence community\u2019s most senior analyst for Latin America from 2000 to 2004\u201d.\nArmstrong stated that, in Cuba, \u201ca lot of the so-called independent journalists are indirectly funded by the US\u201d.\nThe ex CIA analyst pointed out that, today, the Joe Biden administration bankrolls anti-government opposition forces in Cuba with at least $20 million in annual support for supposed \u201cdemocracy promotion\u201d activities.\nThe Guardian acknowledged that the CIA has a history of spreading disinformation inside Cuba, as part of a US information war aimed at destabilizing the revolutionary government. The newspaper wrote:\nFinancing media has long been part of Washington\u2019s diplomatic toolkit.\nIn the 1960s in Cuba, Radio Swan, a CIA\u00a0covert action programme, attempted not only a propaganda offensive to undermine support for Fidel Castro, but\u00a0doubled up\u00a0as a communication link, sending coded messages to paramilitaries during the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961.\nA decade ago it emerged that the US government had paid contractors to create ZunZuneo, a social network built on texts, to organize \u201csmart mobs\u201d on the island. And during historic, largely spontaneous anti-government protests on the island in 2021, externally funded, externally directed bots made anti-government hashtags trend on Twitter.\nStill today, Washington funds another prominent Spanish-language, anti-Cuba disinformation outlet called Radio y Televisi\u00f3n Mart\u00ed, which is part of the government\u2019s propaganda arm the US Agency for Global Media (formerly known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors).\nArmstrong, the former CIA agent, explained to The Guardian the US destabilization strategy in financing opposition media outlets in foreign countries like Cuba:\nUS programs are designed with a win-win strategy. We win if the opposition media gain a foothold, and we win if they provoke government repression.\nThat thrusts the government into a dilemma \u2013 to let the organizing and funding go forward or to risk image and credibility by crushing it.\nIn addition to spying for the CIA, Armstrong worked for the State Department\u2019s US Interests Section in Cuba (a diplomatic office located inside Switzerland\u2019s embassy in Havana).\nArmstrong served as the US \u201cNational Intelligence Officer for Latin America\u201d, the intelligence community\u2019s top analyst focused on the region. He also oversaw Latin America for the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee.\nThe Guardian \u2013 which is itself closely linked to and collaborates with the UK\u2019s intelligence services \u2013 portrayed the Cuban government as repressive for cracking down on foreign-funded disinformation agents.\nThe British newspaper gloated over the large revenue streams that anti-government media outlets in Cuba have, writing, \u201cTiny state salaries have also been unable to compete with the private sector\u201d.\nWhile The Guardian praised two right-wing Cuban opposition media outlets, called El Toque and El Estornudo, it admitted that both are bankrolled by the US government.\nEl Toque disclosed to The Guardian that \u201cit has received US federal funds \u2018indirectly\u2019 as part of a mix of money from corporations and foundations\u201d.\nEl Estornudo is financed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a notorious instrument of US regime-change operations that has meddled in the internal politics of countries all around the world.\nA co-founder of the NED, Allen Weinstein, told the Washington Post in 1991, \u201cA lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA\u201c.\nThe NED reported that it gave El Estornudo $180,000 in 2021 \u2013 a huge sum of money in any Latin American country, but especially in Cuba, which has trouble getting access to dollars due to Washington\u2019s illegal, six-decade blockade against it.\n\nIn a 1977 report titled \u201cWorldwide Propaganda Network Built by the C.I.A.\u201c, the New York Times admitted that the CIA had established a media outlet in the early 1960s called Free Cuba Radio, whose \u201cpropaganda broadcasts against the Government of Prime Minister Fidel Castro were carried over radio stations\u201d in various cities inside the US and in the Caribbean.\nThe prominent newspaper explained:\nOne motive for establishing the Free Cuba radio network, a former C.I.A. official said he recalled, was to have periods of air time available in advance in case Radio Swan, meant to be the main communications link for the Bay of Pigs invasion, was destroyed by saboteurs.\nRadio Swan\u2019s cover was thin enough to warrant such concern. The powerful station, whose broadcasts could be heard over much of the Western Hemisphere, was operated by a steamship company in New York that had not owned a steamship for some time.\nThe United States has used the same tactics to try to destabilize the leftist governments in Venezuela and Nicaragua.\nThe NED has spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding right-wing opposition media outlets and so-called \u201ccivil society organizations\u201d in Venezuela.\nMany of these groups have been complicit in violence and participated in coup attempts against democratically elected Presidents Hugo Ch\u00e1vez and Nicol\u00e1s Maduro.\nIn Nicaragua in the 1980s, the CIA supported far-right death squads known as the Contras (short for \u201cCounterrevolutionaries\u201d), who burned down schools and hospitals and waged a campaign of terror to try to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government.\nA key part of the US hybrid war on Nicaragua in the 1980s, and still today, included the dissemination of disinformation through NED-funded newspapers like La Prensa, which is owned by the Central American nation\u2019s most powerful right-wing oligarch family, the Chamorro dynasty.\nAfter the Sandinista Front returned to power in 2007, through democratic elections, the US again began pouring millions of dollars into opposition media outlets in Nicaragua.\nDuring a bloody coup attempt in 2018, US-funded Nicaraguan opposition media outlets spread extreme propaganda and fake news, openly inciting violence and encouraging people to murder President Daniel Ortega and hang his body in public.\nRight-wing Nicaraguan media outlets funded by the US government constantly spread blatant fake news to attack the Sandinistas https://t.co/hzafT2yLH0\n\u2014 Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticEcon) August 8, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Entire world votes 185 to 2 against blockade of Cuba \u2013 US and Israel are rogue states at UN. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "blockade, Cuba, Israel, sanctions, United Nations", "output": "For the 30th year in a row, almost every country on Earth voted at the United Nations General Assembly to oppose the illegal six-decade US blockade of Cuba. 185 nations voted against just two: the United States and Israel.\n\n(Se puede leer esta nota en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nFor the 30th year in a row, almost every country on Earth voted at the United Nations to oppose the six-decade US blockade of Cuba.\nOn November 3, the UN General Assembly voted an overwhelming 185 to two to condemn Washington\u2019s suffocating embargo.\n\nThe only countries that supported the illegal blockade were the United States itself and the Israeli apartheid regime.\nJust two nations abstained: Brazil\u2019s far-right Jair Bolsonaro administration, and the NATO client regime in Ukraine.\nThe UN General Assembly vote against the US blockade of Cuba, on November 3, 2022\nMoreover, the real number of member states that would have voted against the blockade is 186. However, Venezuela was unable to do so because its UN voting rights were temporarily suspended, due to Venezuela\u2019s inability to pay member fees to the United Nations, ironically because of the illegal US blockade and sanctions against it.\nThere are 193 members states of the United Nations. This means that 96% of the countries on Earth voted to condemn the US blockade of Cuba.\nIn June 2021, the vote was almost exactly the same. The only difference was that Colombia\u2019s previous right-wing government had abstained, whereas its new left-wing President Gustavo Petro opposes the blockade.\nThe UN General Assembly vote against the US blockade of Cuba, on November 3, 2022\nThe US embargo was officially declared in 1962, but in reality Washington began imposing illegal unilateral sanctions almost immediately after the victory of the Cuban Revolution in 1959.\nWhy has the United States waged such relentless economic war on Cuba for so many decades? An internal State Department memo from 1960 clearly explains Washington\u2019s imperial intentions.\nThe UN just voted 185 to 2 to condemn the illegal, 60-year US blockade of Cuba\nAn internal govt memo admits the US goal is to \"deny money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government\"\nFull video: https://t.co/6EK7Qre8vr pic.twitter.com/woWiFxQhvl\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 3, 2022\n\nIn the document, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Lester D. Mallory admitted that the \u201cmajority of Cubans support [Fidel] Castro\u201d and there \u201cis no effective political opposition.\u201d\n\u201cThe only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship,\u201d he concluded.\nThe top State Department official insisted that \u201cevery possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba.\u201d\nWashington\u2019s goal, Mallory wrote, was to make \u201cthe greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.\u201d\nSociopathic: The US government has imposed a murderous, illegal, 60-year blockade on Cuba to \"decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government\"\nBut now the State Dep't pretends to care about a lack of food & medicine that IT CAUSED https://t.co/aErOsPdP6Z pic.twitter.com/SbAvYItcAn\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 21, 2022\n\nOn October 28, there was a similar UN General Assembly vote in which the United States and apartheid Israel once again showed themselves to be rogue states on the international stage. An overwhelming 152 member states voted against just five to tell Israel to give up its illegal nuclear weapons and abide by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.\nIn the 2022 General Assembly resolution, the UN Development Program (UNDP) stated clearly that the US \u201cembargo limited the acquisition of medicines and medical equipment and supplies, it affects the external economic relations of Cuba, and its impact can be observed in all spheres of the country\u2019s social and economic activities.\u201d\n\u201cThe embargo has an impact on the population\u2019s most vulnerable groups and on human development in general,\u201d the UNDP wrote, adding that it \u201caffects opportunities for national and local development and creates economic hardship for the population.\u201d\nThe UN body cited official estimates that the illegal US blockade caused Cuba\u2019s economy to lose $144.4 billion from the early 1960s to 2020.\nIn the resolution, the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) added that the US blockade also affect third countries and companies, not just Cuba, writing, \u201cThe embargo imposes strict limitations on the Caribbean nation, with extraterritorial effects that hinder its relations with third countries and affect the well-being of the Cuban population.\u201d\nThe UN commission noted that the Donald Trump administration imposed an additional 240 unilateral sanctions on Cuba, and that the Joe Biden administration has renewed the criminal economic measures.\n\u201cThe numerous United States sanctions produce real harm that obstructs the access of Cuban citizens to basic goods and violates their rights,\u201d the UN ECLAC wrote. \u201cThese policies are an obstacle to economic, social and environmental development.\u201d\n\u201cIn short, the numerous United States sanctions constitute the most severe and prolonged system of unilateral coercive measures ever applied against any country and continue to hinder the development of the potential of the Cuban economy,\u201d the UN commission concluded.\nThe UN resolution A/76/405, officially titled \u201cNecessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba,\u201d was\u00a0voted on at the 77th session of the 28th plenary meeting of the General Assembly.\nThe document received more than 170 pages of responses from dozens of member states and UN bodies explaining why Washington must end its illegal blockade.\nNumerous international organizations explained how the US embargo greatly harms the Cuban population as a whole.\nThe UN Development Program wrote:\nIn pandemic conditions, the embargo remains in place, and its negative impact has been more specific and significantly larger than in previous years, particularly on commerce and financial activities.\nThe embargo limited the acquisition of medicines and medical equipment and supplies, it affects the external economic relations of Cuba, and its impact can be observed in all spheres of the country\u2019s social and economic activities.\nThe embargo also maintains the restrictions on the use of the United States dollar and on imports from Cuba. It affects opportunities for national and local development and creates economic hardship for the population.\nThe embargo has an impact on the population\u2019s most vulnerable groups and on human development in general.\nAccording to official estimates, the cumulative direct and indirect losses for the Cuban economy owing to the embargo from the early 1960s until March 2020 amount to $144.4 billion at current prices.\nThe UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean wrote:\nDuring the Administration of President Donald Trump, over 240 coercive measures were activated against Cuba in the framework of the United States embargo against the island, and these still remain in force.\nIn fact, on 7 September 2021, the President of the United States, Joseph Biden, extended the law regulating the embargo against Cuba under the so-called Trading with the Enemy Act, until 14 September 2022.\nIn a memorandum addressed to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury, the President ordered the extension of the sanctions that heavily limit trade with Cuba under these rules. Former President Trump had renewed these in September 2020.\nThe embargo imposes strict limitations on the Caribbean nation, with extraterritorial effects that hinder its relations with third countries and affect the well-being of the Cuban population. These restrictions deepen the multiple challenges imposed on the island by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and multiply its adverse socioeconomic, health and financial effects. On several occasions, they have hindered the arrival of humanitarian aid in Cuba.\n\u2026\nThe numerous United States sanctions produce real harm that obstructs the access of Cuban citizens to basic goods and violates their rights. These policies are an obstacle to economic, social and environmental development.\n\u2026\nIn short, the numerous United States sanctions constitute the most severe and prolonged system of unilateral coercive measures ever applied against any country and continue to hinder the development of the potential of the Cuban economy.\nThe International Labor Organization (ILO) wrote:\nThe embargo has intensified in recent years and has significantly constrained development possibilities in Cuba, greatly impacting the living conditions of the Cuban people. Among the effects, just to name a few:\n\u2022 Restrictions on the transfer of remittances still imply a higher indirect tax burden on salaries legitimately earned abroad and sent for household spending on basic human needs such as food, clothing, education, housing, water and sanitation.\n\u2022 Limitations on commerce and financial transactions still represent a serious bottleneck and an additional cost for business development and job creation, especially in sectors like agriculture and tourism, as decent work largely depends on productive investment and access to financing.\n\u2022 Limited access to technology transfer implies further difficulties for enterprises, as well as for social and economic development.\nThe implementation of Title III of the Helms-Burton Act intensifies the embargo by affecting business and investment opportunities in Cuba for third-country investors; the creation of new job sources; and decent work in Cuba.\nThe direct and indirect effects of the embargo on the Cuban economy and people affect not only the enterprises, but even more their workers and the population in general. The International Labour Organization (ILO) is particularly concerned about the impacts on children, workers and the elderly. Ending the embargo would turn the overall loss into an opportunity for productive investment, employment generation and new business opportunities, as well as for achieving the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Econ\u00f3mico y Social hasta 2030 and other reforms aimed at improving the economic and social system, for example monetary unification and the expansion of self-employment schemes.\nIn the context of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic recovery, the embargo is limiting the possibilities for the country to implement jobs and economic recovery strategies.\nThe UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) wrote:\nGiven that Cuba is subject to an embargo, projects implemented by FAO in the country are affected with regard to the procurement of equipment and supplies that complement the technical assistance because the resources that could be imported from the United States have to be imported from far more distant markets, at much higher prices and higher freight costs. If acquisitions could be made in the United States, it would be much cheaper and more activities could be supported through the available budget.\nThe most recent embargo measures against Cuba, under which third-country companies trading with Cuba can be sued in United States courts, have had a negative impact on Cuban trade by drastically reducing the commercial partners that operate in the country. This has had a direct impact on the procurement operations that FAO carries out in Cuba in the framework of its technical cooperation projects.\n\u2026\nUnder the embargo, conditions hinder the processes of payments and banking transactions to and from suppliers who provide services for cooperation projects and to the FAO country office. This is demonstrated by banks\u2019 rejections of transfers from FAO for sales to Cuba; the impossibility for suppliers to offer products to Cuba obtained from other North American companies; and the inability of suppliers to transfer funds to Cuba for payment of services contracted in the country.\nIn addition, banks reject commercial and financial transactions by Cuban enterprises in United States dollars and in other currencies, which hinders payment for certifications of Cuban products with a high potential to be commercialized in Europe.\nFAO staff continue to be affected by expensive and long formalities in banking processes.\nA summary of the negative effects caused by the embargo in some of the sectors in which FAO is providing technical support and other sectors included within its country programming framework is presented below.\nThe losses originated mainly in:\n(a) Price differences owing to changes in the import market;\n(b) Additional costs related to freight insurance;\n(c) Additional costs owing to a freeze of assets;\n(d) Monetary damages;\n(e) Losses owing to lack of access to the latest technology from the United States;\n(f) Relocation of exports.\nThe Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) wrote:\nthe Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) continued to express concern regarding the negative impact that extraterritorial sanctions have on human rights.\n\u2026\nSeven United Nations human rights experts reiterated this in a message, requesting the United States of America to lift its economic and financial embargo on Cuba that is obstructing humanitarian responses to help the country\u2019s health-care system fight the COVID-19 pandemic.\n\u2026\nParticular difficulties were reported in countries subject to unilateral coercive measures, including Cuba, to obtain medical equipment vital to fight the pandemic, including oxygen supply and ventilators, protective kits and spare -parts software\n\u2026\nThe Human Rights Council expressed its grave concern that, in some countries, such measures impede the full realization of social and economic development and hinder the well-being of the populations, with particular consequences for women, children, the elderly and persons with disabilities.\n\u2026\nthe United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reiterated her call for the lifting of unilateral sectoral sanctions, given their negative impact on human rights, including the right to health.\n\u2026\nfour mandate holders of the Special Procedure of the Human Rights Council stressed that unilateral sanctions impinge on the right to development and called on countries that impose unilateral sanctions to withdraw or at least to minimize them to guarantee that the rule of law and human rights, including the right to development, are not affected.\nThey explicitly referred to Cuba as a targeted country and pointed out that owing to the unilateral sanctions some countries sink into poverty because they cannot get essential services like electricity, housing, water, gas and fuel, let alone medicine and food.\n\u2026\nthe United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that sanctions can create severe and undue suffering for individuals who have neither perpetrated crimes nor otherwise bear responsibility for improper conduct. When sanctions target an entire country, or address entire economic sectors, it is the most vulnerable people in that country \u2013 those who are least protected \u2013 who are likely to be worst harmed.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US votes against peace in Gaza, defying vast majority of planet at UN. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Gaza, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, UN, United Nations, Venezuela", "output": "The United States voted against a proposed humanitarian truce in Gaza, opposing the vast majority of the world in the United Nations General Assembly and protecting Israel as it kills thousands of Palestinian civilians.\n\nThe vast majority of countries on Earth voted in the United Nations General Assembly for a proposed humanitarian truce in Gaza.\nThe United States was one of the few nations that voted against the measure.\nWashington has protected and armed Israel as it has killed thousands of Palestinian civilians and carries out an ethnic cleansing operation in the densely populated Gaza strip.\n\nOn October 27, the UN General Assembly held a vote on a resolution calling for an \u201cimmediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities\u201d.\nThe final vote was 121 countries in favor of the humanitarian truce, with 14 countries against and 44 abstentions.\nWhen the results were first reported, there was a mistake. Iraq said there was a technical error on its machine; Baghdad made it clear that it had not meant to abstain and had actually voted in support of the resolution.\nSo the real number was 121 countries in favor, not 120.\n\nThe vast majority of the Global South voted for the humanitarian truce. The only large countries in the Global South that abstained were India and the Philippines, both of which have right-wing governments that are allied with the United States.\nMost nations in Asia and Africa supported the proposal. In Latin America, only a small handful of right-wing, US-allied governments voted against it or abstained.\nEven a few countries in Europe backed the measure, including France, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and Switzerland.\n\nThe final vote would have been 122 if Venezuela were able to vote.\nThe South American nation has strongly supported Palestine. Venezuela does not have formal diplomat relations with Israel, and has accused Tel Aviv of genocide and apartheid, referring to it as the \u201cmurderer arm of the US empire\u201d.\nHowever, illegal US unilateral sanctions have prevented Venezuela from accessing its bank accounts and therefore paying its membership fees at the United Nations.\nThe illegal US blockade has therefore taken away Venezuela\u2019s voice at the UN General Assembly.\nIn addition to this vote in the General Assembly, the United States used its veto power in the UN Security Council to kill a resolution calling for a ceasefire, which was drafted by Russia and voted on on October 16, as well as a measure proposing a humanitarian pause, which was introduced by Brazil and voted on on October 18.\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CNBC calls for \u2018cyber terrorism\u2019 against Russia and \u2018blank check\u2019 for US weapons corporations. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Jim Cramer, Lockheed Martin, military-industrial complex, Raytheon, Russia, Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky", "output": "CNBC pundit Jim Cramer called for \u201ccyber terrorism\u201d against Russia and a \u201cblank check\u201d for US weapons corporations \u2013 including the same companies he encourages his viewers to invest in.\n\nCNBC pundit Jim Cramer used his platform on network TV to call for \u201ccyber terrorism\u201d against Russia and a \u201cblank check\u201d for US weapons corporations \u2013 including the same companies he constantly encourages his viewers to invest in.\nCramer, a former hedge fund manager who got his start working at the infamous bank Goldman Sachs, runs CNBC\u2019s \u201cInvesting Club.\u201d\n\nIn a June 27 segment titled \u201cJim Cramer explains why he thinks every Russian sanction has failed,\u201d the pundit complained that the heavy Western sanctions imposed on Russia over its war in Ukraine have \u201cfailed\u201d to destroy the nation\u2019s economy.\n\u201cAs long as India and as long as China buy their [Russia\u2019s] oil, it doesn\u2019t matter. They\u2019re exporting more oil now then they did before this,\u201d Cramer noted.\nHe lamented that the Russian currency \u201cthe ruble is strong,\u201d although he did boast that \u201cthere is a huge part of the GDP that has been eliminated because of our pull-out.\u201d\nGiven the failure of the West\u2019s economic war on Moscow, Cramer proposed turning to \u201ccyber terrorism.\u201d\nCNBC pundit @JimCramer used his platform on network TV to call for \u201ccyber terrorism\u201d against Russia and a \u201cblank check\u201d for US weapons corporations \u2013 including the same companies he constantly tells his viewers to invest in.\nFull video: https://t.co/nLUeRZeciU pic.twitter.com/kx1k5JPGN0\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) July 7, 2022\n\n\u201cIf you want to find a way to create a sanction, find a way to be able to reprogram their [Russia\u2019s] missiles through cyber terrorism,\u201d he insisted.\nCramer called on the US military to \u201creprogram\u201d Moscow\u2019s missiles to reverse or malfunction, in order to hurt Russia.\n\u201cWe should have everybody who is in the army working, anybody who has potential to do cyber, to reprogram those [Russian] missiles,\u201d the CNBC pundit declared.\nThe segment showed how major corporate media networks are actively fanning the flames of war, aggressively pushing for the US government to escalate the proxy war in Ukraine.\nWhen asked if any other sanctions could be imposed to hurt Russia\u2019s economy, Jim Cramer responded emphatically, \u201cThe only sanction is to send every single piece of artillery that they [Ukraine] need, that Zelensky would tell you that they need!\u201d\n\u201cWhere are the new Javelins? Why isn\u2019t the United States sending them thousands of Javelins?\u201d he roared, referring to an anti-tank missile system built by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.\nCramer proposed that Washington should give a \u201cblank check\u201d to private for-profit weapons corporations to arm Ukraine with whatever it requests.\n\u201cWhy don\u2019t we give a blank check to Raytheon and to Lockheed Martin?\u201d Cramer asked.\nThe CNBC pundit may have a vested financial interest in calling for endless US government contracts for the military-industrial complex.\nCramer constantly encourages his viewers to buy stocks in Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.\nBack in May, CNBC published a segment titled \u201cJim Cramer says investors should have these four defense stocks on their shopping lists,\u201d which recommended Raytheon and Lockheed Martin as numbers one and two, respectively.\nJim Cramer says investors should have these four defense stocks on their shopping lists https://t.co/2fIB10Sbng\n\u2014 CNBC (@CNBC) May 19, 2022\n\n\u201cThere\u2019s at least one industry that\u2019s booming right now,\u201d Cramer said excitedly in May. \u201cI\u2019m talking about the defense industry, which is on fire.\u201d\n\u201cThe Russian invasion of Ukraine is a game-changer for the defense industry,\u201d he added, salivating over the potential profits.\nIn November 2021, Cramer even did a friendly softball interview with the CEO of Lockheed Martin.\nWhile the former hedge fund manager called for further escalating the US proxy war on Russia, with taxpayers subsidizing blank checks to the arms industry, he also went out of his way to attack those who want a peaceful resolution of the conflict.\n\u201cThere\u2019s another school of thought which says there is a peace deal being worked on,\u201d Cramer said dismissively. He complained that this type of diplomatic solution would be a \u201csell-out of Zelensky.\u201d\n\u201cIf you don\u2019t give Zelensky what he needs, he will lose,\u201d the CNBC pundit stressed.\nWhen asked about NATO\u2019s proposal to put 300,000 troops in high readiness positions, he cheered it on: \u201cThey better! They better! They better protect Poland.\u201d\nApparently unconcerned about the possibility of escalating into nuclear war, Cramer fearmongered, \u201cI do believe that if the West lets them [Russia] get away with this, then anyone who goes nuclear has a silver barrel.\u201d\n\u201cI mean, if we decide that we have to be fearful of every nuclear nation, well, we\u2019re going to be feel fearful of Pakistan; we\u2019ll be fearful of Iran. This has to stop!\u201d he warned.\nIran does not have nuclear weapons, and its government has repeatedly insisted it does not want them. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, arguing they are incompatible with Islam.\nWarmongers like Jim Cramer are ignoring the analysis of actual military experts like Scott Ritter, a former UN arms inspector and US Marine Corps intelligence officer.\n\u201cNo matter what the U.S. and NATO do in terms of serving as Ukraine\u2019s arsenal, Russia is going to win the war,\u201d Ritter cautioned.\n\u201cThe longer the war continues, the more Ukrainians will die,\u201d he added ominously.\nThis is a price that Cramer is willing to pay, along with further financial hardship for the global poor, for the sake of intensifying the war on Russia.\nIt does help that the CNBC pundit may financially benefit from these policies, given that he frequently encourages his viewers to invest in the stocks of the very same US weapons corporations that are arming Ukraine.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US ambassador lectures China \u2018threat\u2019: \u2018We\u2019re the leader in this region (Asia)\u2019!. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "AmCham China, American Chamber of Commerce in China, Antony Blinken, Chamber of Commerce, China, Iran, Israel, Myron Brilliant, Nicholas Burns, Thomas Nides, Victoria Nuland", "output": "In an interview with the Chamber of Commerce, US Ambassador Nicholas Burns referred to China as a \u201cthreat\u201d, \u201cgreat challenge\u201d, and \u201cvery difficult government\u201d, stating arrogantly, \u201cThe United States is staying in this region. We\u2019re the leader in this [Indo-Pacific] region\u201d.\n\nWashington\u2019s ambassador to Beijing referred to China as a \u201cthreat\u201d and \u201cgreat challenge\u201d. He stated arrogantly, \u201cThe United States is staying in this region. We\u2019re the leader in this region\u201d, referring to the Indo-Pacific.\nThe ambassador, Nicholas Burns, insisted, \u201cWe\u2019re going to hold our own out here. And I feel optimistic \u2013 I\u2019m just concluding my first year as ambassador \u2013 about the American position in this country [China] and in this region\u201d.\nIn an interview with the US Chamber of Commerce, Burns made very aggressive comments, going so far as to blame China for the coronavirus pandemic, claiming Beijing is not being \u201chonest about what happened three years ago in Wuhan, with the origin of the Covid-19 crisis\u201d.\nThe ambassador simultaneously praised the \u201cbipartisan support in the Congress between Republicans and Democrats for a really robust American policy to defend our interests out here in the Indo-Pacific, to compete with the Chinese\u201d.\n\nBurns said all of this at a February 27 event organized by the Chamber of Commerce, the most powerful corporate lobby group in Washington.\nThe panel discussion, titled \u201cAmerican Leadership in an Age of Uncertainty\u201d, also featured the US ambassador to Israel, Thomas Nides, and the third in command of the State Department, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland.\nNuland is a hard-line neoconservative who was a key sponsor of a 2014 coup that overthrew Ukraine\u2019s democratically elected, geopolitically neutral President Viktor Yanukovych and installed a pro-Western regime, setting off the war that continues to this day.\nThis Chamber of Commerce event on \u201cAmerican leadership\u201d came one day before the US Congress held the first hearing of its hawkish \u201cSelect Committee on the Chinese Communist Party\u201d. The committee\u2019s chairman, Republican Congressmember Mike Gallagher, described Washington\u2019s new cold on Beijing in extreme terms: \u201cThis is not a polite tennis match. This is an existential struggle over what life will look like in the 21st century \u2014 and the most fundamental freedoms are at stake\u201d.\nGreat conversation with my friend @MyronBrilliant and two public servants I admire, Thomas Nides @USAmbIsrael and Victoria Nuland @UnderSecStateP, at the @USChamber InSTEP event about U.S. leadership in the world.  Watch here: https://t.co/Vt0xO8yRtn\n\u2014 Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) February 28, 2023\n\nOn the Chamber of Commerce panel, Ambassador Burns said \u201cChina is going to be one of the great challenges for Americans going forward\u201d. He added,\u00a0\u201cThis is obviously a very difficult moment in the US-China relationship\u201d.\nReferring to this \u201cdifficult relationship\u201d,\u00a0Burns complained that the Xi Jinping administration is \u201ca very difficult government here in the People\u2019s Republic of China\u201d.\nThe ambassador insisted that the US is not waging a new cold war on China and Russia, but rather a forceful campaign of \u201ccompetition\u201d.\n\u201cFrom my perspective, sitting here in China, looking out at the Indo-Pacific, our American position is stronger than it was five or 10 years ago. It\u2019s the strength of our alliances; it\u2019s the strength of our private sector; it\u2019s our innovative capacity and our R&D capacity which comes from our research institutions and our Big Tech companies\u201d, Burns said.\nHe called for \u201ccompeting\u201d with Beijing in four areas \u2013 military, economy, technology, and human rights:\nOne of the great advantages we have right now, in dealing with a very difficult government here in the People\u2019s Republic of China, in a competitive relationship, is that we have large-scale bipartisan agreement that we ought to be competing with China for military power in the Indo-Pacific.\nCompeting in the economic and trade sphere for a much more level playing field for American business, because it\u2019s not level right now.\nWe\u2019re certainly competing on technology.\nAnd of course we defend our values. We defend human rights. We take issue, great issue, with what the Chinese have done in Xinjiang, and Tibet, and Hong Kong, with the lack of religious freedom here.\nAnd I think there\u2019s large-scale agreement, frankly, in our country, and also between Republicans and Democrats in Congress, that we\u2019ve got to be competing in those four areas.\nBurns hysterically condemned \u201cthe balloon incident\u201d, calling it \u201can outright violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States\u201d, adding that \u201cPresident Biden was absolutely correct in ordering the shoot-down of that balloon\u201d.\nThe ambassador didn\u2019t mention that US government experts have acknowledged that the Chinese balloon likely had crossed into US territory by accident, due to unforeseen weather conditions.\nHe also failed to note that the US military later spent roughly $2 million to shoot down a $12 hobbyist balloon.\nBurns depicted Chinese tech firms as threats to US national security.\u00a0\u201cTechnology is going to remain a contested area\u201d, he insisted, stressing that \u201cthere are real limits\u201d on the ability of \u201cChinese companies to invest in companies in the United States in technology areas that we deem to be important for our national security\u201d.\nThe ambassador gloated:\nThe Chinese believe, the Chinese leadership, that the East is rising and that the West, particularly the United States, was declining.\nI think two years into this administration, and on a bipartisan basis, I can say the United States is a strengthened position in the Indo-Pacific, and now the United States and NATO, and the United States and the European Union, are beginning to see the threat from China and the competition from China in the same way.\nBurns also called for strengthening US military support for Taiwan, asserting, \u201cIt is our obligation, obviously, to maintain our own military strength in and around Taiwan, in this part of the world, to make sure that the Taiwan authorities have the ability to deter any kind of Chinese offensive action, now or in the future\u201d.\nIn a Freudian slip, the US ambassador accidentally referred to Taiwan as a \u201ccountry\u201d, stating, \u201cWe want to live in a world where big countries can\u2019t push small countries around \u2013 or in this case, not a country, but the Taiwan authorities\u201d.\nThe Chamber of Commerce event highlighted the incestuous relationship between US corporations and top diplomats in the State Department.\nThe panel was moderated by the Chamber of Commerce\u2019s executive vice president and head of international affairs, Myron Brilliant.\nHe opened the discussion by approvingly quoting former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who declared, \u201cIf we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future\u201d.\nBrilliant said, \u201cWe\u2019re going to pose the question today: Is America still the indispensable nation? Do we have the tools we need to project our leadership in a time of economic and geopolitical uncertainty?\u201d\nAll of the US diplomats on the panel responded by insisting, yes, the US is still the \u201cleader\u201d of the world.\nAs ambassador, Burns\u2019 main job is to act as a liaison for US corporate interests.\n\u201cSupporting U.S. businesses here in China is one of my top priorities\u201d, Burns tweeted proudly in June 2022, after meeting with the\u00a0American Chamber of Commerce in China (AmCham China).\nSupporting U.S. businesses here in #China is one of my top priorities. Thanks to @AmCham_China Government Affairs Conference and its 150+ participants for the opportunity to speak with you. pic.twitter.com/b4FWolrrb0\n\u2014 Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) June 24, 2022\n\nBurns collaborates very closely with representatives of US corporations, meeting with the AmCham at least once per month.\nI had an important meeting with @AmCham_China. We want to help the 1100 U.S. businesses here compete on a more level playing field and meet challenges from the lockdown. pic.twitter.com/RCmvajUcNL\n\u2014 Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) May 25, 2022\n\nIn May 2022, he complained that US corporations in China want \u201ca more level playing field\u201d.\nUpon meeting with the AmCham yet again in April, Burns reiterated, \u201cI strongly support American businesses\u201d.\nThanks to the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai for today\u2019s discussion with ?? companies. I strongly support American businesses and their employees as they face difficult challenges during the Shanghai lockdown. @AmChamSh pic.twitter.com/kFxPaQfRIL\n\u2014 Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) April 25, 2022\n\nBurns\u2019 pro-corporate concerns were similarly reflected in a landmark speech delivered in May 2022 by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The top US diplomat essentially declared a new containment policy toward China, while complaining about its socialist policies and \u201cmarket-distorting policies and practices, like subsidies and market access barriers, which China\u2019s government has used for years to gain competitive advantage\u201d.\nLike Burns, Blinken called for a \u201clevel playing field\u201d for US corporations, lamenting, \u201cUnlike U.S. companies and other market-oriented firms, Chinese companies don\u2019t need to make a profit \u2013 they just get another injection of state-owned bank credit when funds are running low\u201d.\nThe February 2023 Chamber of Commerce event echoed this neoliberal economic ideology.\nThe Chamber of Commerce vice president, Brilliant, complained about China\u2019s \u201cemphasis on state-owned enterprises and the regulatory behavior of the government\u201d.\nReferring to the\u00a0US \u201ccompetition\u201d with China and Russia, Brilliant said, \u201cI think the private sector role in this has never been more important in working with our government, and we continue to do that\u201d.\nHe underscored his life goal is \u201cto work with the private sector and ensure that we continue to see that close cooperation between the public and private sector\u201d.\nBrilliant also lamented that Germany is too soft on China and India is too soft on Russia.\nThe US ambassador to Israel, Thomas Nides, who was also on the panel, spoke openly of the incestuous relationship between the Chamber of Commerce and State Department.\nNides told Brilliant, with a very casual tone, \u201cYou and I are good pals. We\u2019ve spent a lot of time talking about things. I\u2019m honored to be your friend\u201d.\nThe US ambassador referred to the interaction between them as \u201cthe game\u201d:\u00a0\u201cListen man, you and I have known each other for a long time, we\u2019ve had lots of fun enjoyable trips together, a lot of activity. You represent what\u2019s great\u00a0about getting in the game\u201d.\nNides continued: \u201cAs the three of us have gotten into the game at different points, you\u2019ve been in the game at a really important time, which is that the relationship between the business community and government is critical. None of us forget that\u201d.\nHe added: \u201cI\u2019ve had the honor to be in business. I\u2019ve had the honor to be in the government. The reality is business and government need to work together; they need to have common agendas\u201d.\n\nAs US ambassador to China, Nicholas Burns has taken a very hawkish tone.\nIn February, when the Chinese Foreign Ministry published a devastating report called \u201cUS Hegemony and Its Perils\u201d, documenting Washington\u2019s crimes around the world, Burns attacked it angrily as \u201ccrude propaganda\u201d that is \u201cunworthy of a great power\u201d.\nThis is crude propaganda and unworthy of a great power. The United States remains ready for meaningful cooperation to tackle shared global challenges. https://t.co/ZsntCxDIML pic.twitter.com/AEepa7X06b\n\u2014 Ambassador Nicholas Burns (@USAmbChina) February 23, 2023\n\nUnder former President George W. Bush, Burns served as US ambassador to NATO, as well as under secretary of state for political affairs, the third-most powerful position in the State Department.\nHe is a close ally of Victoria Nuland, the neoconservative under secretary of state for political affairs.\nIn the February 27 Chamber of Commerce vent,\u00a0Burns heaped praise on Nuland, commenting on \u201cwhat a pleasure it is to serve with people like Toria Nuland, who is one of my closest friends and closest partners in the US foreign service\u201d.\nIn her remarks on the panel,\u00a0Nuland stated, \u201cObviously, we are now at the end of the post-Cold War period. We\u2019re in the post-post-Cold War period\u201d.\n\u201cSo to me, unfortunately, it feels a lot like it did at the beginning of my career, that we have large powers contesting the rules of the road that favor freedom. They are doing it by threatening their neighbors, by coercing countries around the world\u201d, Nuland added.\n\u201cAnd therefore US leadership, which has always been essential, is even more essential\u201d, she said.\nNuland left the event earlier explaining, \u201cI gotta run off and see Canadians and work on another hot problem, which is Haiti\u201d.\nNuland has been part of a group of Western hawks pushing for military intervention in Haiti. Canada has already deployed military planes and ships to the Caribbean nation, as Haitians warn of mission creep leading to a new Western occupation of their country.\nAlso on the February 27 Chamber of Commerce panel was US Ambassador to Israel Thomas Nides.\nHe denounced what he called a dangerous \u201caxis\u201d between Iran, Russia, and China.\nBlasting Tehran for selling drones to Moscow, Nides warned, \u201cIf you think there\u2019s not an axis here between Iran and Russia, and God hopefully not China, it should be a wake-up call to all of us\u201d.\nThe US ambassador boasted that support for Israel remains bipartisan, despite the far-right extremist government in Israel, which includes representatives of a neo-fascist party and was compared to Nazi Germany by mainstream liberal newspaper Haaretz.\n\u201cWe have an unbreakable bond with the state of Israel. Regardless of who the prime minister is, regardless of the situation on the ground, that is not going to change\u201d, he reaffirmed.\nNides fearmongered about Iran, saying he is collaborating closely with Israel, and \u201cwe\u2019re working on this day and night to make sure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon\u201d.\nThe US ambassador expressed staunch support for the anti-government protests in Iran. Nides added, \u201cWe don\u2019t support regime change, I guess publicly anyway\u201d.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US gov\u2019t creates Ministry of Truth run by cold warrior who smears independent media as \u2018Russian disinformation\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "censorship, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Nina Jankowicz, Russia, Ukraine", "output": "The authoritarian Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that oversaw the War on Terror created a \u201cDisinformation Governance Board,\u201d led by anti-Russia information warrior Nina Jankowicz, who ran regime-change ops at a CIA front, smears independent anti-war US media outlets as \u201cRussian disinfo,\u201d and called WikiLeaks \u201cscum.\u201d\n\nThe US government has created what is essentially a Ministry of Truth. It is led by a censorial cold warrior who worked for a CIA cutout overseeing regime-change operations targeting Russia and Belarus, and who smears independent anti-war American media outlets as supposed \u201cRussian disinformation.\u201d\nThis new US information czar has also denounced whistleblowing journalistic publication WikiLeaks as \u201cscum,\u201d claiming without evidence that it is part of a supposed Russian \u201coperation\u201d that spreads so-called \u201cmalinformation.\u201d\nWashington\u2019s de facto Ministry of Truth will be overseen by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which is infamous for violating civil liberties in the name of the so-called War on Terror.\nThe American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has warned of DHS\u2019 authoritarian tendencies and called for it to be dismantled. Noting the department\u2019s use of \u201chorrific tactics\u201d against protesters, the ACLU wrote that the \u201cshort history of DHS has been filled with violence, the stoking of fear, and a lack of oversight.\u201d\nIn 2018, DHS published a press release that echoed the white-supremacist \u201c14 words\u201d slogan used by neo-Nazis.\nInstead of reining in this scandalous department, the US government is giving DHS even more power over Americans\u2019 freedom of speech.\nOn April 27, 2022, DHS announced the creation of a \u201cDisinformation Governance Board,\u201d which it said would be dedicated to combatting so-called \u201cRussian disinformation.\u201d\nCIA Director William Burns had admitted back in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in March that the United States is waging an \u201cinformation war\u201d on Russia, and boasted that its President Vladimir \u201cPutin is losing.\u201d\nDHS\u2019 new Disinformation Governance Board is part of this US government information war, which is in turn a key front in Washington\u2019s new cold war on both Russia and China.\nIn the guise of fighting supposed \u201cRussian disinformation,\u201d this notoriously authoritarian US institution is threatening to impose more censorship on critics of Washington\u2019s foreign policy. And it has recruited a hard-line information warrior to lead these efforts.\n\nTo run this Disinformation Governance Board, the Joe Biden administration selected a fanatical cold warrior named Nina Jankowicz.\nJankowicz claims to be an expert on so-called \u201cdisinformation\u201d; in reality she is an anti-Russia information warrior who has extensive experience working for the US and Ukrainian governments, including a shady CIA cutout.\nThis newly appointed executive director of DHS\u2019 Disinformation Governance Board has smeared independent American media outlets that expose crimes committed by the US government abroad as vehicles for purported \u201cRussian disinformation,\u201d and has clearly suggested that she supports censoring them.\nJankowicz established herself professionally in Washington by working for several years for the National Democratic Institute (NDI).\nThis NDI is a branch of the US government\u2019s National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA front created by the Ronald Reagan administration at the end of the first cold war to fund regime-change operations from the Eastern Bloc to Nicaragua.\nNED co-founder Allen Weinstein admitted in the Washington Post in 1991, \u201cA lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.\u201d\nThe NDI is an arm of the NED that is affiliated with the Democratic Party. (The Republican Party has its own branch of the NED, called the International Republican Institute, or IRI.)\nAt the NDI, Jankowicz oversaw so-called \u201cdemocracy assistance programs\u201d in Russia in Belarus. In other words, she helped run regime-change operations aimed at overthrowing these independent Eastern European governments.\nUS intelligence cutouts like the NDI frequently use \u201cdemocracy assistance\u201d as a euphemism to mean regime change.\nAccording to her NDI bio, Jankowicz joined the CIA cutout in 2013, and worked for two years on destabilization operations targeting Russia and Belarus.\nThen in 2015, she moved to the NDI\u2019s \u201cGovernment Relations and Communications team,\u201d where Jankowicz said she bridged \u201cher passion for democracy assistance and social media.\u201d\n\nIn a 2016 article in\u00a0Democracy Works, the NDI\u2019s official publication, Jankowicz described herself as \u201csomeone who has made a career in democracy assistance.\u201d\n\u201cI have worked in support of democratic progress around the world since 2011 and joined NDI in fall 2013,\u201d she boasted.\nJankowicz added that she was \u201cproud to be a participant in democratic progress in the United States and and proud to work for NDI \u2014 an organization that supports democratic progress the world over.\u201d\nWhen Donald Trump won the 2016 US presidential election, the Democratic Party hatched a conspiracy theory that blamed Russia for Hillary Clinton\u2019s loss. Many Democratic operatives in Washington subsequently transitioned their careers to cash in on the \u201ccounter-disinformation\u201d racket.\nJankowicz moved away from \u201cdemocracy assistance\u201d and rebranded herself as an expert on so-called \u201cRussian disinformation.\u201d\nShe moved to Ukraine and began working for its new right-wing, viciously anti-Russian government, which had been installed after a violent US-sponsored 2014 coup.\nJankowicz boasts on her website that, from 2016 to 2017, \u201cshe advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry on disinformation and strategic communications.\u201d\nJankowicz\u2019s work for Ukraine\u2019s post-coup regime was sponsored by a US Fulbright-Clinton Public Policy Fellowship.\nAfter her year in Ukraine, Jankowicz was given a cushy position as a \u201cdisinformation fellow\u201d at the Wilson Center, a hawkish US government-funded think tank that advocates for an aggressive foreign policy.\nThere,\u00a0Jankowicz worked on churning out anti-Russia information warfare for the Kennan Institute, named after infamous cold warrior George F. Kennan, a US diplomat who helped to create \u201ccontainment\u201d policy toward the Soviet Union.\nMeanwhile, Jankowicz spread some disinformation of her own, citing US spies to repeatedly claim that the leak of files from Hunter Biden\u2019s laptop was part of a \u201cRussian influence op.\u201d (The authenticity of these files was later confirmed by both the New York Times and Washington Post.)\nJankowicz also set her targets on independent anti-war media outlets, smearing them as so-called \u201cRussian disinformation.\u201d\nOn Twitter in November 2017, Jankowicz attacked the whistleblowing journalistic publication WikiLeaks, calling it \u201cscum.\u201d\n\nIn May 2018, she accused WikiLeaks of spreading \u201cmalinformation,\u201d although the outlet has been shown to have 100% accuracy in all of its publications.\nJankowicz claimed, without any evidence, that \u201cWikileaks is a cog in a much larger [Russian] operation.\u201d She also implied that WikiLeaks\u2019 founder and former editor Julian Assange, a UN-recognized political prisoner persecuted by the US government, is part of a \u201cRussian influence op.\u201d\n\nThe current US information czar similarly went after independent journalists in the United States.\nOn Twitter in 2020, Jankowicz boasted that she had blocked journalist Aaron Mat\u00e9, a critic of US foreign policy who exposed many of the lies behind the Russiagate conspiracy theory.\nJankowicz called the independent US news website The Grayzone \u201ca source of disinfo,\u201d claiming that it was supposedly \u201cimplicated in a Russian disinfo op.\u201d\nThe current US government official, who made her career overseeing US regime-change operations in Eastern Europe, claimed The Grayzone \u201cspreads incredibly damaging disinformation\u201d and \u201ccalls popular protests \u2018color revolutions\u2019 and papers over Stalinist crimes against humanity.\u201d\n\nIn addition to blocking Mat\u00e9 on Twitter, Jankowicz blocked the author of this present report, Multipolarista editor Benjamin Norton, even though he had never engaged with her.\nJankowicz\u2019s eagerness to block independent American journalists who are critical of US foreign policy clearly shows that this cold warrior is not very concerned about the freedom of speech or freedom of the press.\nAs a so-called \u201cdisinformation expert\u201d at the US government-funded Wilson Center,\u00a0Jankowicz also went after independent journalists who exposed the US government\u2019s role in waging a decade-long dirty war on Syria, in which the CIA armed and trained Islamist extremists linked to al-Qaeda and ISIS.\nWhen American journalist Ben Swann correctly said in May 2018 that the US government was funding the Syrian opposition group the White Helmets, Jankowicz declared that he was a \u201cconspiracy theorist\u201d who should be censored.\nIt is an objective, undeniable matter of public record that the US government gave tens of millions of dollars to the White Helmets. In fact mere weeks after Jankowicz\u2019s tweet, in June 2018, the Donald Trump administration gave the Syrian opposition group an additional $6.6 million.\n\nSimilarly, Jankowicz has repeatedly rejected the undeniable historical fact that the US government backed a violent coup in Ukraine in 2014, calling it \u201cRussian disinformation.\u201d\nWhile Jankowicz markets herself as a \u201cdisinformation expert,\u201d in reality she is a devoted soldier in the US government\u2019s information war on Russia.\nIn 2020, Jankowicz made her status as an information warrior clear as day, publishing a book titled \u201cHow to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News, and the Future of Conflict.\u201d\n\nWhile Jankowicz frequently smears Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, and other targets of US foreign policy as \u201cauthoritarian\u201d (and even accuses Cuba and Venezuela of supposedly meddling in US elections), she had no problem working for an authoritarian right-wing regime in Ukraine.\nJankowicz advised Ukraine\u2019s government when it was led by billionaire oligarch Petro Poroshenko, who only came to power thanks to the violent overthrow of former elected president Viktor Yanukovych in a coup in which neo-Nazis and far-right extremists played a key role.\nWhile Jankowicz worked for Poroshenko\u2019s government, he was advised by a fascist extremist who wrote \u201cHeil Hitler\u201d on Facebook and was photographed posing with extremist soldiers wearing Nazi symbols.\nPoroshenko\u2019s regime imposed a series of far-right, anti-democratic policies, banning all communist parties and making it a crime punishable by years in prison to use socialist symbols or sing the leftist anthem The Internationale.\nThe Poroshenko regime made it mandatory for Ukrainians to honor Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera, turning fascists who participated in massacres of Jews, Poles, and Romanis during World War II into official, state-appointed national heroes, while simultaneously banning books that exposed their crimes.\nJankowicz is likewise eerily quiet about atrocities committed by the United States. Although she is very active on Twitter and constantly condemns US anti-war journalists for supposedly being soft on Russia, Jankowicz has never mentioned the seven-year war on Yemen.\nJankowicz is sure to never diverge from the bipartisan neoconservative foreign policy consensus in Washington.\nShe strongly supported Hillary Clinton and her ultra-hawkish foreign policy, tweeting in 2016, \u201cSo proud to support HRC as she calls out boundless Russian aggression in Syria.\u201d Jankowicz added the hashtag #ImWithHer.\nJankowicz has similarly fawned over former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, repeatedly referring to her as her \u201crole model.\u201d In an interview on CBS\u2019 program 60 Minutes in 1996, Jankowicz\u2019s role model justified the deaths of half a million Iraqi children due to suffocating sanctions, claiming it was \u201cworth it\u201d to advance US foreign policy interests.\nDuring the Donald Trump administration, many Democratic politicians condemned the Department of Homeland Security, highlighting in particular the horrific abuse of migrants and refugees carried out by Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), which is overseen by the department.\nThe fact that proud Democrats like Jankowicz and the Biden administration would embrace this notoriously authoritarian department in order to escalate the new cold war on Russia and China reflects how DHS is trying to rebrand.\nThe Department of Homeland Security was created by the George W. Bush administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and was a fundamental part of the architecture of mass surveillance and the so-called War on Terror.\nGiven DHS\u2019 close associations with these repressive right-wing policies, some Democrats even claimed they wanted to abolish the department.\nDemocratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), for instance, proposed dismantling DHS in 2019, stating, \u201cDon\u2019t let people rewrite history as if DHS/ICE always existed, or is a no-brainer. It\u2019s a young agency, ill-conceived after 9/11 & sacrificed our civil liberties \u2013 like the Patriot Act.\u201d\nBut many Democrats who superficially opposed DHS during the Trump era have since done a political 180. The Biden administration has helped the department try to rebrand as a supposedly \u201canti-extremist\u201d institution, claiming it is combatting far-right groups in the United States.\nDHS in fact deceptively announced the creation of its \u201cDisinformation Governance Board\u201d by claiming it would be focused on opposing racist fake news spread by right-wing demagogues about immigrants. This was transparently an attempt to deceive liberal critics into believing the institution could serve progressive ends.\nThis is political cover for DHS\u2019 main activities, which in addition to terrorizing immigrants and refugees also are focused on surveilling left-wing protesters who oppose US government policies, especially its hawkish foreign policy.\nThe ACLU has emphasized that \u201cDHS has\u00a0surveilled Black Lives Matter\u00a0activist circles; descended into mosques and community centers to\u00a0infiltrate Muslim communities; shot and\u00a0killed foreign nationals\u00a0across the border; and monitored protests using\u00a0fusion center intelligence sharing hubs.\u201d\nBut the Biden administration, just like the Trump administration, has joined in the bipartisan campaign to strengthen this authoritarian institution, by giving it power to police Americans\u2019 access to information.\nThis is a flagrant US government attack on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It demonstrates how, as Washington escalates its new cold war on Russia and China, civil liberties are increasingly under threat.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Invoking Monroe Doctrine, US congressman calls Argentina a \u2018threat\u2019 over China alliance. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Alberto Fern\u00e1ndez, Argentina, Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz, Republican Party, Russia, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping", "output": "Trump-allied Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz called Argentina a \u201cthreat\u201d to US \u201csecurity,\u201d complaining that its alliance with China challenges the 200-year-old colonialist Monroe Doctrine.\n\n(Se puede leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nAn influential right-wing US lawmaker invoked the 200-year-old colonialist Monroe Doctrine on the floor of Congress and called Argentina a \u201cthreat\u201d because of its alliance with China.\nRepublican Congressman Matt Gaetz, a key ally of former president Donald Trump, said in a speech in the House of Representatives on February 7 that there is a \u201csignificant threat to our nation accelerating rapidly close to home.\u201d\n\u201cArgentina, a critical nation and economy in the Americas, has just lashed itself to the Chinese Communist Party, by signing on to the One Belt One Road Initiative,\u201d Gaetz fumed.\nRepublican Congressman Matt Gaetz, a key ally of Donald Trump, invoked the 200-year-old colonialist Monroe Doctrine on the floor of the Congress and called Argentina a \"threat\" to US \"security\" because of its alliance with China.\nRead more here: https://t.co/aCiWQ7fGOc pic.twitter.com/xyVYkxfFT9\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 8, 2022\n\nThe Florida lawmaker was reacting to the news that Argentina\u2019s President Alberto Fern\u00e1ndez visited Moscow and Beijing for meetings with Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping on February 3 and 6, respectively.\nExplaining his trips, Fern\u00e1ndez said,\u00a0\u201cI am consistently working to\u00a0rid Argentina of this dependence on the IMF and the US. I want Argentina to open up new opportunities.\u201d\nArgentina signed on to join Beijing\u2019s international infrastructure campaign, the Belt and Road Initiative, and China offered the South American nation $23.7 billion in investments and infrastructure projects. Moscow similarly pledged to strengthen political and economic ties with what it called \u201cone of Russia\u2019s key partners in Latin America.\u201d\nArgentina is trapped in $44 billion of odious debt from the US-controlled IMF.\nSeeking alternatives to US hegemony, Argentina's President Alberto Fern\u00e1ndez traveled to Russia and China, forming an alliance with the Eurasian powers, joining the Belt & Roadhttps://t.co/rTbO1ZGsPE\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 6, 2022\n\nRepresentative Matt Gaetz angrily described Argentina\u2019s growing links with China as \u201ca direct challenge to the Monroe Doctrine.\u201d\nThe Monroe Doctrine, which dates back to 1823, was a message to European colonialists that the United States considers Latin America to be its own colonial territory.\nTwo centuries ago, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams created the doctrine, and President James Monroe made it government policy, insisting that the US would not intervene in the European colonial powers\u2019 spheres of influence as long as they recognized Central and South America to be Washington\u2019s imperial sphere of influence.\nThis attitude that Latin America is US colonial property is still very much alive today, and thoroughly bipartisan in Washington.\nMultiple senior officials in the Donald Trump administration invoked the Monroe Doctrine to justify their coup attempt in Venezuela, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton.\nThis January, President Joe Biden echoed colonial Monroe Doctrine rhetoric by referring to Latin America as Washington\u2019s \u201cfront yard.\u201d\nWhile Matt Gaetz, like his political mentor Donald Trump, sometimes opportunistically criticizes other right-wing factions such as \u201cneocons,\u201d he pushes a similarly hawkish imperialist foreign policy.\nOne constant in virtually all of Gaetz\u2019s speeches is his obsessive demonization of China. He strongly advocates for a new cold war to contain the Asian superpower.\nWhile many neoconservatives and liberal-interventionists push for an aggressive policy against Russia, Gaetz\u2019s message is essentially that China is the real threat to the United States, not the Kremlin, and that Washington should seek war with Beijing instead of war with Moscow.\nIn his House speech declaring Argentina a \u201cthreat,\u201d Gaetz reiterated this talking point, claiming, \u201cChina is a rising power. Russia is a declining power. Let us sharpen our focus so that we do not join them in that eventual fate.\u201d\nGaetz, who represents Florida\u2019s northwestern Panhandle, joined the Trump administration in strongly supporting a right-wing coup attempt in Venezuela.\nThe Republican lawmaker frequently calls for the overthrow of Cuba\u2019s government as well, while spreading fake news claiming that \u201cVenezuelan thugs, flavored w[ith] Russians, are now \u2018kill squads\u2019 going through homes. They are slaughtering adults and abducting children.\u201d\nGaetz is closely linked to far-right extremists. In 2018, he invited a notorious white-nationalist blogger who has promoted Holocaust revisionism to Trump\u2019s State of the Union address.\nIn addition to his extreme political views, Gaetz has been investigated by US authorities for the alleged sex trafficking of a 17-year-old girl.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Poverty is growing in Puerto Rico, under US colonialism: 57.6% of children live in poor households. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "colonialism, poverty, Puerto Rico", "output": "Poverty is rising in one of the world\u2019s oldest colonies: In Puerto Rico, 41.7% of people, including 57.6% of children, live in poverty. This is nearly four times the US rate. And Puerto Rican workers are getting poorer even while unemployment falls.\n\nPoverty in Puerto Rico, under US colonialism, is getting worse over time, not better.\nMore than two-fifths of Puerto Ricans suffer from poverty, and nearly three-fifths of Puerto Rican children live in poor households.\nIn 2022, the poverty rate in the colonized US \u201cterritory\u201d grew from 40.5% to 41.7%, according to US Census Bureau data.\nA staggering 57.6% of Puerto Rican children live in poverty. And 38.8% of families are below the poverty line.\nPoverty has been growing in Puerto Rico even at a time when more people are working. The unemployment rate fell from 13.1% to 9.9% in 2022, while poverty got worse.\nThese statistics from the US Census Bureau may be very conservative. Anti-poverty activists in Puerto Rico have criticized the official figures and argued they downplay the hardship in the colonized nation.\nAs Yale University\u2019s Genocide Studies Program notes, \u201cPuerto Rico is one of the world\u2019s oldest colonies, having been under some form of military occupation or protectorate status since 1508\u2033.\nThe United States seized the nation from its former colonizer Spain in an 1898 war.\nWashington claims that being a US \u201cterritory\u201d makes Puerto Ricans wealthier, but after more than a century of colonization, their poverty rate is nearly four times the US average, while their incomes are roughly one-third those of the United States.\nPuerto Rico\u2019s poverty rate of 41.7% stands in stark contrast to the US national average of 11.5%, according to the Census Bureau.\nIn Puerto Rico, per capita income is just $14,047, while median household income is $21,967.\nAcross the United States, per capita income is $37,638, and median household income is $69,021.\nIn wealthy US states such as Maryland, Massachussets, or New Jersey, median household income is around $90,000 \u2013 more than four times that of Puerto Rico.\nEven the poorest US states, like Mississippi, West Virginia, and Louisiana, still have a median household income of roughly $50,000 \u2013 more than double that of Puerto Rico.\nThe already dire economic situation for Puerto Rican families has only gotten worse in the past two years, as a rise in consumer price inflation has further eroded their purchasing power.\nMeanwhile, the US federal government has fueled mass displacement and outward migration, by turning Puerto Rico into a tax haven.\nRight-wing libertarians and corporate oligarchs have happily proclaimed, \u201cMove to Puerto Rico!\u201c, not because they care about the nation, its people, its culture, and its history, but simply because US citizens who relocate there do not have to pay federal income tax or capital gains tax.\nThis policy has unleashed colonial gentrification, incentivizing rich North Americans to displace local Puerto Rican residents.\nIt has also fueled rampant real estate speculation. Skyrocketing housing prices have only exacerbated the cost of living crisis, forcing many indigenous Boricuas out of the homes their families have lived in for generations.\nJournalist Bianca Graulau has documented this colonial gentrification:\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US Congress plots to save dollar dominance amid global de-dollarization rebellion. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Blaine Luetkemeyer, Congress, Daniel McDowell, dollar, Marshall Billingslea, Michael Faulkender, Tyler Goodspeed, Young Kim", "output": "The US Congress held a hearing titled \u201cDollar Dominance: Preserving the U.S. Dollar\u2019s Status as the Global Reserve Currency\u201d, as countries around the world join the de-dollarization rebellion against Washington\u2019s \u201cexorbitant privilege\u201d.\n\nThe US Congress held a hearing to discuss the growing international movement toward de-dollarization.\nNumerous lawmakers expressed concern over what they referred to as mounting \u201cthreats\u201d to the \u201csupremacy\u201d of the dollar, warning that China and Russia are challenging the US-dominated international financial system.\nEconomists invited to testify in the session cautioned that Washington\u2019s aggressive imposition of unilateral sanctions has backfired, weakening dollar dominance by encouraging targeted countries to develop new, alternative financial institutions.\n\nTitled \u201cDollar Dominance: Preserving the U.S. Dollar\u2019s Status as the Global Reserve Currency\u201d, the June 7 hearing was organized by the House of Representatives Financial Services Committee\u2019s Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions.\nThe tone of the two-hour event was deeply schizophrenic. Speakers would triumphantly argue that the dollar remained unbeatable, that its hegemony was inevitable and natural, before a few minutes later complaining that foreign adversaries are conspiring to undermine it.\nA neoconservative political economist who spoke, Daniel McDowell, boasted of how the dollar is \u201cthe king of all currencies\u201d and \u201ca powerful symbol of American financial royalty\u201d.\nMichael Faulkender, who served as Donald Trump\u2019s assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, declared in the session, \u201cAs assistant secretary, I told my team that the Treasury secretary proudly states that the dollar will never not be the world\u2019s reserve currency, and our job is to make sure that\u2019s true\u201d.\nRepresentative Monica de la Cruz, a Republican from Texas, said dismissively, \u201cNow this hearing comes at a critical time when some academics and naysayers are spreading theories that de-dollarization has begun, and that the beginning of the end has arrived for the dollar\u2019s dominant role as a global reserve currency\u201d.\nThe session was chaired by Republican Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer, a hard-line anti-China hawk from Missouri.\n\u201cThe conversation around the dollar being the reserve currency is becoming louder and louder, as we have more and more I think threats to it\u201d, he cautioned.\nLuetkemeyer boasted of the many \u201ceconomic advantages\u201d that dollar hegemony gives to the United States:\nThe US dollar has been the preferred global currency since the end of World War Two, providing our nation inherent economic advantages, as well as responsibilities.\nToday, an estimated 88% of all currency transactions by value are conducted in US dollars. Among other things, this limits the risk of a balance of payments crisis, which inherently lowers our exchange rate risk.\nThe dollar\u2019s position also allows the United States and Americans to borrow at rates such as 50 to 60 basis points lower.\nOur currency strength not only benefits the United States government, but also helps American consumers by lowering the price of imported goods, resulting in an estimated $25 to $45 billion a year in savings.\nThe bipartisan hearing was mostly dominated by Republicans, but it also featured some Democrats.\nThe ranking member of the subcommittee, Ohio Democratic Representative Joyce Beatty, began the session saying, \u201cThank you to our witnesses for appearing here today to discuss the preservation of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency, a topic which we all agree is of the utmost importance\u201d.\nBeatty\u2019s rhetoric was less aggressive than that of Luetkemeyer, but she essentially echoed the same talking points, stating:\nThe dominance and supremacy of the currency affords the United States numerous benefits, from reduced borrowing costs, to increased financial stability, to influence over global financial markets.\nIt also allows us to leverage economic measures against those that seek to threaten our national security and foreign policy.\nGiven the undeniable value of the U.S. dollar\u2019s dominance, it is critical that we address the currency and the present threats to it.\nAs we speak, foreign adversaries like Russia and China are actively working to undermine the U.S. dollar and cripple our global power and influence. We see this in Russia\u2019s rapid accumulation of gold reserves over the last decade, as well as China\u2019s development of non-SWIFT systems to settle and clear transactions involving the RMB.\nFurthermore, several other countries are pushing efforts to bypass use of the U.S. dollar and the U.S.-led financial system.\nThat is why I agree that the subject of this hearing unquestionably deserves our time and attention in Congress and in this subcommittee.\nThe hearing also featured testimony from Tyler Goodspeed, a right-wing economist who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers when Trump was president.\nGoodspeed boasted:\nThe fact that 90% of all foreign exchange transactions continue to involve the United States dollar, and that global central banks continue to hold almost 60% of their foreign exchange reserves in U.S. dollars, confers net economic benefits on the United States economy.\nFirst, foreign demand for reserves of U.S. dollars raises demand for dollar-denominated securities, in particular United States treasuries. This effectively lowers the cost of borrowing for U.S. households; U.S. companies; and federal, state, and local governments.\nIt also means that, on average, the United States earns more on its investments in foreign assets than we have to pay on foreign investments in the United States, which allows the United States to import more goods and services than we export.\nSecond, foreign demand for large reserves of U.S. dollars and dollar-denominated assets raises the value of the dollar, and a stronger dollar benefits U.S. consumers and businesses that are net importers of goods and services from abroad.\nThird, large reserve holdings of U.S. currency abroad, in effect, constitutes an interest free loan to the United States worth about $10 to $20 billion per year.\nFourth, the denomination of the majority of international transactions in U.S. dollars likely modestly lowers the exchange rate risks faced by U.S. companies.\nFifth, given the volume of foreign U.S. dollar holdings and dollar-denominated debt, monetary policy actions by foreign central banks generally have a smaller impact on financial conditions in the United States than actions by the United States central bank have on financial conditions in other countries.\nMarshall Billingslea, the Treasury\u2019s assistant secretary for terrorist financing under Trump, who also previously worked in the Pentagon, expressed concern that the central banks of China and Russia have been de-dollarizing their foreign-exchange reserves and instead buying other assets, such as gold, which cannot be easily sanctioned:\nIf we look at what Russia did in the run-up to its further invasion of Ukraine, they began dumping ownership of Treasury bonds in 2018. In that year, they plummeted from $96 billion in holdings down to $15 billion.\nAnd they also started buying large amounts of gold.\nChina is now \u2026 embarking on its own gold-buying spree. I haven\u2019t seen the data for May, but April marked the sixth straight month of Chinese expansion in its gold holdings.\nAnd I\u2019m not sure I believe the official figures. We have to recall that China is the dominant gold-mining player around the world, and half of those gold-mining companies are state-owned.\nSo the actual size of China\u2019s war chest, when it comes to gold reserves, may be far higher, in fact I suspect inevitably far higher than official numbers suggest.\nLast year, China also started dumping its treasuries. 2022 marked the largest or second-largest decrease on record, with a drop of about $174 billion, and China stood at the lowest level since 2010 in terms of its holdings.\nIn the hearing, Billingslea also warned that, as China stockpiles gold in its foreign-exchange reserves, it could start issuing yuan-denominated contracts that are backed by gold:\nThe thing I do worry \u2013 I come back to this fact that they\u2019ve been buying a lot of gold \u2013 is that one of the things that they could do, which would be very concerning, if they wind up having larger reserves of gold than we we believe, is they could start issuing yuan-, or gold-denominated, gold-backed yuan contracts.\nThat would further their ambition for introducing the yuan onto the world stage.\nAlso present in the hearing was\u00a0Daniel McDowell, an associate professor in the political science department at Syracuse University in New York, and author of the book \u201cBucking the Buck: US Financial Sanctions and the International Backlash Against the Dollar\u201d.\nMcDowell argued that, by imposing more and more sanctions on countries around the world, Washington is actually weakening the dominance of the dollar.\nThe US has sanctions on nations that represent more than one-third of the global population and 29% of the world\u2019s GDP.\nMcDowell explained:\nDollar preeminence and U.S. financial centrality are not without consequence for American coercive power, as you all know.\nWith little more than the stroke of the president\u2019s pen, or through an act of Congress, the U.S. government can use financial sanctions to impose enormous economic costs on targeted foreign actors, be they individuals, firms, or state institutions, by freezing their dollar assets or cutting them off from access to the banks through which those dollars flow.\nAs the United States has increased its reliance on financial sanctions as a tool of foreign policy, it has provoked anti-dollar policy responses from our adversaries.\nThough such steps are unlikely to upend the dollar\u2019s position as top international currency, including the reserve currency role, over time such policies could diminish the coercive capabilities that the United States derives from dollar centrality.\nOver the last two decades, the United States has used the tool of financial sanctions with increasing frequency.\nFor example, in the year 2000 just four foreign governments were directly targeted under the U.S. Treasury country program, overseen by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC. Today, that number is greater than 20; and if we include penalties from secondary sanctions, the list gets even longer.\nThe more that the United States has reached for financial sanctions, the more it has made adversaries in foreign capitals aware of the strategic vulnerability that stems from dependence on the dollar.\nSome governments have responded by implementing anti-dollar policies, measures that are designed to reduce an economy\u2019s reliance on the U.S. currency for investment and cross-border transactions.\nWhile these measures sometimes fail to achieve their goals, others have produced modest levels of de-dollarization.\nNotable examples here include Russian steps to cut its dollar reserves and reduce the use of the dollar in trade settlement in the years leading up to its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, or China\u2019s ongoing efforts to build its own international payments network based on the yuan \u2013 efforts that have taken on a new sense of urgency as Beijing has become more aware of its own strategic vulnerabilities from dollar dependence.\n\u2026\nThe growing number of states espousing anti-dollar viewpoints and adopting anti-dollar policies does threaten to weaken the future potency of U.S. financial sanctions.\n\u2026\nFinally, whenever possible, U.S. financial sanctions should be coordinated with our allies in Europe and Asia, who should feel as if they are key stakeholders in the dollar system, and not vassals to it.\nAnother Republican congresswoman who participated in the hearing, Young Kim from California, complained that China has developed other ways to provide financing to countries that don\u2019t involve the US dollar.\nKim singled out the currency swap-line agreements that the People\u2019s Bank of China has signed with the central banks of other countries, such as Argentina, which is a way for Beijing to give liquidity or credit in yuan, bypassing Washington-dominated financial institutions like the SWIFT inter-bank messaging system:\nWe should all be troubled by the increase of central bank swap-line agreements deployed by the People\u2019s Bank of China [PBOC].\nAccording to a 2021 PBOC report, it said that it has swap facilities with 40 countries, with a combined capacity of almost 4 trillion yuan, or about $570 billion dollars.\nAnd just a few days ago, Argentina, a country facing a deep currency devaluation and 109% annual inflation, they announced a deal to renew its currency swap line with China and double the amount it can access to nearly $10 billion dollars.\nSo the PBOC justifies the swap lines as a way to force countries to utilize the yuan as a method of exchange.\nSo I want to ask you, Mr. Billingslea, instead of liberalizing its capital account and allowing the yuan to be fully convertible into the currency exchange markets, the CCP has opted to increase its bilateral swap-line agreements to further internationalize its currency.\nSo is there anything that the United States can do to slow down or reduce adaptation of the PBOC\u2019s currency swap lines?\nAll the participants in the hearing treated the hegemony of the US currency as desirable, arguing it must inevitably be maintained. The five expert witnesses who were invited insisted that there is no short-term threat to dollar dominance.\nThe two-hour hearing did not address possible plans for the BRICS bloc to create a new international reserve currency. Instead, the participants only spoke of existing national currencies like the Chinese renminbi, Russian ruble, or euro as potential challengers to the US dollar \u2013 while ultimately dismissing all of them.\nThe idea that BRICS could develop an international currency (similar to John Maynard Keynes\u2019 idea of the Bancor) was not even raised as a possibility.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: \u2018Human rights NGOs\u2019 HRW and Amnesty show cozy ties with US government. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Amnesty International, CIA, Ford Foundation, George Soros, HRW, human rights industry, Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, Luis Kutner, NED, Open Society Foundations, OSF, Peter Benenson, USAID", "output": "Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International claim to be independent, but they have a revolving door with the US government, and serve its foreign-policy interests, with funding from CIA-linked foundations and billionaire oligarchs.\n\nThe human rights industry often portrays itself as independent from the US government, but in reality the nonprofit-industrial complex is closely tied to Washington.\nEven the use of the term \u201cnon-governmental organization\u201d (NGO) is misleading, because many so-called NGOs not only collaborate with Western governments, but are often directly funded by them.\nIraq War architect\u00a0Colin Powell referred to human rights NGOs as \u201cforce multipliers\u201d for the US military, calling them \u201can important part of our combat team.\u201d\nAs secretary of state for the George W. Bush administration, General Powell gathered leaders of top human rights organizations at the State Department in October 2001 and told them that their work would be crucial in the coming War on Terror.\nPowell said he had contacted US ambassadors and \u201cinstructed them to make every effort to work with NGOs.\u201d He told the human rights industry\u2019s heavy-hitters, \u201cit is the very fact of your being independent and not an arm of government that makes you so valuable.\u201d\nColin Powell: \u2018Human rights\u2019 NGOs are \u2018force multipliers\u2019 for US military, part of \u2018combat team\u2019\n\nTwo decades later, the US government continues employing this same strategy.\nThis March 16, Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted that he had just met with the directors of Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International to discuss \u201chuman rights challenges, including in Ukraine, Russia, China, and the Middle East.\u201d\nHRW and Amnesty are the leading players in the Western human rights industry. They both insist on being independent, but are anything but, with extensive links to the United States and other Western governments.\nSpoke today with @HRW\u2019s @KenRoth and @Amnesty\u2019s @AgnesCallamard on human rights challenges, including in Ukraine, Russia, China, and the Middle East. Human rights are central to U.S. foreign policy. We support the important work of human rights defenders. https://t.co/fA9dtkLOWq\n\u2014 Secretary Antony Blinken (@SecBlinken) March 16, 2022\n\nIn his tweet, Blinken linked to a November 2021 report by the State Department titled \u201cU.S. Support for Human Rights Defenders.\u201d The document details how Washington supports so-called \u201ccivil society\u201d organizations to advance its foreign-policy interests.\nIn the report, the State Department writes openly that the \u201cU.S. government provides quick help to human rights defenders around the world with\u202femergency technical and financial assistance.\u201d\nThe document shows how the State Department uses so-called \u201chuman rights defenders,\u201d who are really just pro-US activists, as fifth columns to destabilize countries that Washington has targeted for regime change.\nBut it is not only \u201ccivil society\u201d organizations in the Global South that are instrumentalized by Washington to push its agenda. Mainstream Western groups like HRW and Amnesty are willing accomplices as well.\nKenneth Roth, the longtime executive director of Human Rights Watch, who almost always obediently echoes US foreign-policy orthodoxy, started out his career as a US government attorney. (Roth also retweeted Blinken\u2019s post in approval.)\nHRW itself has its origins in Helsinki Watch, an anti-Soviet lobby group that played a key role in US cold war architecture. It existed simply to demonize the socialist bloc and advance Washington\u2019s political objectives.\nUnder Roth\u2019s leadership, HRW has lobbied Washington for more aggressive sanctions against the leftist governments in Venezuela and Nicaragua \u2013 even in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic.\nThe current secretary general of Amnesty International, Agnes Callamard, previously served for a decade as executive director of ARTICLE 19, an organization that purports to be dedicated to \u201cdefending freedom of expression and information,\u201d but in reality serves as a tool of Western foreign-policy interests.\nARTICLE 19 is funded by a who\u2019s who of Western regime-change front groups and CIA cutouts, including the US State Department, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, Freedom House, British Foreign Office, Canadian government, European Commission, Ford Foundation, and Open Society Foundations.\n\nFor their part, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International say they don\u2019t accept funding from any governments. But they don\u2019t need to take money directly from the US government to serve its interests.\nHRW is notorious for hiring many former US government officials, CIA operatives, and NATO war criminals. The organization has long been criticized for its revolving door with Washington.\nHRW\u2019s top donor is CIA-linked anti-communist billionaire George Soros, who gave the organization a $100 million grant. The oligarch and his Open Society Foundations have collaborated closely with Washington in regime-change operations targeting socialist governments in Eastern Europe.\nThe Washington Post revealed in 1991 that Soros was part of a group of US government-backed anti-communist \u201covert operatives\u201d who \u201chave been doing in public what the CIA used to do in private \u2013 providing money and moral support for pro-democracy groups, training resistance fighters, working to subvert communist rule.\u201d\nAmnesty International and its subsidiaries have also been bankrolled by the CIA-linked Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Open Society Foundations, which historian Frances Stonor Saunders described as \u201cconscious instruments of covert US foreign policy, with directors and officers who were closely connected to, or even members of American intelligence,\u201d comprising \u201can integral component of America\u2019s Cold War machinery.\u201d\nThe Rockefeller Foundation, like Ford, \"was an integral component of America's Cold War machinery.\" Both were and still are closely linked to the CIA and other US government agencies and are used as pass-throughs to fund counter-insurgency, culture war, and psychological warfare. pic.twitter.com/bMTSuBJVSL\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 13, 2020\n\nIn fact, as MintPress\u2019 Alan Macleod has reported, one co-founder of Amnesty International, Peter Benenson, \u201cwas an avowed anti-communist with deep ties to the British Foreign and Colonial Offices, propping up the Apartheid regime of South Africa at the British government\u2019s request.\u201d\nThe other\u00a0co-founder of Amnesty, Luis Kutner, \u201cwas an FBI asset who was involved in the government\u2019s assassination of Black Panther leader Fred Hampton. Kutner went on to form an organization called \u2018Friends of the FBI\u2019, dedicated to countering and combating criticism of the Bureau.\u201d\nMacleod reported this in an article detailing how Human Rights Watch Executive Director Ken Roth supported a far-right US-backed coup in Bolivia in 2019, subsequently whitewashing a massacre of indigenous pro-democracy activists.\nThis example was one of many showing how the human rights industry is more than willing to abandon basic human rights when it\u2019s in Washington\u2019s interests.\nHRW refused to apportion blame to the police death squads who mowed down protesters in November, keeping everyone in the dark about who was to blame, carrying water for the US-backed far-right coup government.\nI wrote about it at the time.https://t.co/VkjkeDh2bp\n\u2014 Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) October 25, 2020\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Economist Michael Hudson on new cold war, super imperialism, China, Russia, de-dollarization. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, de-dollarization, dollar, economics, Great Reset, IMF, Michael Hudson, Russia, World Bank", "output": "Economist Michael Hudson discusses US \u201cSuper Imperialism,\u201d the new cold war on China and Russia, the Joe Biden administration, and dedollarization.\n\nIn this extended interview, renowned economist Michael Hudson discusses his concept of US \u201cSuper Imperialism,\u201d the new cold war on China and Russia, the Joe Biden administration, and dedollarization \u2013 the potential end to the dollar as the global reserve currency.\n\nBenjamin Norton\u00a00:03\nHello, everyone, I\u2019m Ben Norton. You\u2019re watching Moderate Rebels. And there will be a podcast version of this after, for people who want to listen. We are joined today by the economist Michael Hudson, one of the most important economists in the world, honestly, in my view.\nAnd I don\u2019t think he needs introduction. He has written many books, and has been an economic adviser for multiple governments, and has a long history on Wall Street and academia. And you can find his work at\u00a0Michael-Hudson.com.\nToday, we\u2019re going to talk about an issue that Michael Hudson has been writing about for decades, and something that you\u2019re never really going to hear from other economists, especially mainstream neoliberal economists, and that\u2019s what he calls super imperialism.\nThe US government has of course its military apparatus, which we talk about a lot here at Moderate Rebels and The Grayzone, with the war in Iraq, the war in Syria, the war in Libya, but then there\u2019s also the economic form that imperialism takes. And Michael Hudson wrote the book Super Imperialism that details exactly how this system works.\nSo today, Michael Hudson, I want to start just talking about what super imperialism looks like today, in the new cold war. This is something that we talk a lot about.\nWe saw that Joe Biden gave his first kind of major speech to Congress \u2013 we\u2019re not supposed to call it a state of the union because it\u2019s still his first year \u2013 but Biden gave a joint speech to Congress in which he declared that the United States is in competition with China to own, \u201cto win the 21st century,\u201d as he put it.\nAnd we\u2019ve seen that the US government, under Biden, and of course before under Trump, has imposed several rounds of sanctions on Russia and on China.\nSo Professor Hudson, let\u2019s just start today talking about what you think the posture has been of the Biden administration, vis a vis Trump. We saw that the Mike Pompeo State Department essentially declared a kind of new cold war on China. Pompeo gave a speech at the Richard Nixon library in which he said that the famous Nixon visit to China was a mistake, and that we have to contain China and eventually overthrow the Communist Party of China.\nAnd some Democrats hoped that the Biden administration would kind of take a step back. But we\u2019ve seen that the Antony Blinken State Department has continued many of these aggressive policies, accusing China of genocide.\nAnd we\u2019ve seen that the Treasury Department just imposed several new rounds of sanctions on Russia. So what is your view on on the new cold war that\u2019s going on right now?\nMichael Hudson\u00a02:57\nWell, I had originally wanted to call my book Monetary Imperialism. The publisher wanted to call it Super Imperialism, in 1972, because it was really the US moving towards a unipolar order, where it was not competing with other imperialisms; it wanted to absorb European colonialism, absorb European imperialism, and really be the single unipolar power.\nAnd of course that is what really has come about. The United States is trying to become the only dominant power in the world. And in today\u2019s Financial Times [on May 5], one of the reporters said, it\u2019s as if the United States wants to be the world\u2019s absentee landlord, and rent collector. So we\u2019re dealing with a monetary and a rentier phenomenon.\nAnd when Biden gave his speech last week, there was a very marked change, right in the middle of it. The very beginning was very calm, offering means of improvement for the American economy, and a set of proposals that were so wonderful that they don\u2019t have the chance of being enacted. And that was simply to co-opt what calls itself the left wing of the Democratic Party, if that\u2019s not an oxymoron.\nAnd then all of a sudden, his body language changed, his voice changed, and there was just an anger towards Russia and towards China, a visceral anger that brought back the whole 30 years of his tenure in Congress. And he was the leading cold war proponent, the leading proponent of the military, and of course now he wants to increase the military budget.\nSo while on the one hand, he\u2019s continuing the nationalistic trade policies of the Trump administration, he\u2019s escalating the cold war against Russia and China, in the belief that somehow if he can impose sanctions and punish them economically, that will lead to a fall of the government. Well, you can see what he\u2019s projecting here.\nIt\u2019s obvious that the United States economy is going to be in real trouble. Once the Covid crisis stops uniting the country in a feeling that we\u2019re all in this together \u2013 and certainly in New York, where I live, in August, the freeze on real estate evictions, by renters, and foreclosures on mortgagees is going to end, and it\u2019s expected there will be 50,000 New Yorkers thrown into the street. They\u2019ve very kindly decided to postpone this until August, so at least they can sleep in the park, and don\u2019t have to begin sleeping in the subways until maybe October.\nThere\u2019s no way that any Wall Street economist that I know can see if the economy is really going to recover. The stock market is going way up, thanks to a Federal Reserve policy of subsidizing bonds and stocks, with 83% owned by the 1% of the population. But the Federal Reserve is not backing any spending into the actual economy.\nWell that\u2019s where the first part of President Biden\u2019s speech came in. He was talking about building infrastructure and somehow reviving the economy. But it doesn\u2019t look like he\u2019s going to get much support from this from the Republicans, and he wants to be bipartisan.\nIn other words, he says the Democratic Party, as always, won\u2019t do anything that Republicans wouldn\u2019t agree on. Because the Democrats are an arm of the Republican Party. Their role is to protect the Republican Party from left-wing criticism.\nSo you can expect a wishy washy sort of slow decline with a few rapid spikes in decline as the Covid crisis ends. And you\u2019re having almost a preparation for this by \u2013 I think Biden and the government people realize that the economy cannot regain its former industrial position, because it\u2019s a rentier economy now.\nMoney is not made by companies investing in industry and factories and means of production. When companies do make profits, they are largely monopoly rents, or resource rents, or other forms of rent extraction.\nAnd 90% of corporate income in the United States is spent on share buybacks and dividend payouts, not on investing in new production. So nobody\u2019s really expecting new private investment to occur in the United States, that is private capital investment in means of production.\nSo Biden says, well, if the private sector won\u2019t do it, then the government can do it. But his idea of the government doing it is to give government money to private companies that will build industrialization. And he wants to essentially replicate the military-industrial complex into an enormous public-private partnership, to build very, very high-cost infrastructure that will make it almost impossible for Americans to have any trade competitiveness with other countries.\nWell if you\u2019re going to create a high-cost rentier economy, that is post-industrialized like that, what do you do? You say it\u2019s not our fault, foreigners are doing it to us; it\u2019s all China\u2019s fault \u2013 as if China had something to do with American de-industrialization.\nChina\u2019s trying to avoid the rentier policies, avoid the financialization, avoid the privatization that has made America so high cost and so ineffective. And the [US] government is trying to sort of blame it.\nBut I think there is something else behind this fight against China and especially Russia. The Democratic leadership seems to have an almost emotional, passionate antagonism towards Russia that can\u2019t be explained on objective grounds. But it\u2019s obviously there.\nTheir attempt to isolate Russia is as if somehow they can recapture the dream of the Yeltsin 1990s, the dream of somehow replacing Putin with a pliant alcoholic kleptocrat like Yeltsin who will resume the sale of Russia\u2019s national resources and public utilities to Americans. There\u2019s no way that\u2019s going to happen.\nThe actual effect of the sanctions on Russia and China has been to drive them together into a unit, into a critical mass. And ironically, America\u2019s attempt to isolate other countries is turning into an attempt to isolate itself.\nThe question in this is, what about Europe? In the last few days, there has been a lot of discussion about cutting Russia off from the SWIFT bank clearing system, and of other sanctions against Russia.\nRussia has already worked with China to develop their own alternative to the SWIFT banking clearing system. So Russian domestic payments are not going to be that disrupted, after a week or two that they say it\u2019ll take the put the new system in.\nBut what cutting Russia off in the SWIFT system does is block its trade and its community, its economic relations with Western Europe. The United States, I think, realizes that if it can\u2019t get through, if it can exploit Third World countries, or Russia or China, at least it can make Europe permanently dependent, and drawn, and really under US control.\nSo if you look at the sanctions against Russia and China as a way to split Europe and make Europe increasingly dependent on the United States, not only for gas, and energy, but also for vaccines.\nThese are the two issues that have been in the news in the last few weeks. Blinken and other US officials said that Russia offering its Sputnik V vaccine to Europe is divisive, is an attempt to break up the world\u2019s \u201crules-based order.\u201d\nThis is amazing, that Russia\u2019s attempt to \u2013 now that Pfizer and the other American companies are not producing enough vaccine to provide to Africa, South America, and Asian countries, the United States is attacking Russia, and Cuba, and China for offering other vaccines and saying they\u2019re trying, their attempt to save lives through the rest of the world is an attempt to divide and break up the American order.\nBecause only the Americans can have the intellectual property monopoly, something that Blinken mentioned in his speech, and that President Biden mentioned. The intellectual property monopoly means that America gets to tell other countries, our firms have the right to say, \u201cYour money or your life\u201d to Third World countries.\nAnd that will be our means of, \u201cWell, you can\u2019t pay, well, why don\u2019t you sell off some more of your infrastructure? Why don\u2019t you sell off more of your oil or mineral resources to us?\u201d\nSo what we\u2019re seeing is an intensification of economic warfare against almost all the other countries in the world, hoping that somehow this will divide and conquer them, instead of driving them all together.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a013:24\nYeah, hi Professor Hudson, I totally agree with you about the Democrats, at least the political class and their perspective on Russia.\nAnd you have kind of two types that command the Democratic Party. You have these boomers who grew up hiding under their desks during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and were indoctrinated on anti-communism, then they went through the trauma of the \u201960s, and saw McGovern lose, and moved to the center. And so they see Putin as a revival of the KGB and the evil Soviet Union that forced them under their desks in elementary school.\nAnd then you have the 30 and 40 somethings who see Russia as this exporter of white nationalism and the right wing, and they get this constant steady stream of propaganda from BuzzFeed and other sites about that \u2013 completely ignoring Ukraine.\nBut this is just a marketing strategy to me. I mean, there\u2019s something that you\u2019ve spoken about written about in Super Imperialism and in recent talks that I think lurks behind what both the Trump and Biden administrations call \u201cgreat power competition.\u201d\nAnd that is, while this political class sees a national rivalry with Russia and uses it to unite its own constituency, a very fractious constituency, there is what you called the conflict of economic and social systems.\nAnd I fully understand this with respect to China. You see industry journals, even rail journals in the US talking about the fear of the Chinese rail system \u201cnot playing by the rules,\u201d which means the free market, because they\u2019re receiving state subsidies and kicking the ass of the American rail system, expanding infrastructure.\nBut you have also included Russia into this counter-hegemonic system, which some would call state capitalist or socialized system, versus the financialized system \u2013 where that land, basically, that giant landmass, which the state in China, certainly, and you seem to be saying Russia, is socializing, is seen as an existential threat to the very essence of what the US has been constructed as, as an empire, where finance, industry, corporations have merged with the state.\nI think you understand where I\u2019m going here. How can \u2013 maybe you can explain a little bit more about how this is actually, when we see Russiagate or this cold war rhetoric, it\u2019s actually kind of a marketing device for the real conflict of economic and social systems.\nMichael Hudson\u00a016:12\nWell the real existential threat isn\u2019t a trade rivalry; it\u2019s not one of technology at all. The existential threat is to the idea of an economy based on completely a rentier system. In today\u2019s world, the banks play the role that landlords played from the feudal epoch through the 19th century.\nAnd all the classical economics, the whole concept of free markets, from the physiocrats, with their laissez faire to Adam Smith, through John Stuart Mill, the whole of classical economics was to free industrial capitalism from the rentier class, from the landlords, and from banking and the monopolies that banks created in organizing trusts.\nSo the US realizes that the economy has been transformed in the last 40 years, since the 1980s, since Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, when Margaret Thatcher said, \u201cThere is no alternative.\u201d Of course, there were many alternatives.\nBut the United States says, if we can create, if we can turn the \u201crules-based order\u201d of free markets and classical economics upside down, and say our rules-based order means no government power to regulate, no government progressive taxation, but a flat tax \u2013 like we convinced Russia to have, that they still have, by the way \u2013 if we can have a rules-based order that backs the rentier class \u2013 a hereditary, financial, wealthy 1% of the population \u2013 holding the rest of the economy in debt peonage, or reducing them to other forms of dependency in a patron-client relation, then we\u2019ve restored essentially the feudal economy.\nBut in order for us to do that, we have to make sure that there\u2019s no alternative; we have to prevent any alternative. And China is an existential threat, because what it is doing \u2013 its policy, which is very largely ad hoc, and purely pragmatic \u2013 China\u2019s policy is exactly the policy that made the United States the industrial power of the world in the 19th century.\nChina, like the United States, built public utilities to provide public services at low, subsidized costs, so as to enable its private industry not to have to pay for the costs of education, for high rental costs and housing costs, and high monopoly rents.\nChina is doing exactly what the United States did, and what the United States now says, no other country can do what we did; we\u2019ve pulled up the ladder, and our wealthy rentier layer of the population that got rich, now, having gained control of the United States, and its politics, we want to control the whole world.\nAnd if there is another successful economy, whether it is China, or Russia, or Iran, or Venezuela \u2013 if there\u2019s any other economy that retains a strong state power, strong regulatory power, progressive taxation, preventing a landlord class from somehow increasing housing costs, privatizing medical and health insurance, so instead of making it a public right \u2013 well, if we can prevent that from occurring anywhere, then people will really believe there is no alternative but to let our takeover that reverses the entire last two centuries of free market economics, and now the economy has to be free for the 1% to take over government enterprise, to privatize every part of government, including government itself, including the central banks especially, and including the health system, the educational system \u2013 all running either for profit or at a cost that has to be paid by credit creation, and essentially recreate the economy of the 13th century.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a020:31\nYeah, Professor Hudson, the argument that you\u2019re making here, which I have seen very few people make, is \u2013 I mean, I think it\u2019s a correct argument \u2013 but it\u2019s interesting because it contradicts this claim that we\u2019ve seen from even a lot of people on the left, who argue that the new cold war, or in general just the conflict between Washington and Beijing, is not a clash of systems; rather, their argument is that China is yet another capitalist power, and it\u2019s an inter-capitalist rivalry, similar to the rivalry that led to World War One, and that China and the US have very similar economic systems. But you\u2019re arguing, in fact, the exact opposite.\nAnd I just want to read a really brief part of this column that you published at your website, Michael-Hudson.com; it\u2019s called \u201cAmerica\u2019s Neoliberal Financialization Policy vs. China\u2019s Industrial Socialism.\u201d And you have an interesting quote here from a US government advisor for the Reagan administration, Clyde Prestowitz, who wrote, kind of complaining, saying:\nChina\u2019s economy is incompatible with the main premises of the global economic system embodied today in the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and a long list of other free trade agreements. These pacts assume economies that are primarily market based with the role of the state circumscribed and micro-economic decisions largely left to private interests operating under a rule of law. This system never anticipated an economy like China\u2019s in which state-owned enterprises account for one-third of production; the fusion of the civilian economy with the strategic-military economy is a government necessity; five year economic plans guide investment to targeted sectors; an eternally dominant political party names the CEOs of a third or more of major corporations and has established party cells in every significant company; the value of the currency is managed, corporate and personal data are minutely collected by the government to be used for economic and political control; and international trade is subject to being weaponized at any moment for strategic ends.\nNow in your column, you pointed out how this is actually a pretty funny comment coming from a US trade adviser, because some of those same things that the US is accusing China of \u2013 like namely weaponizing international trade, or fusing the civilian economy with the military economy \u2013 of course Washington embodies that really better than any other country in the world.\nBut he is confirming the point that you argued is correct. His complaint was that China still has state-owned enterprises accounting for 1/3 of production, and that the Communist Party of China still guides the economy. And in old-school terms, going back to Lenin, they would say controls the commanding heights of the economy.\nSo do you think that, when people on the left in the US and other countries argue that this is all just a rivalry, an inter-capitalist rivalry between the capitalist class in China and the capitalist class in United States, what do you think of that argument?\nMichael Hudson\u00a023:45\nWell I have spent a great deal of time in China, and I have professorships at a number of universities there. It certainly is fundamentally different from the United States.\nYou may have noticed in the last month, China has moved against Jack Ma, who was developing his information technology system into a credit system. They knocked him down, stopped the issue of new shares, the IPO, and said only the government can keep finance and credit as a public utility.\nNow what Prestowitz calls state-owned enterprises used to be called public utilities in the United States. And in Europe, most public utilities were government owned, like the National Health System.\nIn the United States, it broke away from that government direct ownership and management of many public utilities, but the electric utilities, the gas utilities, almost all public utilities providing natural monopoly services were regulated. Now they have been deregulated. In the last 40 years, you have almost no regulation at all.\nSo China is, by keeping public utilities in the public domain, that means that these are not vehicles for rent extraction, that is for charging monopoly rents such as we pay in New York for cable services, such as Americans pay for the internet, such as Americans pay for public health, such as Americans pay for education.\nChina provides free education. China provides, and Russia basically, free public health. Unfortunately, Russian public health means giving you an aspirin if you have a problem, but at least it is not privatized.\nSo the United States is a rentier economy. And when left-wingers \u2013 or people who call themselves left-wingers, they\u2019re really not left-wingers at all; they\u2019re, I don\u2019t know what, post-left \u2013 very few people who call themselves left-wingers distinguish between industrial capitalism and finance capitalism. Well, that\u2019s the distinguishing feature of the last century.\nEver since World War One, there has been a movement away from industrial capitalism, towards financialization of the economies, towards finance capitalism, based on a merger between the financial sector and the rent extraction sector, mainly the FIRE sector \u2013 finance, insurance, and real estate \u2013 and also the natural monopolies where the banks have taken the lead in organizing trusts and organizing monopolies.\nAnd so the basis of most bank credit in the United States is to provide the ownership of companies or monopoly rights. Now, China doesn\u2019t make loans for these things. The People\u2019s Bank of China is the central bank. And the central bank doesn\u2019t create credit for corporate takeovers; it doesn\u2019t create credit for speculation; it doesn\u2019t provide an economy that enriches itself off economic rents and exploitation.\nBut, obviously, there are many successful billionaires in China, many successful entrepreneurs, but these are largely industrial entrepreneurs who have actually created something.\nChina managed to avoid the Russian Stalinist micromanagement that blocked any kind of market feedback, or any kind of spontaneous innovation. China let 100 flowers bloom; it let innovation take place. It let individuals get rich off innovation, as long as they conducted their business, and production, and wealth in the public interest, defined as uplifting the quality of labor and contributing to the economy\u2019s long-term growth.\nWell finance capitalism, such as we have in the US, doesn\u2019t live in the long run; its timeframe is short term, one quarter at most, three months. And the timeframe is, how can we increase the price of our stock so that we can sell out and jump out of the sinking boat, when the time comes.\nThey are not concerned with making the economy richer; they\u2019re not concerned with making their labor force happier, better paid, or with a better standard of living, or even getting long-term pensions, which have been replaced by defined contribution plans instead of defined benefit plans. It\u2019s basically an exploitative system.\nAnd China\u2019s whole management system, although it\u2019s centrally managed, you need a strong state in order to prevent an independent rentier class, an independent financial class, from emerging and doing to modern economies what it did to the Byzantine Empire, and tried to do in the Bronze Age Near East: take over the government.\nChina does not want a rentier class to do what they have done in the United States and make America into a centrally planned economy. We\u2019re now more of a centrally planned economy than Nazi Germany was. But the centrally planned economy is in Wall Street, in the financial system, not the government.\nSo when Biden and Blinken talk about a free market, they mean a market centrally planned by the financial sector, with the government and elected officials not having any role to play except to decide whether they want to vote for the Democratic or Republican sponsors and backers of the rentier interests.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a030:01\nHow do you think the pandemic, and \u2013 well I guess I could say there is a class in Washington that believes that Covid-19 was deliberately cooked up in a lab in Wuhan, because financial capitalism has performed so poorly in this pandemic and has suffered such a setback, in contrast to China\u2019s economy, which is the only major economy in the world to have grown. And they fostered this conspiracy theory, because they can\u2019t really understand why that is.\nSo maybe you can explain how the pandemic has accelerated the trends that you have been elucidating, and the contrast between financial and industrial capitalism?\nMichael Hudson\u00a030:44\nWell I\u2019m shocked to hear you say that finance capitalism has performed badly. The 1% have made a trillion dollars since the Covid crisis began. The Covid crisis is the best money-making opportunity. This is a bonanza for finance capitalism; it\u2019s wonderful, because they\u2019re pulverizing economy, they\u2019re picking up all the marbles.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a031:06\nI meant for people who are not reptilian shapeshifters.\nMichael Hudson\u00a031:09\nAh, I know. You\u2019ve gotta be careful about what\u2019s working, you know\u2026 They have to somehow prepare the ground for the fact that things are not going to get better.\nNobody knows whether they\u2019re going to go back to offices or not; they probably won\u2019t be able to go anywhere near the levels that they were before this fall, because the schools and the offices don\u2019t have the ventilation systems to stop aerosol transmission. They don\u2019t have fans; most of them don\u2019t have windows.\nSo the result is they\u2019re expecting a crash in commercial property values in the major cities. I know New York landlords who are trying to sell out their buildings here, anticipating that well, things are not going to get back to normal, and they\u2019re not being offered any money at all.\nBecause all the buyers, the money, the new private capital funds that have all been created, with trillions of dollars in the last few months, are waiting for the crash to pick up office buildings, commercial real estate, foreclosed homes, foreclosed rental properties, all at pennies on the dollar \u2013 and to do essentially what Blackstone did after Obama\u2019s 2008 crisis, of the 10,000 families he affected, and created a bonanza for his backers, who elected him, the banking sector.\nSo they\u2019re expecting another Obama-type disaster that will make finance capitalism even more successful in reducing the rest of the economy to a state of dependency.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a032:58\nDo you think that the lockdown policies has benefited this class that has earned trillions and trillions of dollars?\nMichael Hudson\u00a033:08\nWell what is the alternative? I think there had to be a lockdown. We have seen what happened in Asia and countries that did have a lockdown; they didn\u2019t get sick. You had to have a lockdown not to get sick.\nThe problem is not the lockdown. The problem is that other countries are not doing the evictions and the foreclosures that the Americans have.\nThings like this happened way back in the Bronze Age, which is what I\u2019ve written a number of books on, in Babylonia \u2013 and I think we\u2019ve spoken about this before. When there was a drought, or an economic crisis, or a disease, and debts couldn\u2019t be paid, rents weren\u2019t due, debts weren\u2019t due.\nAmerica could have avoided the whole problem that the lockdown had by saying, ok, nobody is able to go to work; it\u2019s obvious they can\u2019t make, most people can\u2019t make enough money to pay the rent and the mortgage payments on their homes, or even get by, so we\u2019re going to say this is a time out of time; we\u2019re not going to enforce the enormous backlog of unpaid rent and unpaid debts that have occurred.\nNow, to some extent, the problem has been mitigated by first Trump and then Biden giving a more stingy CARES Act giveaway to families, that were able to use the $1400 and the $600 that they got, or $1200, basically to pay their landlords, and to pay the credit card companies, and to pay the banks.\nBut once the Covid crisis is over, there\u2019s not going to be any more bailout of people and they\u2019re still going to have all of the arrears that they\u2019ve been running up. And they\u2019re going to be even more debt-strapped after this September than they were before the crisis.\nAnd what the crisis really did was just accelerate the polarizing trend that you have in the United States, between creditors and debtors, between property owners and renters, and between consumers and monopolists. These trends have been exacerbated.\nAnd it doesn\u2019t look like the government is going to find an alternative because they say there isn\u2019t any alternative; iff you don\u2019t like it here, why don\u2019t you go to China? Whereas Americans are not good enough in language to go en masse to China.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a035:43\nYeah, I hope they \u2013\nMichael Hudson\u00a035:45\nIt used to be, they\u2019d say, if you don\u2019t like it, why don\u2019t you go to Russia? Nobody says that anymore. But what are you going to do? Oh, well, OxyContin I guess is the alternative.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a035:56\nWhen I criticized Israel, they\u2019d told me to go to Gaza. I was like, ok, if you\u2019ll let me in, I mean, you control the borders.\nBut on another related note. Last summer, Venezuela applied for an IMF loan. It was a small loan, something like $20 million, to allow it to buy medical supplies, because the pandemic had begun, and they were locking down their population.\nAnd of course the IMF said no. It wasn\u2019t difficult to understand why. And we\u2019ve seen this same rejection applied to Iran.\nHowever, in early 2015, I believe it was February, Joe Biden went to Kiev \u2013 it was his first trip to Kiev as the kind of imperial lord of the post-Maidan [coup] order \u2013 and he boasted that he had secured a gigantic IMF loan of billions of dollars for Ukraine.\nThis is a country that already at that point was notorious for corruption, ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And that loan money went straight to Swiss banks, through the pockets of the few, 10 or 11 sweaty oligarchs that controlled the country.\nSo how do you explain this? You have written that \u201cthe IMF is basically a small room in the Pentagon\u2019s basement.\u201d\nSo how do you explain this disparity in treatment between countries like Ukraine, which are absolutely incapable of paying back these loans, are so notoriously corrupt, and countries like Venezuela and Iran, which are obviously targets of US empire?\nMichael Hudson\u00a037:47\nWell my book Super Imperialism is all about how the IMF was created as an arm of US foreign policy. And it still is an arm.\nAnd there\u2019s a mentality that the IMF has; it\u2019s a pro-creditor mentality, and it\u2019s dominated thoroughly by the United States, in a cold war modality. That\u2019s why Russia and China are seeking to create their own international bank.\nAnd the even more vicious arm of American imperialism, probably the most deadly, is the World Bank, which is enormously destructive, throughout the former Soviet Union, in the Third World, by pushing micro-currency loans that are aimed at essentially making loans to women as heads of families, 70%, 80%, and then breaking up the family, foreclosing on them \u2013 essentially using microcredit loans as a way of evicting masses of families from their property, and turning it over to the client oligarchies in these countries.\nAnd in blocking countries from developing their own food self-sufficiency in grain, making them dependent on US grain exports, that has been a central aim of the World Bank ever since its inception, fighting against land reform.\nSo the World Bank and the IMF have always been probably the most viciously pro-rentier, anti-progressive institutions in the world. And as such, they\u2019re guided by essentially America\u2019s deep state, as an arm of subjugating other countries, preventing their self-sufficiency.\nThe idea is, if you can impoverish them, you will somehow lead to a regime change and put in a client oligarchy that will be willing to make their economy dependent on the United States. That\u2019s a US foreign policy in a nutshell since 1945.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a040:01\nYeah, Professor Hudson related to Venezuela, you were talking about the impact of sanctions, and there\u2019s a de facto blockade of Venezuela \u2013 a Venezuelan economist, named Pasqualina Curcio, recently wrote an\u00a0article in a Venezuelan media outlet\u00a0in which she estimated that $350 billion of Venezuelan assets have been stolen or frozen from the Venezuelan public. And they\u2019re currently held in foreign banks, in the she calls it transnational private sector.\nAnd she points out that this number \u2013 I don\u2019t believe it\u2019s adjusted for inflation \u2013 but this number, $350 billion, is equivalent to 25 times what was invested to rebuild Europe after World War Two.\nSo this reminds me of a term that I think you pioneered or you popularized: grabitization. You talk about how, after the US plundered the former Soviet Union, Russia and the former Soviet republics, forcing neoliberal shock therapy, that it wasn\u2019t just privatization, it was grabitization; it was grab as much as you can, as quickly as you can.\nIt seems to me that that kind of model has been applied to Venezuela, with Juan Guaid\u00f3, the attempt to impose a fake interim government that was never elected. Do you think that that parallel of grabitization is is appropriate for Venezuela?\nMichael Hudson\u00a041:36\nWell you\u2019ve seen it very clearly, when its gold reserves were seized by the Bank of England, which said, America is really the democratic center of the world, and as the democratic center, because we\u2019re the democracy we get to say who is the president of any country in the world; and we have found a nasty little opportunist that you just mentioned, and we have decided he is the head of it, and we\u2019re giving all of Venezuela\u2019s gold supply to him, even though the the Venezuelan people didn\u2019t elect them.\nWell Chileans didn\u2019t elect Pinochet either. As the \u201cdemocratic center of the world,\u201d America gets to designate the heads of any given country, by military force when necessary. And so of course, the gold supply was simply grabbed by England \u2013 which again, is a small branch, totally dependent on the United States \u2013 and grabbed the gold; they grabbed all of Venezuela\u2019s holdings, its oil company\u2019s distribution network and gas stations in the United States.\nAnd the problem goes back \u2013 Venezuela was tied in a knot long before [Hugo] Ch\u00e1vez. And it\u2019s when the United States backed a series of dictators, ever since [Marcos] Perez Jim\u00e9nez in the 1950s, who essentially drew up international loan contracts, not only pledging sovereign debt to whoever the bondholders were, but collateralizing Venezuela\u2019s debt with all of its oil reserves, and all of the holdings of its oil company, including the US affiliates of all this.\nAnd so Venezuela is still suffering from the era of colonialism that America is trying to blame on Ch\u00e1vez and his successors and on socialism, instead of on the American assassination teams and killer squads that put in the dictators that pledged all of Venezuela\u2019s oil reserves to the foreign bondholders.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a043:50\nIt was recently reported that Bill Gates \u2013 besides creating this global Earth surveillance system, and having contracts with the NYPD for mass surveillance, and then asking for privacy in his divorce \u2013 has because become the largest landowner in the United States, the largest landlord, the largest owner of agricultural land.\nHe also presides over the vaccine distribution system or program that the US is employing, GAVI. His apparatchiks, and people who came through the Gates network populate the World Health Organization. He is donating millions and millions of dollars to mainstream US media organizations.\nHe is regarded as sort of, almost a scientific expert. Whereas when Joe Rogan says something that might be seen as sensible about vaccination, Anthony Fauci comes out and condemns him as not a scientific expert. I don\u2019t even believe Bill Gates has a college degree.\nBut I just was wondering, because of the dominant position that Bill Gates enjoys over all of these multilateral, international institutions, as well as internally within US domestic politics, where do you think he fits into your analysis of super imperialism?\nMichael Hudson\u00a045:17\nWell certainly, the private sector is trying to merge with government to the largest extent possible. I think it\u2019s very interesting, what is the real effect of Gates\u2019s purchase of American land? What he\u2019s doing is not developing agriculture; he\u2019s poisoning the land that he\u2019s on.\nHe is promoting the use of pesticides and herbicides that are destroying the soil quality of the land. If he were an agent of the KGB, trying to destroy American agriculture, to make it dependent on Russia\u2019s resurgence in agriculture, you couldn\u2019t ask for a better foreign agent, because the policies he\u2019s footing are so destructive of soil fertility, so destructive of the bee population, so destructive of the biological element of the soil.\nAnd in fact, Gates is making the same mistake with his foundation that Khrushchev made in Russian agriculture, when he began to develop Siberia, thinking that that would restore Russia\u2019s self-sufficiency and grain to get free of America\u2019s threats of the grain embargo.\nThe development of Siberian land under Khrushchev worked very well for three years, and then it collapsed. Because they didn\u2019t use crop rotation; they didn\u2019t use natural fertilizers; they didn\u2019t use any replenishment of the soil.\nAnd the policy that Gates is promoting in agriculture, instead of replenishing the soil is poisoning it. So if you wouldn\u2019t want your worst enemy to be in charge of taking over American agricultural land, you wouldn\u2019t want him to have any role in that whatsoever.\nThe fact is, he\u2019s really stupid. Once you get $100 billion, your IQ drops 30%. And so he\u2019s suffered from that. You want to just sort of belong. You\u2019re not the same person anymore. And once you inherit money, right there, your IQ goes down 20%. So now he\u2019s operating with 50% of an IQ.\nSo of course, when you have his money wield influence over international organizations, you have a \u201cdemocracy\u201d taking over.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a047:45\nHow do you think that Bill Gates and the Gates Foundation fits in to super imperialism and your analysis of US control of the international financial system.\nMichael Hudson\u00a047:54\nHe is volunteering to get the support of the deep state by following policies that win the approval of the deep state. And essentially, imperialism is a mentality, and it\u2019s a technocratic mentality, with the idea that all of the fruits of technology should be a kind of monopoly rent accruing to the financial sector. And he has bought into that mentality.\nAnd whether you\u2019re in the private sector or in the state, if you\u2019re into the rentier mentality, you\u2019re into the super imperialism mentality.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a048:37\nWell do you also agree with the argument, it seems like Gates has invested not just billions of dollars, but really his life into what seems like the privatization of the global public health system. I mean, the Gates Foundation is one of the principal funders of the World Health Organization. This is not a state; this is a foundation run by a single capitalist.\nMichael Hudson\u00a049:00\nWell he made his money in his computer systems by having a monopoly power, and what bigger monopoly can you have than a monopoly over health care? Saying, \u201cyour money or your life.\u201d So of course, he puts his money as a natural extension of having his monopoly.\nIt\u2019s the same mentality of trying to create a privatized monopoly to prevent health care from being offered freely \u2013 to say, every public utility, from education, to health care, to transportation has to be offered at cost, and that cost will include a profit \u2013 and in fact, whatever the market will bear for economic rent, and dividends, and management fees, and consulting fees, until it all looks like the military-industrial complex applied to the hitherto public sector.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a050:07\nWell and also as you mentioned, the micro-loans, the privatization of public education through charter schools, the cash-free system that he and other global oligarchs like Pierre Omidyar are trying to implement in places like India, where they\u2019re trying to get the rural poor out of the cash system and get them in debt, and then I guess move them off their land. And we have seen suicides and social catastrophe already as a result of the implementation of this system.\nAnd now Gates, his obsession with vaccination, and openly stating that he does not want to remove patents; he is obsessed, along with the US government that represents his interests and the interests of Big Pharma, with protecting intellectual property, potentially at the peril of global health.\nAnd then, Pfizer announced that it sees a massive profit potential in the vaccination of children as young as two years old, with these experimental mRNA vaccine, so the CDC goes ahead and licenses that or is planning to license that. So it\u2019s pretty obvious what\u2019s taking place.\nI think what\u2019s a little bit more confounding \u2013 I mean, this is a little bit of a diversion, and it\u2019s really my last question; I hope we can get into some Patreon questions, and Ben, if you have anything else \u2013 it\u2019s a little bit more confounding, as you know, that there has been this trans-atlantic alliance that the US has marketed, but now it is threatening sanctions on the most powerful economy of Europe, Germany, for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.\nAnd the US has, it seems \u2013 and I want to get your view on this \u2013 successfully disrupted this massive EU-Chinese trade deal by weaponizing human rights allegations, talking about the treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, or the supposedly poisoning of Sergei Skripal, the poisoning of Alexei Navalny.\nThese have all been weaponized to try to interrupt these deals with what were seen as core post-war US allies. How is Europe going to respond to this?\nI mean, they seem to be pretty much buckling under US pressure. But how is the EU and Europe responding to this obvious attack on their independence? And how could this alter the contours of super imperialism?\nMichael Hudson\u00a052:58\nWell I want to comment on what you said earlier about Pfizer. Pfizer just announced $3.5 billion profit just for the first quarter. What they call intellectual property is what used to be called monopoly rent is unearned income.\nAnd the intellectual property in vaccines means not only that other countries are going to have to pay a monopoly rent to Pfizer and other monopoly rent pharmaceutical companies, but that America has to block other countries from accepting Russia\u2019s vaccine.\nAnd it is said that Russia\u2019s attempt to export its Sputnik V vaccine is an attempt to create \u201cdissension\u201d in Europe, \u201cdissension\u201d in the Third World countries. It is \u201cdissension\u201d if you don\u2019t let half of your population die.\nIt\u2019s an insistence that other countries have to die in order to guarantee the profits to Pfizer, once it is able to put in place, four years from now, the enough facilities to prevent the rest of the other 50% of the population from dying. This is absolutely evil.\nAnd unfortunately, the German elections that you mentioned, are coming up this fall. And the Americans are putting enormous pressure to push an anti-Russian, pro-NATO puppet, I think largely from the Green Party \u2013 which is the anti-green, right-wing military party in Europe, unlike the United States \u2013 the Green Party is all for sanctions against Russia, and saying you have to treat any socialist in the same way that we\u2019ve treated Julian Assange.\nI mean Julian Assange is an example of America\u2019s commitment to intellectual freedom and to personal freedom. And the assassination teams that it has been sending out to Ecuador. other Latin American countries recently are more examples of this.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a055:14\nCan I just interrupt? Sorry Professor. One example that I think our listeners and viewers might not know about that really strikingly illustrates the trend that you\u2019re elucidating here, is that two days before the Czech Republic, echoing the US, accused Russia of having blown up a munitions dump in 2014, and fingered as suspects Petrov and Boshirov, the same supposedly Russian FSB or GRU agents who supposedly poisoned Sergei Skripal as the culprits \u2013 this happened this this happened two days after the Czech Republic had announced that it would accept the Russian Sputnik V five vaccine.\nAnd on April 20, two Czech Republic announced that it would no longer accept the Sputnik V vaccine. It looked like such a bogus intelligence intrigue cooked up by the CIA to sabotage Sputnik V in Central Europe.\nAnd of course, the US-funded NATO troll farm known as Bellingcat had already been investigating this munitions dump issue. So that was pretty telling.\nSo I think it\u2019s exactly right, what you\u2019re saying. I just wanted to illustrate it with that.\nMichael Hudson\u00a056:32\nWell comedians all over Europe for having a field day with that. I mean, here are the two alleged KGB agents.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a056:41\nNot here, haha.\nMichael Hudson\u00a056:43\nHaha, ok well, I have seen many comedy shows about this. And the fact that they would have the same two KGB agents who allegedly poisoned the Skripals using the same false names in the same passports in Czechoslovakia \u2013 you know, there has to be a black comedy about about all of that.\nBut you\u2019re right, it\u2019s amazing, the accusation that helping save lives in other countries by offering them free or inexpensive vaccines will undercut the profits of American companies is a crime against humanity, and must be punished by sanctions. It shows you that I guess the United Nations is dead.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a057:35\nAnd just picking up on something else you said. You mentioned the German Green Party. This sort of represents everything that\u2019s fraudulent about what we consider green politics. It\u2019s a pro-NATO, pro-war, pro-surveillance state green party.\nAnd there is a \u2013 I don\u2019t want to call it a conspiracy theory \u2013 a suspicion, based on the appointment of Armin Laschet to Germany\u2019s CDU party, the Christian Democratic Union of Angela Merkel, which has been the dominant party in Germany, that he is too pro-Russian, he\u2019s made some comments criticizing US conduct in Syria, that the US is sort of quietly backing the Green Party and then we see the Green Party surging.\nWhat do you make of that? And what do you make of the idea of the US sort of backing this pro-NATO form of green politics, or a NATO-oriented Green New Deal to reestablish, or to retrench global US financial control?\nMichael Hudson\u00a058:48\nThis has been consistent and unbroken US policy since World War Two. After World War Two, the United States interfered with Italian politics to keep the Italian communists out of power; it interfered in Greece by wholesale assassinations, both by England and America, of Greek communists; it interfered in Yugoslavia.\nWhat it has done in Germany is the same as it has been doing throughout Latin America, and the Third World, and other countries for the last 75 years. So this should not be surprising at all.\nWhat is appalling is that the European press is not dealing more with this, and that the American press isn\u2019t picking up the little bit that the European press is commenting on.\nSo even the Financial Times is saying what you just said about the German politics in the Green Party. The major German papers are \u2013 I mean, I\u2019ve had numerous interviews with the Christian Democratic Party newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, and other groups there.\nIt\u2019s appalling that the Germans are almost like the English in believing that because they were defeated in World War Two, there\u2019s still a reliance not only on the United States, but also the resentment by the East Germans over the Russian occupation of East Germany, and the appalling conditions there, that Germany still is as if it\u2019s juxtaposing East Germany to the United States without realizing how much the world has changed in the last 30 years.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:00:41\nWell, Professor Hudson, we\u2019re at an hour here, and I don\u2019t want to keep you too long. So we\u2019re gonna start wrapping up and we have some questions.\nBut before that, I wanted to point out, just while we were talking about Pfizer \u2013 here in Latin America, there was a story going around that didn\u2019t really get much coverage, if any, in English in the US, and that was that Pfizer, when Argentina was in negotiations with Pfizer, Pfizer was demanding control over glaciers and fresh water in Argentina, as well as fish reserves, in order for the vaccines.\nWhich ironically, is what pushed Argentina to ally with Russia, more closely with Russia \u2013 traditionally they have not been very close allies \u2013 and now Russia is providing the Sputnik V vaccine as one of the main vaccines for Argentina.\nSo this is another example of the point you\u2019ve often made about how, the more that the US Empire pushes other countries, that actually in some ways backfires and pushes them into an alliance with China and Russia.\nBut just just in the last few minutes here, over on our Patreon, we actually have 15 questions. So I\u2019m not gonna be able to ask all of them, unfortunately. And what I can say, Professor Hudson, is maybe maybe you could try to answer some of them briefly. But I\u2019m not going to ask you all of them, just because I don\u2019t want to keep you for another hour here, but just for a few minutes.\nSo we have a few questions here; I\u2019ll kind of combine them. One of them is about Modern Monetary Theory, MMT. And another one is about Dr. Stephanie Kelton\u2019s book The Deficit Myth. So I\u2019m wondering if you just want to briefly address Modern Monetary Theory, Stephanie Kelton, his work, and what you think about it?\nAnd then I would add my own question to that briefly: How does Modern Monetary Theory fit into super imperialism? Because the point I would add is that you can only do Modern Monetary Theory-style spending if you have a sovereign currency, and if that sovereign currency is backed by a military, and you don\u2019t have to do trade in the US dollar.\nSo in many ways, it seems to me that Modern Monetary Theory is only really possible for the US because of super imperialism.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:03:05\nWell, Stephanie, has been the major promoter of the now obvious idea that governments do not have to borrow from bondholders in order to finance their budget deficits; they can simply print the money, and the effect of printing the money is no more inflationary than borrowing from billionaires.\nIf you borrow from a billionaire, money that they would not have spent, and spend it into the economy, the monetary effect is exactly the same as simply printing the money and creating it.\nAnd Stephanie used to be the number one promoter of Modern Monetary Theory until of course she was overtaken by Donald Trump, who said, we can cut taxes, run an enormous deficit, and as long as we give all of the deficit to the wealthiest 1%, by using $8 trillion to bid up stock and bond prices, and only $2 trillion into the economy, we can create all the money we have.\nAnd of course, he has a larger audience than Stephanie has. We\u2019ve gone around the world giving speeches together, but I think the largest audience we had was maybe 40,000 in a sports stadium in Italy once, where people came to hear us talk about Modern Monetary Theory. But we didn\u2019t have Donald Trump\u2019s constituency.\nAnd he has shown that Modern Monetary Theory works. The difference is that the Republicans\u2019, and now the Democratic, and the Federal Reserve\u2019s idea of monetary theory is, of course the government can create all the money it wants, simply by printing it, but because the government has been privatized by the commercial banks and the financial sector. And so when we do create money, we\u2019re going to create it to enrich the 1% not the 99%.\nWell of course Stephanie and me, and the rest of the University of Missouri at Kansas City staff, Randy Ray, and the others, we all wanted \u2013 our whole idea of printing money to finance deficits was to spend it into the economy, to create a full-employment economy, like Pavlina Tcherneva has been urging.\nOur idea was not to create money to give it to create a stock and bond bubble. And so somehow, the idea of MMT has been hijacked by the right-wingers and the Federal Reserve that are running away wild with it beyond anything we could have imagined.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:05:34\nWell really quickly, Professor Hudson, I think there is a lot of value to Modern Monetary Theory, and you just articulated that. But at the same time, I\u2019ve seen this, this argument, and I\u2019m curious about your thoughts that \u2013 you could say that, for instance, Venezuela tried Modern Monetary Theory, but because the currency was totally devalued by an economic war by the United States; it doesn\u2019t have the same kind of financial, international economic power that the United States has, or that a currency like the euro would have.\nSo of course a country like Greece can\u2019t do MMT because Greece doesn\u2019t have a sovereign currency. And a country like Venezuela can do MMT. It seems to me that only a major economic power that other countries might use their currency to trade in, like the United States, would be able to carry out these policies.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:06:25\nThe key is the balance of payments effect. No country can go broke if its debts are denominated in its own currency. Venezuela can print all the domestic currency it needs to pay its debts to keep the economy going. But it can\u2019t print dollars. Only the United States government can create dollars, and in as much as Venezuela\u2019s foreign debt is in dollars, that is beyond the ability of its government and treasury to print.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:06:35\nWell and Greece can\u2019t print euros.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:06:58\nThat\u2019s right. It can\u2019t do that either. And when the United States structured the Eurozone, it made sure that no central government, no national government could create its own national currency, so they can\u2019t run budget deficits to spend into the economy to help a recovery.\nThe Eurozone has turned Europe into a dead zone, because it is unable to use Modern Monetary Theory, because the European Central Bank \u2013 the terms of the Eurozone agreements are that no government can run a deficit of more than 3%.\nWell obviously if the United States functioned under the Eurozone rules, we couldn\u2019t have had the Trump policies; we couldn\u2019t have had the policies that President Biden is suggesting.\nSo the Eurozone has committed economic suicide by following a pro-creditor, deflationary policy on the logic that, if the government doesn\u2019t create credit, there\u2019s only one source of financing for the economy, and that source is private banks. So the Eurozone economic philosophy is designed to enrich private banks and their credit creation, not the government credit duration.\nAnd that\u2019s the key of Modern Monetary Theory. Either credit is going to be created by private banks and interest for the things that private banks lend credit for, or it will be created by government, for the public interest and the kinds of things that governments run deficits for, if they\u2019re good governments, to spend into the economy.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:08:49\nProfessor Hudson, here\u2019s another interesting question from over at Patreon. Have you followed this debate on the so-called \u201cGreat Reset,\u201d which the World Economic Forum has talked about; it\u2019s their plan.\nWe\u2019ve also seen the Five Eyes countries have used this phrase, \u201cBuild back better,\u201d we\u2019ve seen again and again. There\u2019s clearly coordination; the United States has used, the Biden administration has used that term a lot, the Australian Government, etc.\nSo basically the World Economic Forum and other kind of neoliberal institutions have been pushing this Great Reset idea. There was a video that kind of went viral that was later taken down where there were 10 visions for our future in 2030, and the first one was that, \u201cYou will own nothing, but you will be happy.\u201d And another point of it was that, like everything will be delivered via drone.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a01:09:44\nAnd you\u2019ll subsist off Bill Gates\u2019 Impossible Burgers or whatever.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:09:50\nIt seems to be very similar to like a kind of a new shock doctrine, but do you have any thoughts?\nMax Blumenthal\u00a01:09:54\nWell they call it a Fourth Industrial Revolution.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:09:58\nIt\u2019s so bizarre. It\u2019s almost a comedy. It\u2019s like the old comics they used to have in grade school, \u201cWhat\u2019s wrong with this picture?\u201d, and you\u2019d see birds flying upside down and all sorts of dogs walking people. It\u2019s just such nonsense.\nCan you say about it? It\u2019s silly. But again, that\u2019s what happens when when you get rich enough to join the World Economic Forum, your IQ drops 30%, and you lose your sense of judgment.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a01:10:33\nWell I think there is a logic behind it, when you think about it in terms of a Fourth Industrial Revolution, which is to unlock new financial potential to keep global capitalism going. And this is where a Green New Deal comes in.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:10:0\nSure, if I was a billionaire, I would be subject to wealth addiction, and I\u2019d want to own all the property in the world. And so of course, I\u2019d tell everybody else, you\u2019ll be happy with no property. I\u2019ll own it all, and my friends will own it all. Of course, you\u2019ll be happier. Just let us take it. I mean, that\u2019s the message.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:11:08\nI don\u2019t know if you saw Jodi Dean has a new book, and her argument is that we\u2019re seeing a kind of, not necessarily a new economic transformation, but a shift into what you could just call neo-feudalism. And that is actually a totally different system, a different mode of production; it\u2019s no longer even really capitalism. The Great Reset is just their vision for techno-neo-feudalism.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:11:30\nYes, this is not Karl Polanyi\u2019s Great Transformation. It\u2019s feudal, yeah, I\u2019ve been saying all along, it\u2019s neo-feudalism. That\u2019s what a rentier class is, a rentier economy. The difference is that the financial interests today and the monopolists play the role that the landlords played in the 19th century, before democratic reform ended the landlord class as such. And by doing that, paved the way for the resurgence of the financial class and the monopolists.\nBen Norton\u00a01:12:02\nWell a question that is very interesting \u2013 we were talking in our discussion before the interview, and Professor Hudson said he doesn\u2019t follow cryptocurrencies a lot. But I\u2019m just curious because we got a question over at Patreon, Professor Hudson, what do you think about cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin? Also Dogecoin has become popular. And this is related to non-fungible tokens, NFTs.\nThere has been an argument that all of this is just a new form of speculation for rich people who have nothing to invest in. And there\u2019s another argument, especially for NFTs, which is that this is a new way to launder money. But I\u2019m wondering what you think about cryptocurrencies and these new technologies.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:12:48\nWell I think that, functionally speaking, cryptocurrencies are like Andy Warhol etchings; they have no intrinsic value, except the fact that other people want to buy them, and enough other people may them as trophies.\nAs people get richer and richer, they want to buy trophies. Andy Warhol etchings and other bad art is one example of a trophy, and having money in a cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin, is another kind of a trophy.\nI think its main function is either money laundering or tax evasion. And certainly the amount of energy that it uses to mine Bitcoins makes it impractical as any actual means of payment.\nSo you have essentially cryptocurrency only as a means of storing your liquid money in an asset that you think other people will buy, so it\u2019s all based on expectations, nothing intrinsic at all. It gives new meaning to the phrase fictitious capital.\nBen Norton\u00a01:13:53\nSo someone asked here, over at Patreon, do you think that cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin could be a way to help get off the dollar, to de-dollarize?\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:14:03\nNo, they have no effect at all. It\u2019s just shunted aside. If everybody would put their money on Andy Warhol etchings, that wouldn\u2019t have anything to do about the dollar; it wouldn\u2019t affect \u2013 money put in Bitcoin doesn\u2019t affect international trade, or international investment, or tourism, or any of the actual payments among countries. It\u2019s completely separate; it\u2019s like money held in a Caribbean offshore banking center.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a01:14:33\nMax Kaiser and the Velvet Underground are not going to be happy about this.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:14:41\nI\u2019m not sure. I\u2019ve known Max for many years. He has an audience that wants to hear about cryptocurrency, but I don\u2019t think he has any. Maybe things have changed, but I would be very surprised.\nHe and I don\u2019t I have real disagreements about that. But I don\u2019t have his audience. We have different audiences. So we talk about different things.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a01:15:09\nRight, well, I think you\u2019ve found some common ground with central banks.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:15:15\nI also do want to point out, just to our audience, for people who don\u2019t know \u2013 among Michael\u2019s audience are multiple governments who he has advised.\nI was actually gonna say earlier, it\u2019s just funny to me that, in the US, economic experts, the so-called \u201cexperts,\u201d are people like Larry Summers, the big privatizers, who have destroyed entire economies \u2013 in the case of the former Soviet Union, to subordinate Russia\u2019s economy to US capital.\nBut to me, it just says a lot that they\u2019re considered so-called economic \u201cexperts,\u201d whereas Professor Hudson has advised the Chinese government and other governments. So to me, it says a lot about who the real experts are, and especially when you look at the the financial voodoo and the snake-oil salesmen that make up Chicago Boy economics.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:16:10\nWait a minute, my first client was the US government. And it was after Super Imperialism, they hired me to in 1972 to explain Super Imperialism to them, and they gave the Hudson Institute a $75,000 contract, most of which went to my salary, in order to explain it all.\nSo I certainly was viewed \u2013 Super Imperialism was done as part of my consulting with the US government, as was the sequel, Global Fracture. And then the Canadian government, Mexican government, and it all spread out from there.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:16:47\nWell, a few more questions before we wrap up here, Professor Hudson. This is a very interesting question: How do you think that China can deal with a problem like extremism, especially in regard to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, CPEC, in neighboring volatile countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. Because we\u2019ve seen that a key part of the Belt and Road Initiative has been to better integrate Central Asia and South Asia, some of these countries that do have a problem with extremism and secessionist movements. And that\u2019s really at the heart of the New Silk Road.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:17:24\nChina is not as interfering as the United States is. It is trying to carefully avoid taking sides, for better or worse, in any of this. Pepe Escobar follows all of this pretty closely.\nIt\u2019s certainly not going to get militarily involved, as the United States does. Its main concern is that the United States foreign legion, essentially America\u2019s major ally, is Saudi Arabia.\nAmerica has an alternative to socialism, and the alternative is Wahhabi fanaticism. And it has worked for Saudi Arabia to use ISIS and other Wahhabi terrorist organizations to try to destabilize Russia from the south, which was Stalin\u2019s great fear in World War Two, and to destabilize China from the Uighur section.\nSo what China is trying to do is to prevent foreign-backed terrorism and sabotage in its own country, while trying to just make a modus vivendi with other countries that have problems and not to try to engage in the kind of regime change, much less military occupation, that is the centerpiece of American policy.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:18:44\nThere\u2019s another question here \u2013 we\u2019ll probably just ask two more, two or three more here just to wrap up \u2013 but this could be an entire interview, so of course, we can keep it brief, and maybe we can have you back another time to talk about this.\nOne of our patrons asked about \u201cSocialism with Chinese Characteristics,\u201d and said, from your experience working with the Chinese government and other education systems, do you see the political will from the Xi Jinping administration to keep toward on the socialist path? Or do you feel that China is having a new battle with capitalists and financialized forces within the system since Deng Xiaoping\u2019s reforms?\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:19:24\nWell in the late 19th century, everyone viewed socialism as the more efficient evolution of industrial capitalism. So I don\u2019t think it helps to say whether China is socialist or capitalist. The famous phrase from Deng went, \u201cWhite cat, black cat, it doesn\u2019t matter as long as it catches mice.\u201d\nI think the Chinese are sort of in the process continually of reinventing their economy, of seeing what works and what doesn\u2019t. I think they\u2019re operating on a pragmatic, ad hoc basis, and that pragmatism doesn\u2019t lead them to think, is this capitalist or socialist?\nThey don\u2019t think in terms of an abstract generality; they think very specifically, does this particular industry help develop China or not? Is it part of our overall long-term plan for 2025, 2030, and beyond? How does this fit into developing the economic structure of our economy to make it more practical?\nSo I don\u2019t think labels really help in this at all. They present themselves as a Marxist country, but Marx didn\u2019t talk about the kind of problems that they\u2019re handling now. And as one of my fellow professors at the Peiking University said, Marxism is the Chinese word for politics.\nAnd they\u2019re political; they\u2019re pragmatic; and you should think really in terms of what are they doing structurally, and not thinking, what label, especially what Western label, are we going to print or paste on what they\u2019re doing?\nLabels don\u2019t help; you actually have to get into the nitty gritty, looking at how they\u2019re handling tax policy, how they\u2019re handling land ownership and credit policy, how they\u2019re handling the budget deficits of rural communities \u2013 these are the problems that they\u2019re dealing with right now.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:21:45\nYeah, there\u2019s definitely on the left a very long history of holier-than-thou kind of No True Scotsman sentiment, so I think that\u2019s very refreshing.\nHere\u2019s another question, Professor Hudson: What do you think is the regional and international significance of the RCEP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership? That\u2019s the trade trade agreement sign between countries in eastern and southeastern Asia in 2020.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:22:13\nYou can\u2019t tell yet. There\u2019s still a jockeying for position with its relationship to the United States, Europe, and other countries, so too early to tell.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:22:27\nOk, here\u2019s an interesting question, he said, Dr. Hudson, do you think land tax or the Singapore model is best for creating affordable housing for workers? And what can we do on local and state levels?\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:22:45\nThe land tax is by far the best way of keeping housing prices down, because as countries get more prosperous, the value of the rented location is going to go up. As you develop educational systems, and parks, and public utilities, then you\u2019re going to have the rental value of given sites and properties, houses and office buildings rise.\nNow, landlords don\u2019t create this prosperity; they don\u2019t create the public infrastructure that raises value. If you do not tax it away, then all of this rental value is going to be available to be pledged to banks, and the banks will lend enough money so that the mortgage interest is going to absorb all of the land rent.\nIf you tax away the land rent, then this cannot be capitalized into higher value. And if you tax the land rent, number one, you don\u2019t have to tax income, you don\u2019t have to have a sales tax, you tax only the unearned economic rent.\nAnd the argument for that was all laid out by Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, and Marx, and Thorstein Veblen, and other people in the 19th century.\nSo obviously, if you want low-cost housing, you want to prevent the financialization of real estate. And that I can assure you is one of the central problems that China is dealing with right now.\nAnd it\u2019s a problem that I have a book coming out on this, a series of my lectures in China dealing with this, that will be available in about three months.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:24:28\nFinal question, and we\u2019ll wrap up. Thank you so much for joining us, Professor Hudson. This is another one of those questions that could go on forever, but we can just keep it brief, because we\u2019re almost at 90 minutes here.\nCan any country attempt to move away from the dollar? Or does the economy need to be of a certain size? And does the country have to have specific resources to do so?\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:24:51\nAny country can move away from the dollar as long as they they are part of a system that has a critical mass. So the great threat to the dollar hegemony is that China, Russia, Iran, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization countries are going to be a critical mass, that Venezuela, much of Latin America, Africa, and the rest of Asia can all join.\nSo, yes, as long as you\u2019re part of, as long as there\u2019s a viable alternative with a critical mass \u2013 the fact is, if you rely on the dollar, you\u2019re probably going to get screwed. Because with the dollar, as we discussed earlier in the show, the US can grab your bank account, at any point; they can grab your gold reserves at any point.\nEven Germany is now asking for its gold reserves to be flown black slowly, month by month.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a01:25:47\nThey can grab you. They can literally grab you.\u00a0Look at Alex Saab.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:25:54\nRight, indeed. So yes, any anyone can \u2013 within a few years, you\u2019ll have an alternative economic order to the dollar, so that things don\u2019t have to be the way they are.\nThere is an alternative; Margaret Thatcher was wrong. And so is Biden and Blinken.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:26:15\nExcellent, well, thank you so much, Professor Hudson, for joining us. I just want to plug that a new version of his book Super Imperialism will be coming out soon, in a few months. And hopefully, Professor Hudson, we can have you back to discuss that. I\u2019m looking forward to it. I think it\u2019ll be very important.\nAnd I think we\u2019re living through really a historical watershed moment, with what you just referenced, that there is a new international financial system being built right now, as we speak, and so few people acknowledge that\u2019s even happening. So thanks so much for your work, and thanks for speaking with us.\nMichael Hudson\u00a01:26:50\nIt\u2019s been a very enjoyable discussion. Thanks for having me.\nMax Blumenthal\u00a01:26:53\nThanks a lot, Professor.\nBenjamin Norton\u00a01:26:55\nGreat, and if anyone wants to support the work we do here at Moderate Rebels, you can go over to Patreon,\u00a0patreon.com.\nAnd I would also highly recommend checking out Michael Hudson\u2019s website; that is\u00a0Michael-Hudson.com. I would definitely never call myself anywhere near an economics specialist; I focus much more on politics. So I always find that such a valuable resource. I\u2019m constantly going to read it. Because what\u2019s good is that Professor Hudson has not only his articles, but he also has transcripts of all of the interviews that he does.\nAnd we will have a full transcript of this interview that he\u2019s going to post over at\u00a0Michael-Hudson.com.\nThanks so much for joining us. And we will see you all next time. If you want to submit questions like we did in this broadcast, go to\u00a0patreon.com. And we\u2019ll see you all next time. Thanks.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: The United States has many political prisoners. Here\u2019s a list. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Alex Saab, Black Panthers, Jamil Abdullah al-Amin, Julian Assange, Leonard Peltier, Meng Wanzhou, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Mun Chol Myong, Mutulu Shakur, political prisoners, Sim\u00f3n Trinidad", "output": "The US government holds many political prisoners, including journalists; national security state whistleblowers; Black, Indigenous, and Latino revolutionaries; foreign diplomats; Muslims detained without trial; women who defended themselves from attacks; and environmental activists.\n\nThe United States constantly accuses its adversaries of holding political prisoners, while insisting it has none of its own. But for its entire history, the US government has used incarceration of its political opponents as a tool to crush dissent and advance the interests of economic elites.\nWell-known cases are those entrapped or framed in US national security state sting operations, or imprisoned with extreme sentences for a minor offense because of their political activism, such as Black revolutionary George Jackson.\nEach period of struggle by the working class and oppressed peoples against ruling-class control results in some activists locked up for their revolutionary work. \u201cPolitical prisoner\u201d has often meant those revolutionaries jailed for fighting their national oppression, as is the case with a great number of Black Panthers.\nIn contrast, a century ago, most political prisoners in the United States were Marxists, labor organizers, and anti-war activists, such as Joe Hill, Eugene Debs, and Big Bill Haywood.\nToday, the US national security state considers its most dangerous enemies those who expose its crimes at home and abroad.\nThere are also many thousands of incarcerated people who never received a fair trial, or were innocent of the crimes they have been jailed for. A high percentage of them are non-white, peoples subject to second-class citizenship in the US. A number are executed, such as Troy Davis, or spend their whole lives in prison.\nWhile the United States represents just over 4% of the world\u2019s population, it holds approximately 20% of its prisoners. Black North Americans are imprisoned five times the rate of whites.\nThe following list of political prisoners currently detained by the US government categorizes them into seven groups:\nA number of whistleblowers in the United States have previously been imprisoned or are wanted. These have included:\nAmong those imprisoned today are the following:\nJulian Assange is a renowned journalist and editor of WikiLeaks who was arrested in 2019 in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he had political asylum since 2012. In April 2022, a British judge ordered Assange extradited to the US to face up to 175 years in prison for publishing truthful information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has indicted Assange under the Espionage Act, even though he published the same information as did the New York Times and Washington Post.\nResearcher Mark Weisbrot explained in 2017, \u201cJulian Assange is a political prisoner. \u2026 His crime, and that of WikiLeaks, has been the practice of journalism, and particularly in defense of human rights and civil liberties. \u2026 Assange and WikiLeaks\u2019 real offense was to expose the crimes of the most powerful people in the world.\u201d\nExtraditing Assange, a journalist and Australian citizen, to the United States would have even more negative repercussions for our present remnants of free press and democratic rights. No case better embodies the old IWW banner for \u201cclass war prisoners\u201d: \u201cRemember! We\u2019re in here for you, you\u2019re out there for us.\u201d Roger Waters and Noam Chomsky have also spoken about the importance of the Assange case.\nDaniel Hale has been imprisoned since 2019. He was sentenced to 45 months for releasing documents showing US military drone strikes in Afghanistan largely killed innocent people. Hale participated in the drone program while in the Air Force and NSA from 2009 to 2013, and later became an outspoken critic and a defender of whistle blowers.\nHale is believed to have been the source material for The Drone Papers. The documentary National Bird documents whistleblowers in the US drone assassination program. For his truth-telling, Hale received the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence and the Blueprint for Free Speech International Whistleblowing Prize. Chris Hedges has written about his case.\nJoshua Schulte, a former hacker employed by the CIA, was blamed for releasing two billion pages of secret CIA data, known as Vault 7, to WikiLeaks. Vault 7 programs were CIA techniques used to compromise Wifi networks, hack into Skype, defeat anti-virus software, hack Apple and Android smartphones in overseas spying operations, turn internet-connected televisions into listening devices, and commandeer the guidance systems in cars.\nSchulte has been imprisoned since 2018 and faces up to 80 years, in brutal conditions similar to those endured by Assange today.\nAna Bel\u00e9n Montes was a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analyst who alerted Cuba of US plans of aggression. She was arrested in 2001, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage, and was held in solitary confinement in Fort Worth, Texas for most of her 21 years behind bars.\nMontes told the judge, \u201cI consider that the policy of our government towards Cuba is cruel and unjust, deeply unfriendly; I considered myself morally obligated to help the Island defend itself from our efforts to impose our values \u200b\u200band our political system on it. We have displayed intolerance and contempt for Cuba for four decades. We have never respected Cuba\u2019s right to define its own destiny, its own ideals of equality and justice. I do not understand how we continue to try to dictate. \u2026 how Cuba should select its leaders, who its leaders should not be and what laws are the most appropriate for that nation. Why don\u2019t we let them decide how they want to conduct their internal affairs.\u201d\nMun Chol Myong is a North Korean was extradited and imprisoned in the United States on March 20, 2021. Mun was arrested in Malaysia in May 2019 after a Washington, DC judge issued a warrant for his arrest. His supposed \u201ccrime\u201d of conspiracy and money laundering in fact consisted of supplying needed goods to the DPRK by circumventing US sanctions on the country.\nA top Justice Department official claimed foreigners who have never been in the US can be extradited to it for violating domestic laws. The US has enforced a blockade against North Korea since 1950, the start of the US war on Korea, designed to cripple its economic and social development.\nAlex Saab, a Venezuelan diplomat, was jailed on June 12, 2020 in Cabo Verde on orders of the United States. He was then seized by US agents and brought to a Miami prison on October 16, 2021.\nSaab was arrested while on a diplomatic mission to procure food and energy supplies to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, which was largely caused by the illegal US blockade of the nation.\nAs a diplomat, Saab has immunity from detention based on the UN Vienna Convention of 1961. The UN Human Rights Commission and other international human rights defenders have denounced his extradition. The National Lawyers Guild calls for Saab\u2019s immediate release.\nSim\u00f3n Trinidad\u00a0(Ricardo Palmera) was a long-time leader in mass movements for social change in Colombia, and is a top negotiator for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). In 2003, he was sent to Ecuador to make contact with UN official James Lemoyne, as part of efforts to revive peace talks with the Colombian government, and begin communication on the exchange of prisoners of war.\nHe was captured in Ecuador in 2004 and then extradited to the US on charges of narco-trafficking and kidnapping, and subjected to four separate trials, due to repeated mistrials. Ultimately, he was sentenced to 60 years at the Florence \u201cSupermax\u201d prison in Colorado.\nMeng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer and deputy chair of the board of Chinese tech giant Huawei, was imprisoned in Canada in 2018 on a US extradition request, after Washington accused her company of misleading British bank HSBC over its business dealings in Iran, thereby violating its illegal unilateral sanctions. Meng was released in September 2021.\nMany Black political prisoners in the United States were targets of the police state\u2019s Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) in the 1960s and \u201970s, when the FBI sought to destroy the movement for Black freedom.\nAs journalist Glen Ford explained, \u201cIf you attempt to lead Black people on an independent political path, the US state will seek to neutralize you, imprison you, or kill you. If you exercise your right to defend yourself, and your people, from the oppressive arm of the state, they make you into an outlaw, and hunt you down.\u201d\nThe FBI said it goals in COINTELPRO were to \u201cexpose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize,\u201d adding that \u201cno opportunity must be missed to exploit through counterintelligence techniques \u2026 for maximum effectiveness \u2026 and a final goal should be to prevent the long range growth of militant black organizations, especially among youth.\u201d\nThis police state operation against Black liberation resulted in at least 38 Black Panther Party members being killed, including Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, with hundreds more imprisoned on frame-up charges for their armed self-defense actions, several for more than 45 years.\nThe website\u00a0Members of the Black Panther Party Still Imprisoned registered the number incarcerated in 2014, although several have died since then. The films \u201cThe FBI\u2019s War on Black America\u201d and \u201cCointelpro 101\u201d document the police state\u2019s dirty work.\nThose currently imprisoned include:\nMumia Abu-Jamal is the most prominent former Black Panther political prisoner. In 1981, COINTELPRO style, he was sentenced to death for the murder of a Philadelphia cop. Judge Albert Sabo, who ruled in his case and in his appeals, was heard by a court reporter to state \u201cI\u2019m going to help them fry the ni**er.\u201d Black jurors were excluded. Witnesses were bribed and threatened to lie on the stand. Documents were hidden in the state prosecutor\u2019s office.\nMumia was an organizer and campaigner against police abuses in the Black community, and was the president of the Association of Black Journalists. During his imprisonment, now commuted to life, he has published several books. More information can be found in the films \u201cMumia Abu Jamal: A Case For Reasonable Doubt?\u201d and \u201cMumia: Long Distance Revolutionary\u201d or the websites freemumia.com and bringmumiahome.com.\nLeonard Peltier\u00a0was an activist in the American Indian Movement (AIM) whose goal was to organize indigenous communities to stand up for their rights. Sentenced to life as a result of a COINTELPRO operation, he has been imprisoned for 46 years for killing two FBI agents. Peltier participated in the AIM encampments on the Pine Ridge Reservation, where a 1975 shootout instigated by the FBI occurred.\nSome 64 Native Americans, most with ties to AIM, were murdered. Their deaths went uninvestigated by the FBI. Evidence exonerating Peltier in the FBI case was withheld by the FBI. In his appeals, the government admitted it had no evidence he killed the two FBI agents, suppressed evidence proving this, and fabricated other \u201cevidence.\u201d\nThe other AIM members tried for the killings were exonerated in trial by reason of self-defense. One prosecutor admitted, \u201cYour honor, we do not know who killed those agents. Further, we don\u2019t know what participation, if any, Mr. Peltier had in it.\u201d\nAmnesty International, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, the American Association of Jurists, and 54 Congresspeople, among many others, have called for his freedom. The film\u00a0 \u201cIncident at Ogala,\u201d produced by Robert Redford, and the best-selling book \u201cIn the Spirit of Crazy Horse: The Story of Leonard Peltier and the FBI\u2019s War on the American Indian Movement\u201d made the case widely known. More information can be found at the websites whoisleonardpeltier.info and Peltier\u2019s Prison Writings.\nMutulu Shakur, of the Republic of New Afrika movement, participated in presentations to the UN on discrimination experienced by Black communities, and by 1970 a target of the FBI\u2019s COINTELPRO infiltration. He helped free Assata Shakur from prison in 1979, and she now has a bounty on her head.\nIn 1988 he was convicted of conspiracy related to a 1981 robbery where a guard and two police officers were killed, and sentenced to 60 years. At no time did the evidence show that Mutulu Shakur killed anyone.\nHe was also convicted for aiding in the prison escape of Assata Shakur, who has asylum in Cuba.\nAt two trials the evidence indicated others were responsible for the deaths (one became a government witness in return for a sentencing deal). The remaining defendants were acquitted for the murder allegations. More information can be found at mutulushakur.com and the Jericho Movement.\nJamil Abdullah al-Amin (H. Rap Brown) was chairman of Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and a Black Panther leader. FBI boss J. Edgar Hoover himself named H. Rap Brown \u2013 along with Stokely Carmichael, Elijah Muhammad, and Maxwell Stanford \u2013 as targets of COINTELPRO.\nIn a October 1971 standoff with police, he was shot and seized, and spent five years in Attica prison. From 1992 to 1997, the FBI closely surveilled Al-Amin, generating pages of 44,000 documents. In 2000, two sheriffs came to Al-Amin\u2019s store with a warrant for failure to appear in court for a case later thrown out. Both were shot and one killed. Al-Amin was sentenced to life without parole, even though Otis Jackson confessed to the shootings. More information is available at whathappened2rap.com.\nVeronza Bowers was an organizer in the Black Panther Party in the late 1960s. He has been imprisoned for 49 years for the murder of a US park ranger, on the word of two government informers. There were no eye witnesses and no other independent evidence. See more at veronza.org and prisonersolidarity.com.\nEd Poindexter\u00a0and\u00a0Mondo we Langa (who died in prison in 2016) were leaders of the Black Panthers in Omaha, Nebraska in the 1960s, and targets of COINTELPRO. Both men were given life sentences on charges of killing a policeman. They were convicted on the testimony of a teenager who was beaten by the police and threatened with the electric chair if he did not incriminate Poindexter and Mondo.\nAmnesty International has identified them as \u201cprisoners of conscience.\u201d Poindexter has been imprisoned for 52 years. The book \u201cFRAMED: J. Edgar Hoover, Cointelpro and the Omaha Two story\u201d and the documentary \u201cEd Poindexter & Mondo We Langa\u201d offer more information.\nKamau Sadiki (Freddie Hilton), was a member of the Black Panther Party and Black Liberation Army, and close to Assata Shakur. He has been imprisoned since 2002, for a 1971 murder of a police officer. Back in 1971, two witnesses failed to identify Kamau from a line-up, and there was no physical evidence that implicated Sadiki, so the case was closed.\nIn 2002 Kamau was re-arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment for the killing \u2013 only after he refused to work with the government to induce Assata Shakur to leave Cuba for another country, where they could seize her. See more at freekamau.com.\nJoy Powell\u00a0organized protests against police brutality and corruption, demanding accountability for its victims, which led her to be targeted by the Rochester Police Department. In 2006, Powell was convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to 16 years for burglary and assault. No evidence or eyewitnesses linked her to the crime.\nThen in 2007, while imprisoned, Powell was falsely charged with murder, a cold case from 1992, and given another 25-year sentence, to begin upon the completion of her 16-year sentence. See freejoypowell.org, and the article \u201cAmerica is Still Locking People Up for Their Activism, Including Black Women.\u201d\nAlvaro Luna Hernandez (Xinachtli) is a Texas activist for Chicano rights and against police brutality. He was continually targeted by the police, who in 1996 attempted to arrest him on a spurious robbery charge that was later dismissed. The police used violence to arrest him, and Hernandez was sentenced to 50 years in prison on trumped up charges of threatening a sheriff while resisting arrest. More information can be found at freealvaro.net and prisonersolidarity.com.\nOther political prisoners include\u00a0Ruchell Cinque Magee,\u00a0Fred \u201cMuhammad\u201d Burton,\u00a0Ronald Reed,\u00a0Kenny Zulu Whitmore.\nMore information is available at the Prison Activist Resource Center,\u00a0Jericho Movement,\u00a0freedomarchives.org,\u00a0spiritofmandela.org, and prisonersolidarity.com.\nThe\u00a0Coalition for Civil Freedoms published a report in 2021 titled The Terror Trap: The Impact of the War on Terror on Muslim Communities. It explains:\nmore than half of all alleged terrorism cases involved the use of paid informants who were usually responsible for concocting the plots in collusion with the FBI. Sensationalistic media coverage of the most high-profile cases almost never made mention of the fact that these terrorist conspiracies were the work of FBI informants.\n\u2026\nthe FBI has built a network of more than 15,000 registered informants whose primary purpose is to infiltrate Muslim communities to create and facilitate phony terrorist plots so that the bureau can then claim it is winning the War on Terror \u2026 the FBI engaged in a witch hunt, convicting hundreds of Muslims on pretext terrorism charges, even though the government knew that the defendants were not in communication with international terrorists, had not injured a single person or piece of property, and had no means to carry out a terrorist attack even if they wanted to.\nFor the government to tell the truth about the convictions would have undercut their own prosecutions, and exposed hundreds of Muslim convictions for the sham they were. No matter how innocent the government knew the defendants to be, it apparently decided that they had to publicly treat the defendants as the worst of the worst, or lose the fear factor which they had used so effectively to enact harsher laws.\nThe\u00a0Newburgh Four,\u00a0Libertyville Seven, and\u00a0Romeo Langhorne\u00a0are examples of this FBI entrapment.\nHere are more current political prisoners:\nHoly Land 5: Shukri Abu-Baker\u00a0and\u00a0Ghassan Elashi\u00a0of the\u00a0Holy Land Foundation\u00a0were each sentenced in 2008 to 65 years in prison. Three others were sentenced to 13-20 years:\u00a0Mufid Abdulqader, Mohammad El-Mezain (released and deported to Turkey in 2022) and Abdulrahman Odeh (released in 2020). All were imprisoned for giving more than $12 million to charitable groups in Palestine which funded hospitals and schools and fed the poor and orphans.\nThe US government said these groups were controlled by Hamas, which it lists as a terrorist organization, even though it is the elected government of Gaza. Some of these charitable groups still received US funds through USAID as late as 2006.\nTestimony was given in the case by an Israeli government agent whose identity and evidence was kept secret from the defense. This marked the first time in US legal history that testimony has been allowed from an expert witness with no identity, therefore making them immune from perjury. The book \u201cInjustice: The Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five\u201d details the case.\nAafia Siddiqui is a US-educated Pakistani neuroscientist who came to the US in 1990, then returned to Pakistan with her family in 2002. In 2003 she was kidnapped by US and Pakistani agents and held in Bagram Air Base through 2008. She was convicted of attempted murder of her US interrogators in Afghanistan in 2008 \u2013 though she was the person shot \u2013 and sentenced to 86 years in prison in Fort Worth, Texas. The weapon she allegedly fired in the interrogation room did not have her fingerprints, nor was there evidence the gun was fired.\nFour British Parliamentarians wrote to President Barack Obama that \u201cthere was an utter lack of concrete evidence tying Dr Siddiqui to the weapon she allegedly fired at a US officer,\u201d and that she should be freed immediately. Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark described Aafia\u2019s plight as the \u201cworst case of individual injustice I have ever witnessed.\u201d More information is available at aafia.org and aafiamovement.com.\nSince 2002, a total of 779 Muslim men and boys as young as 10 have been seized and held at Guant\u00e1namo, a military base in Cuban territory that is illegally occupied by the United States.\nWashington claimed the prisoners are outside US and international law, and thus do not have the rights of POWs. Nearly all of the prisoners were held without charge or trial. Many were tortured to produce a compliant \u201clearned helplessness\u201d \u2013 the goal of former US slave-breaking.\nSome detainees were even tortured to death. In 2003, 23 prisoners attempted suicide in a mass protest against their abuse.\nThe torture was directed by two psychologists, James E Mitchell and Bruce Jessen.\nBy any definition of political prisoner, most political prisoners in Cuba are at the US military-torture center at Guantanamo.\nToday there are still 36 prisoners, only 11 of whom have been charged with war crimes, while just two have been convicted \u2013 and by \u201cmilitary commissions,\u201d which Amnesty International declared do not meet fair trial standards.\nAnother 20 have been approved for release but remain locked up. Five detainees are \u201cforever prisoners,\u201d held without charge or trial, but not to be released. The websites closeguantanamo.org and witnessagainsttorture.com\u00a0and films\u00a0The Report\u00a0and The Mauritanian\u00a0provide more information.\nNearly three in 10 women in the United States have endured male physical violence or stalking by a partner. Nearly one in five women are raped in their lifetime. Almost four women are killed a day by a male partner.\nHalf of all women murdered are killed by men they know intimately, yet hundreds of women are in prison for killing their abuser in self-defense.\nThe US legal system treats these as individual cases, not for what it is: the systematic patriarchal violence against women as an oppressed group.\nThe website\u00a0Survived and Punished\u00a0and\u00a0Defend Survivors provide more information about this problem.\nMarissa Alexander, a Black women from Florida, was sentenced to 20 years in 2013 for firing a warning shot inside her home to ward off her brutal husband, against whom she had an order of protection. Her affirmation that Florida\u2019s \u201cStand Your Ground\u201d law applied to her because she was defending herself was rejected. The same year, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin based on that same law. National protests finally freed her in 2017.\nFran Thompson was an environmental activist in Nebraska. She has been in jail for 30 years for murder, sentenced to life without parole. She had defended herself, killing a man who was threatening to sexually assault her after he broke into her home. She was also targeted because of her environmental work, and was not allowed to plea self-defense.\nThompson had taken on the prosecutor and local government during her activism, having organized against two big projects, an egg factory and a nuclear waste facility, which would have brought the county big profits.\nMaddesyn George has been imprisoned since July 2020. She was given a 6.5-year sentence for defending herself from sexual assault by a white man. She is a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes.\nIndigenous women experience murder rates 10 times higher than the national average. The majority of these murders are committed by\u00a0non-Native people on Native-owned land. See:\u00a0MMIW USA\u00a0and\u00a0Coalition to Stop Violence against Native Women.\nA number of environmental activists, animal rights supporters, and water protectors have challenged corporate abuses and have been jailed.\nDuring the original so-called Green Scare, in the 1990s to early 2000s, the US government sought to squash animal rights and environmental activism, acting in the interest of corporations that profit from damaging the earth.\nA more recent series of jailings have specifically targeted people protesting against pipeline construction.\nThe following are political prisoners:\nJoseph Mahmoud Dibee,\u00a0a member of Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front was arrested in 2018 for his participation in setting fire to a slaughterhouse. Between 1995 and 2001, a group of Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front supporters caused more than $45 million in damages in a series of arsons. Dibee is imprisoned awaiting sentencing.\nMarius Mason (formerly Marie Mason), a member of the Earth Liberation Front, was arrested in 2008 for an attack on a lab building at Michigan State University that was creating genetically modified organisms, with funding from mega-corporation Monsanto, the producer of Agent Orange.\nMason was also sentenced for damage to commercial logging equipment. No one was harmed by these actions. Mason\u2019s 22 year-sentence is the longest yet for any of the Green Scare\u00a0cases of those committing crimes against property of corporations.\nJessica Reznicek, of the Catholic Workers Movement, took action in 2016 to stop the environmentally destructive Dakota Access Pipeline by dismantling construction equipment and pipeline valves and setting fire to construction machinery. She would have been handed three years, but was sentenced to eight, with the added sentence for terrorism, even though no person was physically harmed.\nReznicek\u2019s actions against private property were \u201ccalculated to influence or affect the conduct of government,\u201d meaning a person who takes direct action against an energy company can be treated as an enemy of the state. Reznicek explained, \u201cWhat we did do was fight a private corporation that has run rampant across our country seizing land and polluting our nation\u2019s water supply.\u201d\nThis list belies the myth that the United States has no political prisoners.\nPolitical prisoners have no shared ideology. Standing for justice does not necessarily mean that one defends their political views; it means that one demands their freedom because they have been unjustly incarcerated.\nMany hundreds of thousands of people have been unjustly incarcerated in the United States, but in these cases, it is clear that they were detained because of their political beliefs and activism, and that by definition makes them political prisoners.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Weapons corporation sees \u2018benefits\u2019 from US wars on Russia, China, Yemen. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, military-industrial complex, Raytheon, Russia, Yemen", "output": "The CEO of top arms manufacturer Raytheon admitted in a phone call, \u201cI fully expect we\u2019re going to see some benefit\u201d and \u201copportunities\u201d from the US war drive with Russia over Ukraine, bombing of Yemen, and conflict in the South China Sea.\n\nThe CEO of top weapons manufacturer Raytheon has told investors that potential US wars with Russia and China offer the corporation economic \u201cbenefits\u201d and \u201copportunities.\u201d\nThese remarks come at a time when tensions are high between NATO and Russia over Ukraine, and while the United States is waging a new cold war to encircle and contain China.\nThe comments also show how Raytheon and other Pentagon contractors have knowingly profited from the ongoing war on Yemen, which marks its seventh anniversary in March 2022. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have been attacking civilian areas in the poorest country in West Asia, using weapons provided by the US and Britain.\nThe investment website The Motley Fool published a transcript of Raytheon\u2019s fourth quarter 2021 earnings conference call, held on January 25, featuring Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Greg Hayes.\nIn the conversation, an analyst named\u00a0Peter Arment asked Hayes the following:\nHey, Greg, maybe just switching over to defense, could you maybe just give us a little bit of some of the things you\u2019re expecting for maybe on the international side?\nHistorically Raytheon has had a lot of international awards, what your expectations might be for a book-to-bill and if you\u2019re seeing any kind of increased input from international countries just given the rising tension? Thanks.\nThe Raytheon CEO responded saying, \u201cI fully expect we\u2019re going to see some benefit\u201d and \u201copportunities\u201d from the US war drive with Russia over Ukraine, bombing of Yemen, and conflict with Beijing in the South China Sea:\nYeah, Peter. It\u2019s a good question, and I think the answer is obviously, we are seeing, I would say, opportunities for international sales.\nWe just have to look to last week where we saw the drone attack in the UAE, which have attacked some of their other facilities.\nAnd of course, the tensions in Eastern Europe, the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there.\nSo I fully expect we\u2019re going to see some benefit from it.\nOn January 21, Saudi Arabia used a Raytheon laser-guided bomb to attack a detention center in Yemen. At least 91 people were killed, and 236 more were injured.\nSaudi Arabia attacked a detention center in Yemen with a US-made laser-guided bomb from Raytheon, killing 91 people and injuring 236.\nPresident Joe Biden claimed he'd end US support for Saudi bombing of Yemen, but has not. Instead he sold it more weaponshttps://t.co/vMZyz5Ahsv\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) January 30, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: As millions died in Covid pandemic, bankers made a killing. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "banks, Covid-19, economics, Fed, Federal Reserve, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Michael Hudson, Morgan Stanley, pandemic, Wall Street", "output": "As the Covid-19 pandemic ripped through society, the US government abandoned its people\u2014but made sure Wall Street banks enjoyed \u201ctheir best period since the 2007-09 financial crisis.\u201d Capitalists made $5 trillion\n\nMore than 5.55 million people around the world have died from Covid-19. In the United States alone, at least 854,000 people have lost their lives. And the pandemic has destroyed the livelihoods of many more, bankrupting families, devastating communities.\nMeanwhile, billionaire oligarchs have made a killing.\u00a0The 10 richest capitalists on Earth doubled their wealth during the pandemic, while the\u00a0incomes of 99% of humanity decreased.\nAnd the Western financial press is practically rubbing it in our faces.\nReuters published a shockingly blunt story boasting of how US banks have, well, made bank during the global health crisis.\nTitled \u201cWall Street banks eye \u2018new normal\u2019 for trading revenue,\u201d the Reuters news wire was republished at the official website of the Nasdaq stock exchange.\nThe article gloats, \u201cA massive injection of cash into capital markets by the Federal Reserve led to unprecedented liquidity and trading activity through the pandemic\u00a0as investors sought opportunities to cash in.\u201d\nThe report then chirps happily, \u201cBanks with large trading desks such as Goldman Sachs GS.N, JPMorgan JPM.N and Morgan Stanley MS.N have been the biggest beneficiaries of market volatility,\u00a0enabling traders to enjoy their best period since the 2007-09 financial crisis.\u201d\nAs millions around the world died in a global pandemic, big banks like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley were \"the biggest beneficiaries of market volatility, enabling traders to **enjoy their best period since the 2007-09 financial crisis**\"\nCapitalism is a death cult pic.twitter.com/6aJrq0xO6D\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 19, 2022\n\nI discussed this \u201cmassive injection of cash into capital markets by the Federal Reserve\u201d in an\u00a0interview with economist Michael Hudson.\nThe Fed quietly bailed out big banks in September 2019 with $4.5 trillion of emergency repo loans, which according to Hudson appear to have blatantly violated US law. This is in addition to the\u00a0trillions more the US Treasury poured into the financial sector.\n\nThe Reuters article continues, quoting Goldman Sachs\u2019 chief executive officer, David M. Solomon, who told analysts, \u201cNone of us could have anticipated the environment that we\u2019ve lived through over the last two years and particularly the environment this year, which was\u00a0obviously a significant tailwind for our business.\u201d\nNote how Goldman Sachs\u2019 CEO wasn\u2019t saying the bank couldn\u2019t have anticipated the millions of deaths; rather, he was saying Wall Street couldn\u2019t have anticipated enjoying its highest profits since the financial crash 14 years ago.\nSolomon wasn\u2019t alone. JPMorgan Chase CFO Jeremy Barnum noted that\u00a02020 and 2021, the peak of the pandemic, were \u201crecord years.\u201d\nThe Reuters report quoted an analyst at the investment banking and asset management firm JMP Securities, Devin Ryan, who said, \u201cThe bar from 2020 and 2021 is quite high.\u201d\nThe attitudes of the bankers cited in the piece make it clear: capitalism is a death cult.\nWhile millions of people died in a historic global pandemic, capitalist oligarchs orchestrated a massive upward transfer of wealth.\n\u201cThe world\u2019s ten richest men more than doubled their fortunes from $700 billion to $1.5 trillion\u00a0\u2014at a rate of $15,000 per second or $1.3 billion a day\u2014 during the first two years of a pandemic that has seen\u00a0the incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall and over 160 million more people forced into poverty,\u201d\u00a0Oxfam reported.\nCapitalist oligarchs made have made $5 trillion during the pandemic, \u201cthe biggest surge in billionaire wealth since records began,\u201d\u00a0Oxfam said.\nThe humanitarian organization calculated that inequality contributes to the death of at least 21,000 people every day \u2014 one person every four seconds.\nWhile the right wing has hysterically warned of \u201cCovid authoritarianism\u201d and an impending \u201cbiomedical state\u201d supposedly on the horizon, the reality is that the United States is already largely the libertarian dystopia that the Koch Brothers and their fellow capitalist oligarch brethren have dreamt of (and invested a whole lot of money in creating).\nThe ruling ideology of the United States is every man for himself, dog eat dog. This is reflected so clearly in the US government\u2019s response to the largest global health crisis in a century.\nThis laissez-faire strategy has been bipartisan. Under both Donald Trump and Joe Biden, the US federal government has essentially done nothing substantive, leaving each state to decide its own fate.\nThe Biden White House made that clear,\u00a0telling people they\u2019re on their own. And the US Department of Health and Human Services has told hospitals that, as of February 2, they no longer even have to\u00a0report daily Covid-19 deaths\u00a0to the federal government.\n850,000 people in the US have died from Covid-19, and in a few months it's likely to surpass 1 million.\nSo what is the US government's strategy to stop those deaths? Simple: tell hospitals they can stop reporting Covid deaths.\nDon't want to reach 1M? Just stop counting! Murica! https://t.co/qRltNp9Eih\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 15, 2022\n\nBiden claimed he would reverse Trump\u2019s inaction, but his administration has just sat by as 2,000 to 3,000 North Americans perish per day due to Covid-19. On January 18, 2022 alone, 2,990 people in the US died of the virus.\nThe disastrous consequences of this libertarian approach are clear for the world to see: at least 854,000 Covid-19 deaths in the United States, according to official statistics.\nThis is a breathtaking level of human loss \u2014 surpassed only by the barbarism of Jair Bolsonaro\u2019s far-right regime in Brazil, which has overseen 622,000 Covid-19 deaths in a population of 213 million. (If Brazil had implemented the same policies, or lack thereof, with the population of the United States, 335 million, it would have 978,000 Covid-19 deaths.)\nMeanwhile, in the mainland People\u2019s Republic of China, with a population of 1.4 billion, there have been fewer than 5,000 deaths. In 2021, there were\u00a0just two Covid-19 deaths in mainland China. Two.\nIf the United States had the same population of China, we would be talking about 3.6 million dead from Covid-19.\nBut then again, China\u2019s biggest banks are state owned \u2014 and it is the Chinese government that controls the financial sector, not the banks that control the state, like they do in the United States. So it\u2019s difficult for elites in China to make a killing like bankers do in the US \u201cdemocracy.\u201d\nTo someone who lives under U.S. capitalism, a medical system that can successfully curb a pandemic like COVID-19 may seem like fantasy. What did the people, government, and Communist Party of China do to accomplish this incredible result?https://t.co/ohtnJyCygu\n\u2014 Party for Socialism and Liberation (@pslweb) January 7, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Mexico\u2019s AMLO sent Biden letter blasting US \u2018interventionism\u2019 and funding of opposition groups. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "AMLO, Andr\u00e9s Manuel L\u00f3pez Obrador, CIA, Claudio X Gonz\u00e1lez, Ford Foundation, Mexicanos Contra la Corrupci\u00f3n y la Impunidad, Mexico, NED, Nicaragua, USAID, Venezuela", "output": "Mexico\u2019s President AMLO sent Joe Biden a letter condemning US \u201cinterventionism\u201d, such as USAID funding of right-wing opposition groups that are trying to destabilize his elected government.\n\nMexico\u2019s President Andr\u00e9s Manuel L\u00f3pez Obrador sent US leader Joe Biden a letter criticizing Washington for meddling in his country\u2019s internal affairs.\nThe document condemned funding that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has given to right-wing opposition groups that have organized protests against Mexico\u2019s elected government, seeking to destabilize it.\nUSAID is a notorious CIA cutout that has been used to finance opposition groups and regime-change attempts in countries that challenge Washington\u2019s foreign-policy interests.\n\nL\u00f3pez Obrador, who is popularly referred to by his initials AMLO, is Mexico\u2019s first left-wing president in decades.\nAMLO came into office in December 2018 vowing to end the \u201clong and dark neoliberal night\u201d.\nHe has nationalized the country\u2019s lithium reserves and electrical grid, reversed the partial privatization of the oil industry, boosted social spending, and significantly increased the minimum wage.\nThis incredible graph shows how much the real minimum wage (measured in purchasing power parity) has increased in Mexico under the left-wing government of President AMLO\nNote how the minimum wage was totally stagnant in two decades of neoliberal governments\nCredit: @mario_campa pic.twitter.com/ZlGxGvb5QF\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) December 25, 2022\n\nOn May 2, AMLO sent a letter to Biden. The Mexican president\u2019s office made the document public on its official website.\n\u201cFor a while, the government of the United States, in particular the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has funded groups openly opposed to the legal and legitimate government that I represent, which is without a doubt an act of interventionism, violating international law and the respect that there should be between free and sovereign states\u201d, AMLO wrote.\n\u201cMoreover, a few days ago it was announced that said agency will increase the budget given to organizations opposed to our government, as appears published on the official website of the State Department\u201d, he added.\nThe Mexican president read out the letter in his morning press conference on May 3. His office\u2019s official YouTube channel even made a special video with the clip.\n\u201cI feel that it is very arrogant, very offensive, and I can\u2019t remain quiet\u201d, AMLO commented, in reference to the US meddling.\nMexico\u2019s President AMLO sent Joe Biden a letter condemning US \u201cinterventionism\u201d, specifically citing USAID funding of right-wing opposition groups that are trying to destabilize AMLO's elected government.\nFull video here: https://t.co/LFwp7ZojCy pic.twitter.com/2JrCdI7zyx\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) May 9, 2023\n\nUSAID and other US government organizations, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), have funded numerous right-wing opposition groups in Mexico, particularly media outlets and so-called \u201ccivil society\u201d organizations.\nA prominent example is Mexicanos Contra la Corrupci\u00f3n y la Impunidad (Mexicans Against Corruption and Impunity, or MCCI), a group founded by right-wing multimillionaire oligarch Claudio X. Gonz\u00e1lez, one of AMLO\u2019s most fervent opponents.\nMCCI disclosed on its website that it is financed by USAID and NED, as well as the notorious CIA-linked Ford Foundation.\nThis right-wing opposition leader in Mexico, rich businessman Claudio X. Gonz\u00e1lez, who leads a Pinochet-style neoliberal anti-AMLO alliance called S\u00ed por M\u00e9xico, is funded by the US government.\nHis \"NGO\" \"Mexicanos contra la corrupci\u00f3n\" is funded by USAID & NED, both CIA cutouts https://t.co/iIJpNQoj4o pic.twitter.com/Job07hxtKf\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 3, 2021\n\nThe CIA used USAID \u201chumanitarian aid\u201d flights to send weapons to the far-right Contra death squads in Nicaragua in the 1980s.\nWhen the Sandinistas returned to power in 2007, through democratic elections, USAID spent billions of dollars funding right-wing opposition groups, which then played a key role in a violent coup attempt in 2018, which caused hundreds of deaths.\nUSAID collaborates closely with the US military, and frequently uses \u201chumanitarian\u201d cover to advance the interests of the Pentagon.\nIn a regime-change operation targeting Venezuela in 2019, USAID was used as a political weapon, working with the US Department of Defense to try to overthrow the leftist government of President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro.\nThe United Nations and International Red Cross condemned USAID\u2019s role in the attempted putsch in Venezuela, clearly stating that the US government organization was not providing humanitarian aid. An internal USAID audit even admitted in 2021 that the operation had violated humanitarian principles.\n\nThe NED has played an even more nefarious role in funding US meddling schemes and regime-change operations.\nIn a 1991 report boasting of the \u201cspyless coups\u201d that Washington had sponsored in the former Soviet Union, the Washington Post described the US government\u2019s NED as \u201cthe sugar daddy of overt operations\u201d, crediting it for \u201cdispensing money to anti-communist forces behind the Iron Curtain\u201d.\nA co-founder of the NED, Allen Weinstein, told the Post, \u201cA lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA\u201d.\nUS foundations like Ford and Rockefeller have historically played a similar role, working closely with the CIA to fund anti-communist groups, including violent ones.\nIn her book The Cultural Cold War, journalist Frances Stonor Saunders showed how the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations \u201cwere conscious instruments of covert US foreign policy, with directors and officers who were closely connected to, or even members of American intelligence\u201d.\nThis extremely important book The Cultural Cold War documents how the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller Foundation have long been \"conscious instruments of covert US foreign policy, with directors and officers who were closely connected to, or even members of American intelligence\" pic.twitter.com/SxbBPSHhlM\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 13, 2020\n\nIn his May 3 press conference condemning Washington\u2019s meddling, President L\u00f3pez Obrador proposed that US-Mexico relations should be based on \u201ccooperation and friendship\u201d.\n\u201cTogether we should confront problems, like the migration issue, like drug trafficking, especially fentanyl\u201d, he stressed.\nIn Washington, however, far-right US politicians have called for the opposite.\nProminent Republican Congress members have urged the US military to invade Mexico to attack drug cartels, even proposing legislation to justify an intervention.\nHawkish US politicians have blamed Mexico and China for the opioid epidemic in the United States, while ignoring how large pharmaceutical corporations profited from creating the problem in the first place.\nAMLO has repeatedly condemned the US threats against his country.\nOn March 18, he organized a massive rally in the heart of Mexico City, celebrating the anniversary of the expropriation of the country\u2019s oil reserves and shouting, \u201cWe remind those hypocritical and irresponsible politicians that Mexico is an independent and free country, not a colony or a protectorate of the United States!\u201d\nIn a tweet on April 1, AMLO fumed:\nThey threaten to invade; they sell high-powered weapons in their markets; they do nothing for their youth; they suffer \u2013 unfortunately \u2013 from the terrible and deadly fentanyl pandemic, but don\u2019t address its causes.\nThey don\u2019t care about welfare, only money.\nAmenazan con invadir, venden armas de alto poder en sus tianguis, no hacen nada por sus j\u00f3venes, padecen \u2014lamentablemente\u2014 de la terrible y mortal pandemia del fentanilo, pero no atienden las causas. No les preocupa el bienestar, s\u00f3lo el dinero, ni fortalecen valores morales,\u2026\n\u2014 Andr\u00e9s Manuel (@lopezobrador_) April 1, 2023\n\nWhile hawks in Washington have scapegoated foreign nations like Mexico and China for the opioid crisis at home, they have largely ignored billionaire oligarchs like those of the Sackler family, who made enormous profits on selling highly addictive drugs such as OxyContin.\nIn a blockbuster article in 2018, titled \u201cOrigins of an Epidemic: Purdue Pharma Knew Its Opioids Were Widely Abused\u201c, the New York Times noted, \u201cA confidential Justice Department report found the company was aware early on that OxyContin was being crushed and snorted for its powerful narcotic, but continued to promote it as less addictive\u201d.\nThe Times wrote:\nPurdue Pharma, the company that planted the seeds of the opioid epidemic through its aggressive marketing of OxyContin, has long claimed it was unaware of the powerful opioid painkiller\u2019s growing abuse until years after it went on the market.\nBut a copy of a confidential Justice Department report shows that federal prosecutors investigating the company found that Purdue Pharma knew about \u201csignificant\u201d abuse of OxyContin in the first years after the drug\u2019s introduction in 1996 and concealed that information.\nCompany officials had received reports that the pills were being crushed and snorted; stolen from pharmacies; and that some doctors were being charged with selling prescriptions, according to dozens of previously undisclosed documents that offer a detailed look inside Purdue Pharma. But the drug maker continued \u201cin the face of this knowledge\u201d to market OxyContin as less prone to abuse and addiction than other prescription opioids, prosecutors wrote in 2006.\nBased on their findings after a four-year investigation, the prosecutors recommended that three top Purdue Pharma executives be indicted on felony charges, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, that could have sent the men to prison if convicted.\nBut top Justice Department officials in the George W. Bush administration did not support the move, said four lawyers who took part in those discussions or were briefed about them. Instead, the government settled the case in 2007.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: West opposes rest of world in UN votes for fairer economic system, equality, sustainable development. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "economics, Israel, Palestine, Turkey, T\u00fcrkiye, United Nations", "output": "The West opposed the rest of the planet in United Nations General Assembly votes that called for a new international economic order based on sovereign equality, sustainable development, and biological diversity.\n\nMost countries on Earth voted at the United Nations General Assembly to support a call for a new international economic order that is based on sovereign equality and cooperation, that rejects unilateral sanctions and advocates for debt relief for the Global South.\nThe only countries that opposed this widely popular proposal were the West and its allies.\nThe United States and its proxies were also the lone votes against common-sensical resolutions promoting sustainable development, biological diversity, and basic civil rights for Palestinians. Almost the entire world supported these proposals.\n\nWashington showed itself to be a rogue state on the international stage, voting against practically every resolution, even on uncontroversial issues where the rest of the planet is in agreement.\nMost of these resolutions were commonplace, are introduced every year, and have been voted on many times before, with similar results: the West vs. the rest.\nIn 1974, formerly colonized nations in the Global South proposed a plan to dismantle the remaining economic structures of colonialism.\nThey called it the New International Economic Order (NIEO), and said that it should be \u201cbased on the principles of equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest, cooperation and solidarity among all States.\u201d\nThe NIEO has been consistently voted on at the United Nations in the five decades since. And the West has persistently opposed it.\n\nOn December 14, 2022,\u00a0123 countries voted\u00a0in favor of the NIEO \u2013 64% of the UN\u2019s 193 member states. (The number would have been even higher, but several nations that have been illegally sanctioned by the US, such as Venezuela and Zimbabwe, had their UN voting rights temporarily suspended because they have been unable to pay their membership fees in dollars.)\nJust 50 nations voted against it, with one abstention, from NATO member T\u00fcrkiye.\n\nThe 50 countries opposed to the call for a fairer, more equitable economic system consisted of the United States, members of the European Union, Britain, Israel, Canada, Australia, South Korea, and Japan.\nThis grouping has been referred to as the \u201cCollective West.\u201d\nThe West is not a geographic construct; it is a political one. This is why Australia, which was created as a British settler colony, is located in the eastern hemisphere but is politically and culturally part of the West.\nThe same is true for apartheid Israel, which like Australia was created as a British settler-colonial project and has since become a US proxy with a key geostrategic location in West Asia.\nSimilarly, the two East Asian nations that are part of this Western bloc are military occupied by the United States, which has stationed tens of thousands of troops in Japan since the mid-1940s and in South Korea since the early 1950s.\nReflecting on the December 14 vote,\u00a0Chinese journalist Chen Weihua observed, \u201cIt\u2019s US and EU against the rest of the world. Basically 900 million against the more than 7 billion from Asia, Africa to Latin America.\u201d\nIt\u2019s US and EU against the rest of the world.  Basically 900 million against the more than 7 billion from Asia, Africa to Latin America.\n\u2014 Chen Weihua \uff08\u9648\u536b\u534e\uff09 (@chenweihua) December 15, 2022\n\nThe UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution \u201creaffirms the need to continue working towards a new international economic order based on the principles of equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest, cooperation and solidarity among all States.\u201d\nIt also \u201creiterates that States are strongly urged to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that impede the full achievement of economic and social development, particularly in developing countries.\u201d\nThe resolution calls for \u201cmutually supporting world trade, monetary and financial systems\u201d and \u201ccoordination of macroeconomic policies among countries to avoid negative spillover effects, especially in developing countries\u201d\nIt similarly urges debt relief for the Global South, stating that it \u201cexpresses concern over the increasing debt vulnerabilities of developing countries, the net negative capital flows from developing countries, the fluctuation of exchange rates and the tightening of global financial conditions, and in this regard stresses the need to explore the means and instruments needed to achieve debt sustainability and the measures necessary to reduce the indebtedness of developing countries.\u201d\nThe December 14 vote took place in the 53rd plenary meeting of the 77th session of the UNGA, featuring reports from the body\u2019s Second Committee, which focuses on economic and financial affairs.\nThe votes were very similar on related UNGA resolutions. They illustrated how the United States and its proxies act as rogue regimes, violating the will of the international community.\nA proposal on \u201cinternational trade and development\u201d had almost the exact same vote, with 122 in favor, 48 against, and one abstention (once again, T\u00fcrkiye).\nIn this resolution, \u201cthe Assembly urged the international community to adopt urgent and effective measures to eliminate the use of unilateral economic, financial or trade measures that are not authorized by relevant organs of the United Nations, and that are inconsistent with the principles of international law or the Charter of the United Nations or that contravene the basic principles of the multilateral trading system and that affect, in particular, but not exclusively, developing countries.\u201d\n\nA related resolution emphasized the \u201crole of the United Nations in promoting development in the context of globalization and interdependence.\u201d\nIn this vote, European countries abstained. The only votes against the resolution came from the United States and Israel.\nIn the measure, \u201cthe Assembly noted with concern that the mobilization of sufficient financing remains a major challenge in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and that progress has not been shared evenly within and among countries, leading to further deepening of existing inequalities.\u201d\n\nEven on other resolutions that were completely straightforward and common-sensical, the US voted against the entire world.\nThe UNGA adopted a resolution calling to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity and reaffirming its contribution to sustainable development.\n166 countries supported the resolution, while just three nations opposed it (the US, Israel, and Japan), with one abstention (South Korea).\nAll 193 UN member states except for one, the USA, have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity. Washington stands alone as the only capital on Earth that refuses to join the planet-saving agreement.\n\nThe United States also opposed most of the world in a UN vote to recognized the \u201cpermanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources.\u201d\nThis resolution passed with 159 countries in favor and 10 abstentions (Australia, Cameroon, C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, Guatemala, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Togo, and Tuvalu).\nA mere eight member states voted against recognizing these basic political and civil rights for Palestinians, including the US, Israel, Canada, Chad, and small island nations that typically vote as US proxies at the UN, including the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau (all former US colonies that have \u201cfree association\u201d agreements with Washington and use the dollar as their currency), and Nauru (which uses the Australian dollar).\n\nThis pattern was yet again visible in a resolution titled \u201cOil Slick on Lebanese Shores,\u201d in which the UN lightly criticized Israel for illegally bombing Lebanon\u2019s Jiyeh Power Station in 2006, unleashing a massive oil spill that still causes problems today.\nIn addition to severely damaging the environment, the UN noted that this Israeli attack cost Lebanon at least $856.4 million.\nThe language of the resolution was very mild, expressing \u201cits deep concern about the adverse implications of the destruction by the Israeli Air Force of the oil storage tanks in the direct vicinity of the Lebanese Jiyeh electric power plant for the achievement of sustainable development in Lebanon.\u201d\n160 member states voted in favor of the resolution, including European countries.\nIt was opposed only by the US, Israel, Canada, Australia, and Washington\u2019s proxies in the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, and Palau.\n\nThese votes on December 14 were by no means the only time the United States has exposed to the world its status as an unaccountable rogue regime.\nFor the 30th year in a row, almost every country on Earth voted at the UN to condemn the illegal, 60-year US blockade of Cuba\n185 to 2\nUSA and apartheid Israel voted against\n2 abstained: Bolsonaro's far-right Brazil and NATO's client regime in Ukrainehttps://t.co/g7KFeiYeGP\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 3, 2022\n\nIn recent UN votes condemning the six-decade US blockade on Cuba and calling on Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons, Washington and Tel Aviv spat in the face of the rest of the world.\nThe United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly, 152 to 5, to tell the Israeli apartheid regime to get rid of its nuclear weapons, which are illegal under international law https://t.co/YCQsbXWFZp\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 1, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US launched 251 military interventions since 1991, and 469 since 1798. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Congress, imperialism, military-industrial complex", "output": "The US military launched 469 foreign interventions since 1798, including 251 since the end of the first cold war in 1991, according to official Congressional Research Service data.\n\nThe United States launched at least 251 military interventions between 1991 and 2022.\nThis is according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, a US government institution that compiles information on behalf of Congress.\nThe report documented another 218 US military interventions from 1798 to 1990.\nThat makes for a total of 469 US military interventions since 1798 that have been acknowledged by the Congress.\n\nThis data was published on March 8, 2022 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in a document titled \u201cInstances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2022.\u201d\nThe list of countries targeted by the US military includes the vast majority of the nations on Earth, including almost every single country in Latin America and the Caribbean and most of the African continent.\nFrom the beginning of 1991 to the beginning of 2004, the US military launched 100 interventions, according to CRS.\nThat number grew to 200 military interventions between 1991 and 2018.\n\nThe report shows that, since the end of the first cold war in 1991, at the moment of US unipolar hegemony, the number of Washington\u2019s military interventions abroad substantially increased.\nOf the total 469 documented foreign military interventions, the Congressional Research Service noted that the US government only formally declared war 11 times, in just five separate wars.\nThe data exclude the independence war between US settlers and the British empire, any military deployments from 1776 to 1798, and the US Civil War.\nIt is important to stress that\u00a0all of these numbers are conservative estimates, because they do not include US special operations, covert actions, or domestic deployments.\nThe CRS report clarified:\nThe list does not include covert actions or numerous occurrences in which U.S. forces have been stationed abroad since World War II in occupation forces or for participation in mutual security organizations, base agreements, or routine military assistance or training operations.\nThe report likewise excludes the deployment of the US military forces against Indigenous peoples, when they were systematically ethnically cleansed in the violent process of westward settler-colonial expansion.\nCRS acknowledged that it left out the \u201ccontinual use of U.S. military units in the exploration, settlement, and pacification of the western part of the United States.\u201d\nCredit: Military Intervention Project at Tufts University\nThe Military Intervention Project at Tufts University\u2019s Center for Strategic Studies has documented even more foreign meddling.\n\u201cThe US has undertaken over 500 international military interventions since 1776, with nearly 60% undertaken between 1950 and 2017,\u201d the project wrote. \u201cWhat\u2019s more, over one-third of these missions occurred after 1999.\u201d\nThe Military Intervention Project added: \u201cWith the end of the Cold War era, we would expect the US to decrease its military interventions abroad, assuming lower threats and interests at stake. But these patterns reveal the opposite \u2013 the US has increased its military involvements abroad.\u201d\nCredit: Military Intervention Project at Tufts University\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CIA intimidated Britain to force \u2018ally\u2019 to cut ties with China\u2019s Huawei. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Britain, China, CIA, GCHQ, Huawei, podcast, UK, United Kingdom", "output": "The Donald Trump White House and CIA ran \u201cblack ops\u201d to intimate Britain to cut ties with China\u2019s tech giant Huawei, hurting the UK\u2019s economic interests to advance Washington\u2019s trade war on Beijing.\n\nThe Donald Trump administration led an intimidation campaign to force the United Kingdom to cut all ties with China\u2019s tech giant Huawei.\nBritish intelligence officials referred to the initiative as a CIA \u201cblack ops\u201d mission aimed at undermining London\u2019s independence.\nThis operation succeeding in forcing Britain to ban Huawei, hurting the UK\u2019s own economic interests and delaying its development of 5G technological infrastructure\u00a0in order to advance Washington\u2019s trade war on Beijing.\n\nThese details were revealed in a report in major British newspaper The Times, titled \u201c5G wars: the US plot to make Britain ditch Huawei.\u201d\nIn May 2019, the Trump White House sent a delegation to London on what The Times referred to as a \u201cpolicy-disruption mission,\u201d seeking to pressure the UK to completely remove Huawei from its 5G infrastructure.\nThe British officials \u201cwere effectively shouted at by one of their guests for five hours,\u201d the newspaper reported.\n\nThe US representative who yelled at them was\u00a0Matthew Pottinger, a former Marines intelligence officer parachuted who served as the director on Asia for Trump\u2019s National Security Council.\nPottinger, a diehard neoconservative and anti-China hawk, was \u201cone of the most significant people in the entire US government,\u201d according to Trump\u2019s far-right chief strategist Steve Bannon. Pottinger oversaw the US trade war with China.\nThe UK government assured its US counterparts that it had only decided to use Huawei\u2019s equipment because it was \u201csignificantly cheaper\u201d than the technology of European firms.\nBritain\u2019s top intelligence agency GCHQ reviewed Huawei\u2019s minimal role in 5G infrastructure development and concluded that it was not a threat, as it would have no access to sensitive networks and information.\nBut Washington completely ignored London\u2019s objections.\nGCHQ was confident it could work safely with the Chinese tech firm. An American official thought otherwise \u2014 and, in a Cabinet Office meeting, shouted about it for five hours https://t.co/UnwgF84yyk\n\u2014 The Times and The Sunday Times (@thetimes) August 21, 2022\n\nA British intelligence officer quoted by The Times explained, \u201cPottinger just shouted and was entirely uninterested in the UK\u2019s analysis. The message was, \u2018We don\u2019t want you to do this, you have no idea how evil China is.\u2019 It was five hours of shouting.\u201d\nUK National Security Advisor Kim Darroch told the newspaper that the US delegation \u201cdidn\u2019t really have any compelling technical arguments that undermined the GCHQ case,\u201d adding that \u201cthe US case was really political, not technical.\u201d\nThe CIA proceeded to run a \u201cblack ops\u201d campaign to undermine Britain\u2019s standing among its European neighbors.\nThe Times reported:\nThe CIA tried to discredit the UK\u2019s position on Huawei in the eyes of its European allies. Officers from the agency\u2019s Belgium station\u00a0met their counterparts in the French, German, Italian and Norwegian intelligence services, among others, to express their concerns about the UK\u2019s \u201cmisjudgment\u201d.\u00a0British\u00a0intelligence officials were outraged by what they described as a \u201cblack ops\u201d mission facilitated by the CIA \u2014 some even calling it a betrayal of friendship. Yet again, the special relationship between London and Washington had been strained and risked being permanently disrupted.\nThe US pressure campaign was ultimately successful in forcing all members of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network to ban Huawei.\nThe newspaper wrote:\nUS intelligence agencies and White House officials had repeatedly lobbied all members of the Five Eyes to ban Huawei on national security grounds. While New Zealand had followed Australia and banned the Chinese telecoms company in November 2018, Canada was still considering its options, and would not announce its intention to ban Huawei until May this year. The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo \u2014 a director of the CIA during the early days of the Trump administration \u2014 had declared in a thinly veiled warning to Britain in February 2019 that countries using Huawei equipment were a risk to the US. Staff from his office were also reminding their counterparts in Britain that they were risking their place in the Five Eyes should the UK decide to approve Huawei.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US turns on Honduran narco-dictator Juan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez after long supporting him. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Barack Obama, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Iraq, Joe Biden, JOH, Juan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez, Manuel Noriega, Panama, Rafael Trujillo, Saddam Hussein", "output": "Washington ordered the extradition of Honduran ex-President Juan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez (JOH) for drug trafficking, but the Obama-Biden and Trump administrations spent years supporting him as he stole elections, and he rose to power thanks to a 2009 US-backed coup.\n\n(Se puede leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nThe US government has turned on the right-wing former dictator of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez, after it spent years supporting him.\nHern\u00e1ndez is the latest in a series of brutal authoritarians who were key US allies until they outlived their usefulness, from Iraq\u2019s Saddam Hussein to the Dominican Republic\u2019s Rafael Trujillo to Panama\u2019s Manuel Noriega.\n\nThis February, the United States requested the extradition of Honduran ex-president Juan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez on charges of trafficking cocaine and guns. Local authorities arrested him on February 15.\nHern\u00e1ndez, who is popularly known by his initials JOH, served two terms in office, from 2014 to 2022. It was widely known that JOH used drug money to fund his presidential campaigns, and blatantly stole the 2013 and 2017 elections in broad daylight.\nBut while he was committing these crimes, Hern\u00e1ndez enjoyed staunch support from the Barack Obama and Donald Trump administrations.\nIn fact, JOH only came to power in the first place because a 2009 US-sponsored military coup removed Honduras\u2019 democratically elected left-wing president, Manuel Zelaya.\nWashington overthrew Zelaya because he had been friendly to Venezuela\u2019s socialist President Hugo Ch\u00e1vez, and he had integrated Honduras into anti-imperialist regional bloc the Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA).\nFollowing the 2009 coup, JOH\u2019s right-wing National Party ruled the country with an iron fist. From 2010 to 2014, Hern\u00e1ndez served as president of Congress. He was then catapulted to head of state through flagrant electoral fraud.\nThe 2013 Honduran elections were plagued by massive, systemic irregularities. And it was clear to the world that JOH stole the election in 2017, but the US State Department still congratulated him on his \u201cvictory.\u201d\nAnd the United States did more than just endorse JOH\u2019s clearly fraudulent elections. Washington also approved billions of dollars of loans to his corrupt regime, which Hern\u00e1ndez and his wealthy oligarchic backers promptly stole, trapping the country in unpayable odious debt.\nWhy? Because under JOH, Honduras was Washington\u2019s closest ally in Central America. The country is home to the largest US military installation in Latin America, the Soto Cano base.\nAnd, until his final few years, Hern\u00e1ndez obediently served US foreign-policy interests, recognizing unelected coup leader Juan Guaid\u00f3 as supposed \u201cpresident\u201d of Venezuela.\nUS President Barack Obama discusses the refugee crisis with Honduran narco-dictator Juan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez in 2014\nAfter the US-backed 2009 coup, violence and organized crime skyrocketed. Honduras turned into one of the most dangerous countries on the planet.\nAs of 2021, Honduras still has the second-highest murder rate on Earth, surpassed only by its neighbor El Salvador.\nUnder JOH, Honduras also became the poorest country in Latin America. Poverty rose to a staggering 74% of the population.\nThis deadly combination of violence, organized crime, and poverty took a heavy toll on the Honduran people. It fueled large waves of migration north toward Mexico and the United States, unleashing a refugee crisis.\nThis Washington-created refugees crisis in turn provoked domestic problems in the United States. Politicians from both major parties recognized that something had to change.\nUS Vice President Joe Biden with Honduran narco-dictator Juan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez in 2016\nBy 2019, Juan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez became a further liability for Washington. His brother Juan Antonio \u201cTony\u201d Hern\u00e1ndez was convicted in a New York federal court for trafficking nearly 200,000 kilograms of cocaine and machine guns into the United States.\nTony Hern\u00e1ndez had been a congressman in JOH\u2019s National Party, and used drug money to fund the right-wing party and rig elections for his brother.\nThe imprisonment of Tony Hern\u00e1ndez, along with the increased US pressure on Honduras to halt northern migration, created a conflict between JOH and his sponsors in Washington. The once loyal US ally began to implement independent policies.\nHonduras started to vote against US interests in the Organization of American States (OAS). Looking for new allies, the JOH government even improved relations with its neighbor Nicaragua, whose leftist Sandinista government is Washington\u2019s top target in Central America.\nBy 2021, top US politicians and corporate media outlets tried to distance JOH from the US government by depicting him simply as a \u201cTrump ally.\u201d\nJOH certainly was a Trump ally, but he had long benefited from bipartisan support from Democrats as well.\nParticip\u00e9 como invitado especial en la reuni\u00f3n organizada por el Presidente de #EEUU Donald J. Trump para abordar el tema \u201cUn llamado global para proteger la libertad religiosa\u201d#HondurasEnLaONU pic.twitter.com/nAOftBG0wb\n\u2014 Juan Orlando H. (@JuanOrlandoH) September 23, 2019\n\nThe Obama administration enthusiastically supported the Honduran narco-dictator.\u00a0In fact, as vice president under Obama, Joe Biden worked closely with JOH.\nBiden oversaw the Obama administration\u2019s Central America policy, and Honduras was crucial in its plans.\nJOH praised Obama publicly for his neoliberal strategy to bring more corporate investment to the region, called the \u201cAlliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle.\u201d\nFelicito al Pte. Obama y V. Biden su decisi\u00f3n recibir la propuesta de nuestros pa\u00edses (Alianza p Prosperidad) y compartir esfuerzo conjunto.\n\u2014 Juan Orlando H. (@JuanOrlandoH) January 30, 2015\n\nBiden repeatedly met with JOH, and the narco-dictator tweeted, \u201cThank you Vice President Joe Biden for supporting Honduras.\u201d\nGracias Vice Pte. @JoeBiden por respaldar a Honduras. pic.twitter.com/xY6Yo9HNOk\n\u2014 Juan Orlando H. (@JuanOrlandoH) June 17, 2015\n\nWhen JOH\u2019s right-wing National Party was overwhelmingly defeated by the left-wing Libre Party and its candidate Xiomara Castro in a November 2021 election \u2013 the first truly free and fair vote since the 2009 US-sponsored coup \u2013 Washington threw its former asset under the bus.\nAfter JOH left office on January 27, 2022, the Biden administration saw an opportunity to make an example out of a former ally, to try to cynically show the world it is supposedly dedicated to fighting corruption.\nThis February, Washington officially turned on JOH, first revoking his visa and then ordering his extradition to the United States.\nJuan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez is the latest in a long line of repressive dictators that the United States supported and cultivated, only to later throw under the bus.\nHis story echoes those of numerous right-wing Latin American autocrats, from the Dominican Republic to Panama.\nDominican dictator Rafael Trujillo oversaw one of the bloodiest regimes in the history of the region, killing, imprisoning, torturing, and disappearing tens of thousands of people, principally leftists and Haitians.\nTrujillo enjoyed staunch US support for decades. But by 1961 he had outlived his usefulness, and the CIA was involved in assassinating him.\nCloser to Honduras is the case of\u00a0Panama\u2019s former president Manuel Noriega, a former longtime CIA asset who was later overthrown in a murderous US invasion.\nNoriega once collaborated with the CIA to help Washington fund its war on leftist revolutionaries in Nicaragua and El Salvador.\nBut he later became too independent from the United States. Noriega began to challenge Washington\u2019s foreign-policy interests in the region, working with Libya and Cuba, and challenging US control over the geostrategic Panama Canal.\nSo Washington turned on its former ally. The United States invaded Panama in 1989, killing at least hundreds of civilians, with some estimates saying thousands lost their lives.\nOver in West Asia, the history is very similar. Before he became public enemy number one in the 2003 invasion, or in the 1990 Gulf War, Iraq\u2019s authoritarian leader Saddam Hussein was an erstwhile US ally.\nThe CIA helped orchestrate the Iraqi Baathist coup that Saddam later rode to power. After the putsch, the CIA even gave the aspiring dictator\u2019s allies a list of Iraqi communists to kill. They were promptly murdered.\nIn the 1980s, the United States supported Saddam\u2019s Iraq in its war on the new revolutionary government in neighboring Iran. The CIA even helped Saddam use chemical weapons on civilians.\nSome of the world\u2019s most notorious drug dealers have also benefited from the backing of US spy agencies.\nMexico\u2019s infamous drug kingpin El Chapo G\u00fazman, the head of the feared Sinaloa Cartel, was reportedly protected by the CIA for years.\nColombian drug lord Pablo Escobar collaborated with the CIA, too. His son Juan Pablo Escobar said the US spy agency used the cocaine smuggled by the leader of the Medellin Cartel in order to fund its war on socialists in Central America.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US sanctions on Russia over Ukraine also target Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Cuba, Joe Biden, Juan Gonzalez, Nicaragua, Russia, sanctions, Ukraine, Venezuela", "output": "President Joe Biden\u2019s top Latin America advisor, Juan S. Gonzalez, admitted that US sanctions against Russia aim to hurt Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba as well. The three socialist governments condemned NATO aggression for creating the crisis in Ukraine.\n\n(Se puede leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nPresident Joe Biden\u2019s top Latin America advisor has admitted that US sanctions against Russia over Ukraine intentionally seek to hurt Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba as well.\nThe United States imposed a series of harsh sanctions on Russia following Moscow\u2019s recognition of the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk People\u2019s Republics in Ukraine\u2019s eastern Donbas region on February 21, and its subsequent military intervention in Ukraine on February 24.\nJuan S. Gonz\u00e1lez, Biden\u2019s special assistant for Latin America and the US National Security Council\u2019s senior director for the Western Hemisphere, made it clear that these coercive measures against Russia are also aimed at damaging the economies of Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba.\nVenezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba have socialist governments that Washington has long tried to overthrow. All three currently suffer under unilateral US sanctions, which are illegal according to international law.\nFormer US National Security Advisor John Bolton, an architect of the Iraq War, referred to these three Latin American nations as the so-called \u201cTroika of Tyranny.\u201d\nBiden\u2019s advisor Gonz\u00e1lez did an exclusive interview with Voz de Am\u00e9rica, the Spanish-language arm of the US government\u2019s propaganda outlet Voice of America, on February 25.\nVoz de Am\u00e9rica published his comments in a report titled \u201cUS sanctions on Russia will impact Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba, White House estimates.\u201d\n\u201cThe sanctions against Russia are so robust that they will have an impact on those governments that have economic affiliations with Russia, and that is by design,\u201d Gonz\u00e1lez explained.\n\u201cSo Venezuela is going to start feeling that pressure. Nicaragua is going to feel that pressure, along with Cuba,\u201d he added.\nBiden\u2019s Latin America advisor noted that Washington has imposed sanctions on 13 top financial institutions in Russia, including some of the largest in the country. He proudly said that these coercive measures will, \u201cby design,\u201d harm other countries that do a lot of trade with the Eurasian power.\nGonz\u00e1lez also used his interview with the US-funded Voz de Am\u00e9rica to reiterate Washington\u2019s call for regime change against these three socialist governments in Latin America.\nHis comments were reported by the independent Bolivia-based news website Kawsachun News.\nBiden advisor: U.S. sanctions against Russia are 'designed' to impact Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba. pic.twitter.com/Zbqg3mgB2N\n\u2014 Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) February 26, 2022\n\nVenezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba have stood with Russia against NATO expansion and Western military encirclement.\nPresident Nicol\u00e1s Maduro said that Venezuela \u201claments the mockery and breaking of the Minsk agreements by NATO, promoted by the United States of America.\u201d\nMaduro stressed that Washington and NATO bear responsibility for the conflict, and \u201chave generated strong threats against the Russian Federation.\u201d\nVenezuela rechaza el agravamiento de la crisis en Ucrania producto del quebrantamiento de los acuerdos de Minsk por parte de la OTAN. Llamamos a la b\u00fasqueda de soluciones pac\u00edficas para dirimir las diferencias entre las partes. El di\u00e1logo y la no injerencia, son garant\u00edas de Paz. pic.twitter.com/Y7N1lwZfpi\n\u2014 Nicol\u00e1s Maduro (@NicolasMaduro) February 24, 2022\n\nCuba blamed Washington for the crisis as well. Its Foreign Ministry stated, \u201cThe U.S. determination to continue NATO\u2019s progressive expansion towards the Russian Federation borders has brought about a scenario with implications of unpredictable scope, which could have been avoided.\u201d\nDenouncing Western governments for sending weapons to Ukraine, Cuba declared, \u201cHistory will hold the United States accountable for the consequences of an increasingly offensive military doctrine outside NATO\u2019s borders, which threatens international peace, security and stability.\u201d\nThe U.S. determination to continue NATO\u2019s progressive expansion towards the Russian Federation borders has brought about a scenario with implications of unpredictable scope, which could have been avoided.1/5\nStatement by the Revolutionary Government:?https://t.co/3iBcPD9j8x pic.twitter.com/MRgwRCWSMV\n\u2014 Bruno Rodr\u00edguez P (@BrunoRguezP) February 27, 2022\n\nNicaragua\u2019s President Daniel Ortega condemned Washington for sponsoring a 2014\u00a0 coup in Ukraine, and joined Russia in recognizing the Donetsk and Lugansk People\u2019s Republics.\nThe\u00a0chairman of Russia\u2019s State Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, traveled to Nicaragua to meet with top officials from the Sandinista government, and thanked them for their support against NATO expansion and US threats.\n???? #Nicaragua recibi\u00f3 a una delegaci\u00f3n de alto nivel de #Rusia, encabezada por el Presidente de la Duma Estatal de la C\u00e1mara Baja, Vyacheslav Volod\u00edn. La visita tiene por objetivo fortalecer la cooperaci\u00f3n y la solidaridad bilateral. pic.twitter.com/BMY1AjnviF\n\u2014 JP+ (@jpmasespanol) February 24, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Iraq War architect Condoleezza Rice condemns Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine as war crime. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Condoleezza Rice, Fox News, Iraq, Iraq War, media, Russia, Ukraine", "output": "Without a hint of irony, Iraq War architect Condoleezza Rice condemned Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine as a war crime in an interview on Fox News. She was not asked about the million Iraqis killed in the illegal US war.\n\nTop current and former US government officials who helped orchestrate the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, which have killed more than 2 million people combined, have come out and vociferously condemned Russia\u2019s February 24 invasion of Ukraine.\nCondoleezza Rice, one of the key architects of the Iraq War, was invited on Fox News to denounce the Russian incursion as a war crime.\nFox News did not once mention Rice\u2019s role in overseeing the illegal 2003 US invasion and subsequent military occupation of Iraq, which led to more than 1 million deaths.\nRice was a top foreign-policy official in the George W. Bush administration, serving as national security advisor in the first term, then secretary of state in the second.\nIn the lead-up to the Iraq War, Rice falsely claimed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had \u201cweapons of mass destruction.\u201d She infamously declared on CNN in January 2003, just weeks before the US invasion, that \u201cwe don\u2019t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.\u201d\nThe level of propaganda on Ukraine is jaw-dropping. Fox News invited on Iraq War architect Condoleezza Rice to condemn Russia's invasion as a war crime\nFox didn't mention Rice's role in overseeing a criminal US war that killed 1 million Iraqis\nMore here: https://t.co/81Tg4F7BzO pic.twitter.com/A34uLzVrTM\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 2, 2022\n\nIn an interview on Fox News this February 27, Rice blasted Russian President Vladimir Putin for his invasion of Ukraine. She praised Western governments for imposing brutal sanctions on Russia, which have already caused severe economic problems and made lives difficult for tens of millions of Russian civilians.\nWithout a hint of irony, Rice nodded along as Fox News host Harris Faulkner said, \u201cI have argued that when you invade a sovereign nation, that is a war crime.\u201d\n\u201cI think we are at just a real basic point there,\u201d Faulkner added, as Rice nodded in agreement.\nThe Iraq War architect responded,\u00a0\u201cIt is certainly against every principle of international law and international order.\u201d\n\u201cAnd that is why throwing the book at them now, in terms of economic sanctions and punishments, is also a part of it,\u201d Rice added. \u201cAnd I think the world is there. Certainly NATO is there.\u201d\nFox News did not ask Rice if she thinks that her comments apply to the wars that she herself helped the US government wage.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Biden is continuing Trump\u2019s brutal anti-immigrant policies. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CBP, Donald Trump, ICE, immigration, Joe Biden, podcast, racism", "output": "How President Joe Biden is continuing many of Trump\u2019s brutal anti-immigrant policies, giving more funding to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and expanding detention centers while fueling war abroad\n\nMultipolarista editor Benjamin Norton is joined by journalist Abraham Marquez to discuss how the Joe Biden administration has continued many of Donald Trump\u2019s brutal anti-immigrant policies, giving $284.7 million more to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and expanding detention centers, while turning away refugees of US wars and weaponizing displaced Ukrainians.\n\nYou can also watch this video at\u00a0Rokfin\u00a0or\u00a0Rumble.\n\nYou can download the podcast version for free at Substack.\nRead Abraham Marquez\u2019s article \u201cBiden is expanding the US govt\u2019s brutal anti-immigrant machine\u201d:\nSince the creation of US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2003, each admin has given it more of our tax dollars & has further militarized the US-Mexico border.\nMy report @Multipolarista https://t.co/eEvkzh3tiS\n\u2014 Abraham Marquez (@AbeMarquez3) April 21, 2022\n\nRead Abraham\u2019s other article \u201cWeaponization of immigration policy: Ukrainians welcomed, refugees of US wars abused\u201d:\nThe Ukraine/Russia conflict highlights the hypocrisy of US immigration policy & media coverage.\nAll workers escaping violence & war should be treated w/ dignity & respect, & not be used to push an imperialist agenda further.\nMy latest @Multipolarista https://t.co/FJbsFaX00R\n\u2014 Abraham Marquez (@AbeMarquez3) April 8, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US admits weather pushed Chinese balloon off course, US shot down hobbyists\u2019 $12 balloon in $2M missile attack. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "balloons, China, media", "output": "US officials acknowledged the Chinese balloon they shot down on February 4 had likely been blown off course by unexpected weather. The US Air Force later spent $2 million using missiles to blow up what appeared to be a $12 hobbyist balloon.\n\nA Chinese balloon that the US military shot down had likely been pushed off course by unexpected weather conditions, according to multiple officials in Washington.\nThis is according to numerous reports in major US media outlets, including the Washington Post and CNN.\nIn response to hysteria surrounding the Chinese rubber object, the US Air Force subsequently spent roughly $2 million to destroy what appears to have been a hobby group\u2019s $12 balloon.\n\nOn February 1, a large Chinese balloon was first seen over the US state Montana.\nOn February 4, US military fighter jets shot down the rubber object, off the coast of South Carolina.\nWashington accused Beijing of using the balloon to spy on US territory.\nChina adamantly denied that the rubber object was a surveillance device, instead maintaining that it was used for weather research.\nThere are legitimate reasons to take Beijing at its word. The Washington Post had acknowledged on February 3, \u201cExperts in national security and aerospace said the craft appears to share characteristics with high-altitude balloons used by developed countries around the world for weather forecasting, telecommunications and scientific research\u201d.\nThe Pentagon itself said that \u201cthe payload wouldn\u2019t offer much in the way of surveillance that China couldn\u2019t collect through spy satellites\u201d and that \u201cthe balloon posed no serious physical or intelligence threat\u201d.\n\u2014 Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) February 4, 2023\n\nThe newspaper quoted an anonymous US \u201csenior defense official\u201d who \u201csaid the payload wouldn\u2019t offer much in the way of surveillance that China couldn\u2019t collect through spy satellites\u201d, stating, \u201cI wouldn\u2019t characterize it as revolutionary\u201d.\nEven the bellicose right-wing think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) \u2013 which is funded by the US government and weapons industry and is notorious for its anti-China bias \u2013 called for caution early on, conceding in a February 3 article: \u201cChina has not used balloons for spying before, and using a balloon would be a step back. The most likely explanation is that this is an errant weather balloon that went astray\u2014lost weather balloons are the basis of many \u2018UFO sightings'\u201d.\nThe neoconservative, US government-funded think tank CSIS is very anti-China, but even it admits:\n\"China has not used balloons for spying before\u2026 The most likely explanation is that this is an errant weather balloon that went astray\"https://t.co/WN2Wzil3Zs pic.twitter.com/dG99WtDM9y\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 6, 2023\n\nIt was clear from the beginning that the Chinese balloon was part of a manufactured crisis, and its significance, like the rubber object itself, was being blown out of control.\nBut the media\u2019s hot air had the effect of ratcheting up tensions with China, creating fear among the US public, and leading Secretary of State Antony Blinken to cancel a diplomatic trip to Beijing.\nHawkish US politicians from both the Republican and Democratic Parties, along with neoconservative think tanks, capitalized on the bubble to portray China as a dangerous threat.\nSlate reported that Republican Congressman James Comer, who chairs the US House Oversight Committee, warned that the balloon could have \u201cbio-weapons\u201d made in Wuhan, while former House Speaker Newt Gingrich insisted it \u201ccould be trial runs for low-visibility deliver[y] of devastating EMP weapons\u201d.\nCNBC declared that the balloon \u201cthreatens NATO members\u201d, citing the Western military alliance\u2019s bellicose Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who denounced the rubber object as a sign of a dangerous \u201cpattern of Chinese behavior\u201d, insisting, \u201cWe need to be aware of the constant risk of Chinese intelligence and step up what we do to protect ourselves\u201d.\nSpy balloon confirms 'pattern of Chinese behavior' that threatens NATO members, Stoltenberg says https://t.co/zaih1xmjGp\n\u2014 CNBC (@CNBC) February 8, 2023\n\nFrom February 10 to 12, Air Force fighter jets shot down three objects. At first, US government officials and Western media outlets implied that Washington had targeted more Chinese surveillance devices, but they actually appeared to have been civilian balloons.\nThe website Aviation Week reported that an amateur balloon belonging to a hobbyist group called the Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade went missing in the same place at the same time as one of these Air Force bombings.\nAviation Week noted: \u201cThe descriptions of all three unidentified objects shot down Feb. 10-12 match the shapes, altitudes and payloads of the small pico balloons, which can usually be purchased for $12-180 each, depending on the type\u201d.\nThe founder of a company that makes pico balloons for hobbyists told Aviation Week, \u201cI tried contacting our military and the FBI\u2014and just got the runaround\u2014to try to enlighten them on what a lot of these things probably are. And they\u2019re going to look not too intelligent to be shooting them down\u201d.\nBritish newspaper The Guardian followed up on this report, in its own article amusingly titled \u201cObject downed by US missile may have been amateur hobbyists\u2019 $12 balloon\u201c.\n\nResearcher Stephen Semler estimated that the Pentagon spent around $2 million in this operation to shoot down the hobbyists\u2019 balloon over Lake Huron.\nThe Air Force used two AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles in the attack, which cost more than $440,000 each and are manufactured by the arms corporation Raytheon.\nHow much did it cost to shoot down what was most likely a balloon over Lake Huron? About $2 million, based on my analysis of procurement and operational data: https://t.co/a4f4jrl0eg pic.twitter.com/zguxExdnuz\n\u2014 Stephen Semler (@stephensemler) February 17, 2023\n\nImmediately after the attacks, the Democratic majority leader of the US Senate, Chuck Schumer, had insisted without evidence that the three objects were spy balloons, declaring, \u201cThe Chinese were humiliated \u2013 I think the Chinese were caught lying\u2026 It\u2019s a real setback for them\u201d.\nBut the US National Security Council spokesman, John Kirby, revealed on February 14 that the three objects destroyed by the US military were likely balloons \u201ctied to some commercial or benign purpose\u201d.\n\u201cWe haven\u2019t seen any indication or anything that points specifically to the idea that these three objects were part of [China\u2019s] spying program, or that they were definitively involved in external intelligence collection efforts\u201d, Kirby added.\nPresident Joe Biden himself admitted on February 16 that the three objects the military blew up were \u201cmost likely balloons tied to private companies, recreation or research institutions studying weather or conducting other scientific research\u201d.\nPresident Biden said Thursday that three unidentified flying objects shot down over North American airspace were \u201cmost likely\u201d balloons tied to private companies or research institutions, not part of China\u2019s surveillance spy balloon operation. https://t.co/mGO8mBTHuu\n\u2014 USA TODAY (@USATODAY) February 17, 2023\n\nTen days after the Air Force shot down the Chinese balloon, US officials conceded that the rubber object had probably been blown off course by weather.\nThe Washington Post acknowledged in a February 14 report that the Chinese balloon \u201cmay have been diverted on an errant path caused by atypical weather conditions\u201d.\nThe newspaper reported that the balloon \u201ctook an unexpected northern turn, according to several U.S. officials, who said that analysts are now examining the possibility that China didn\u2019t intend to penetrate the American heartland with their airborne surveillance device\u201d.\nUS \u201cintelligence analysts are unsure whether the apparent deviation was intentional or accidental\u201d, the Post wrote.\n\u201cThis new account suggests that the ensuing international crisis that has ratcheted up tensions between Washington and Beijing may have been at least partly the result of a mistake\u201d, the newspaper said.\nExclusive: The U.S. tracked the Chinese spy balloon a week before shooting it down off the coast of South Carolina. The Chinese surveillance device may have been diverted on an errant path caused by unusual weather conditions. https://t.co/ESXLKthHhg\n\u2014 The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) February 14, 2023\n\nCNN also cited numerous anonymous sources and reported, \u201cUS intelligence officials are assessing the possibility that the suspected Chinese spy balloon was not deliberately maneuvered into the continental US by the Chinese government and are examining whether it was diverted off course by strong winds\u201c.\nThe major US media outlet stated that the balloon took \u201ca path that US officials are not sure was purposeful, and may have been determined more by strong winds than deliberate, external maneuvering by Beijing\u201d.\n\u201cWeather modeling done by CNN suggests it is plausible that the wind currents at the time diverted the balloon northward toward Alaska\u201d, the network wrote.\nCNN added, \u201cUS officials have acknowledged that the balloon\u2019s maneuverability was limited\u201d.\nUS officials are looking at the possibility that the spy balloon's path was accidental, determined more by strong winds than a course set by China. https://t.co/Z6iPlTl8dK\n\u2014 CNN International (@cnni) February 16, 2023\n\nIn a speech at the Munich Security Conference on February 18, top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi said Washington\u2019s response to the balloon was \u201cabsurd and hysterical\u201c.\nHe added, \u201cIt does not show the US is strong; on the contrary it shows it is weak\u201d.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: IMF admits US dollar hegemony declining, due to rise of Chinese yuan, sanctions on Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "dollar, economics, IMF, International Monetary Fund", "output": "The US-dominated International Monetary Fund warns of an \u201cerosion of dollar dominance,\u201d noting use of Chinese yuan in global central bank reserves is increasing, while Western sanctions on Russia could strengthen other currencies.\n\nThe US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) has acknowledged that the hegemony of the dollar is in noticeable decline.\nAt the same time, the Chinese currency, the yuan or renminbi, is slowly growing in influence, along with other currencies, according to the IMF.\nIn 2000, roughly 70% of global foreign exchange reserves were held in US dollars. As of 2021, that figure had fallen to just under 60%.\nMeanwhile, the IMF noted that there is a rise in \u201cnontraditional currencies\u201d from smaller countries being held in international reserves.\nThe United States has veto power over IMF decisions, and the institution is notorious for acting as an instrument of US political influence.\nEconomist Michael Hudson has explained that \u201cthe IMF was created as an arm of US foreign policy,\u201d and that Washington has historically weaponized the fund \u201cto use debt leverage to force other countries to impose austerity on their populations, and to essentially say we will control what government you have, because if your government does something that the United States officials don\u2019t like, we\u2019re just going to raid your currency, force of austerity on you, and you\u2019ll be voted out of power.\u201d\nThe IMF has helped maintain the US dollar as the de facto global reserve currency since the fund was created in the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement.\nHudson showed in his book \u201cSuper Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire\u201d that Washington has used the power of this global reserve currency status to essentially make other countries pay for its wars.\nBut the dollar\u2019s power is eroding, and even the IMF has begun to publicly acknowledge this fact.\nThe International Monetary Fund published a working paper on March 24 titled \u201cThe Stealth Erosion of Dollar Dominance: Active Diversifiers and the Rise of Nontraditional Reserve Currencies.\u201d\nThe report documents \u201ca decline in the dollar share of international reserves since the turn of the century,\u201d with central banks around the world increasingly diversifying their holdings.\nThe study notes that this \u201cdecline in the dollar\u2019s share has not been accompanied by an increase in the shares of the pound sterling, yen and euro, other long-standing reserve currencies and units that, along with the dollar, have historically comprised the IMF\u2019s Special Drawing Rights.\u201d\nInstead, \u201cthe shift out of dollars has been in two directions: a quarter into the Chinese renminbi, and three quarters into the currencies of smaller countries that have played a more limited role as reserve currencies.\u201d\nThe researchers describe this \u201cevolution of the international reserve system in the last 20 years\u201d as a \u201cgradual movement away from the dollar.\u201d\n\nThe IMF working paper explained that\u00a0\u201cthe decline in the dollar\u2019s share has been matched by a rise in the share of what we refer to as nontraditional reserve currencies, defined as currencies other than the US dollar, euro, Japanese yen and British pound sterling.\u201d\nIn addition to the Chinese yuan, some of these \u201cnontraditional currencies\u201d that are becoming more prominent include the Canadian dollar, Australian dollar, Korean won, Singapore dollar, and Swedish krona.\nIn 2000, more than 98% of international foreign exchange reserves were held in the \u201cbig four\u201d hegemonic currencies: the US dollar, euro, Japanese yen, and British pound. Less than 2% of reserves were held in what the IMF calls \u201cnontraditional currencies.\u201d\nBut as of 2021, the share of nontraditional currencies had shot up to 10% \u2013 and there is every indication that this figure will only keep growing.\n\nThe IMF report noted that this \u201cshift is broad based,\u201d identifying 46 central banks that have been diversifying their holdings with nontraditional currencies.\nThe euro is unlikely to challenge US dollar hegemony. The article pointed out that the \u201ceuro has gained little ground as a reserve currency since its creation in 1999,\u201d remaining relatively static at around 20% of global reserves.\nYet \u201cwhile the renminbi has gained some ground, it remains leagues behind the dollar as a form of international reserves,\u201d the researchers added, on a cautious note.\nThe working paper was authored by Barry Eichengreen, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, along with IMF economists Chima Simpson-Bell and Serkan Arslanalp.\nTheir study concludes that, while the dominance of the US dollar is far from over, and certainly will not end overnight, its power is waning.\nA top official at the International Monetary Fund made remarks reflecting this historic shift, in a report by the Financial Times, titled \u201cRussia sanctions threaten to chip away at dominance of US dollar, says IMF.\u201d\nThe mainstream British newspaper interviewed the IMF\u2019s first deputy managing director, Gita Gopinath, and wrote that the crushing Western sanctions imposed on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, \u201cincluding restrictions on its central bank, could encourage the emergence of small currency blocs based on trade between separate groups of countries.\u201d\nThe senior IMF official conceded that \u201cfragmentation at a smaller level is certainly quite possible,\u201d although she added that the US \u201cdollar would remain the major global currency even in that landscape.\u201d\nRussia sanctions threaten to chip away at dominance of US dollar, says IMF https://t.co/D0qtv9rlrr\n\u2014 FT Economics (@fteconomics) March 31, 2022\n\nThe IMF executive acknowledged that the world \u201cmight see some slow-moving trends towards other currencies playing a bigger role [in reserve assets]\u201d held by countries\u2019 central banks.\n\u201cWe are already seeing that with some countries renegotiating the currency in which they get paid for trade,\u201d Gopinath added.\nWestern sanctions on Russia \u2013 one of the world\u2019s largest exporters of oil, gas, wheat, and fertilizers \u2013 have forced Moscow\u2019s trading partners to seek alternative payment mechanisms.\nDespite the sanctions, the European Union still gets 40% of its natural gas from Russia. And the Kremlin has demanded that Europe pay for this gas in Russian rubles.\nRussia\u2019s demand that the European Union pay for its gas exports in rubles could shake up the global economy, undermining Western sanctions and forcing Europe to decide if it truly wants to be independent from the US.\nImportant analysis by @bidetmarxmanhttps://t.co/pIvWWXkXXp\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 25, 2022\n\nChina and Russia have also moved toward boosting their bilateral trade in each other\u2019s currencies.\nWestern sanctions pushed Russian financial institutions, including both state-owned and private banks, to encourage clients to open accounts in Chinese yuan.\nBangladesh has said it is considering using yuan to evade sanctions and continue trading with Russia.\nEven India, which has a right-wing, pro-US government, has created an alternative payment mechanism using rupees and rubles, to get around Washington\u2019s sanctions.\nThe IMF has been careful, however, not to overstate the drop in US dollar holdings in international reserves.\nGopinath, the IMF official, predicted that \u201cthe dollar\u2019s dominance will stay for a while.\u201d\nWhile US dollar hegemony is not going to suddenly disappear, it is facing more and more challengers.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: The US is already preparing for its next war: on China. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, David Petraeus, Foreign Policy magazine, Japan, NATO, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine", "output": "While the US and NATO wage a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, military strategists and pundits in Washington have set their sights on China.\n\n(This article was first published at Danny Haiphong\u2019s Substack blog. You can subscribe here.)\nRussia\u2019s military operation in Ukraine is approaching its first birthday, in February 2023. Top military brass in Russia have long declared that the conflict is not between Russia and Ukraine, but rather Russia and NATO.\u00a0Simply put, Ukraine is a pawn in another U.S. war.\nEurope\u2019s economy and military have been sacrificed on the altar of U.S. warmongering toward Russia. Winter is here, and Ukraine\u2019s prospects for getting out of the conflict with anything resembling \u201cvictory\u201d have dissipated, if they ever really existed at all.\nSuch has been admitted by two of the foreign-policy establishment\u2019s most criminal members: Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates. In an op-ed with the Washington Post, Rice and Gates argue that\u00a0time is not on Ukraine\u2019s side. The U.S. must act fast or watch Ukraine suffer eventual defeat.\nOpinion by former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and former defense secretary Robert M. Gates: Time is not on Ukraine\u2019s side https://t.co/TqoP9sXwsv\n\u2014 The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 7, 2023\n\nOf course, for neoconservative hawks like Rice and Gates, a negotiated settlement is simply out of the question. The only option for the U.S. political and military establishment is to fortify Ukraine with the heaviest military equipment such as armored tanks to ensure victory on the battlefield.\nAs geopolitical analyst Brian Berletic has noted, a major problem stands in the way of Rice and Gates\u2019s demand: NATO is running out of weapons.\nThe U.S. produces about 30,000 rounds per year for its 155 mm Howitzer long-range systems, a number that Ukraine uses in just two weeks of fighting Russia on the front lines.\nRussian missile strikes have made quick work of heavier equipment such as the vaunted HIMARS systems.\nOnly larger NATO states like the U.S. and Germany have anything left to provide.\nSo when Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky came to Congress begging for more weapons, he was likely disappointed in\u00a0Joe Biden\u2019s remark\u00a0that the U.S. was not going to make promises to arm Ukraine with anything that could possibly lead to a World War III scenario between NATO and Russia.\nRussia\u2019s critical victory in the city of Soledar has only intensified concerns among a major faction in the foreign policy establishment that Ukraine is depleting the U.S.\u2019s capacity to wage war elsewhere.\nIn this regard, no other matter of U.S. \u201cnational security\u201d is more important than China.\nThe RAND Corporation, a research arm of the Pentagon, has called China a \u201cpeer\u201d competitor and the U.S.\u2019s greatest long-term threat.\nJoe Biden\u2019s Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has also called China\u00a0the greatest threat\u00a0to the U.S.\u2019s \u201csecurity.\u201d\nThe Biden administration unveiled a new defense strategy, casting China as the greatest danger to American security and calling for an urgent, concerted effort to build the military capabilities to deter Beijing in the decades to come https://t.co/aD8reqtEzT\n\u2014 The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) October 27, 2022\n\nNATO labeled China a \u201cmalicious actor\u201d in the alliance\u2019s latest\u00a0Strategic Concept document, and pledged to play a larger role in curbing the so-called \u201cthreats\u201d presented by its rise.\nA series published just after the new year in Foreign Policy, however, has blown the lid off of any subtleties to the U.S.\u2019s preparations for a war with China.\nTitled \u201cLessons for the Next War,\u201d the series features 12 essays from all corners of the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. Contributors include former Obama-era CIA director and US army commander David Petraeus, former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and former Under Secretary of State and Trump-era NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller.\nAlso included are representatives from a litany of hawkish think tanks, such as the US government-funded Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).\nAccuracy and precision in battlefield sensors and munitions have shaped the war in Ukraine. This offers important implications for the Taiwan Strait, @Mauro_Gilli writes in FP's Winter 2023 issue. https://t.co/F4VffhCtZU pic.twitter.com/jZNhVx22sP\n\u2014 Foreign Policy (@ForeignPolicy) January 17, 2023\n\nTheir essays cover 12 areas of economic, cyber, military, diplomatic, and propaganda warfare. An important thread runs through each contribution: Russia has failed in Ukraine (a fabrication mixed with imperial hubris), making the present moment a perfect opportunity to prepare for an upcoming war in Taiwan against China.\nForeign Policy\u2019s chief editor Stefan Theil makes the aim of the series quite clear:\nDrawing the right lessons from the first 10 months of the Russian invasion, then, not only matters for the survival of Ukraine. It is also vital for deterring and preventing a future conflict\u2014and, if necessary, fighting one. The most obvious potential hot spot and one that involves even greater stakes is, of course, Taiwan.\nBeyond repetitive lip service to \u201cdeterrence,\u201d contributors make concrete suggestions on the best means to wage war with China. David Petraeus\u2019s co-authored piece asserts that (all emphasis added):\nUkraine points to the imperative for the United States and its Indo-Pacific allies to prioritize the near-term ability to field large numbers of relatively inexpensive, highly mobile anti-ship and anti-air missiles that can be dispersed and maneuvered throughout the first and second island chains against Beijing\u2019s increasingly formidable naval and air forces. Large quantities of unmanned air, sea, and ground systems can amplify these missiles in the U.S. order of battle.\nIn other words, the U.S.\u2019s record $858 billion military budget needs to grow even larger to meet the challenge of China.\nPetraeus was directly responsible for targeting weddings and civilian areas\u00a0during his time leading U.S. forces in Afghanistan, giving him first-hand knowledge of the capabilities of the U.S.\u2019s military arsenal.\nThe principles of anti-access/area denial strategy to deter and, if necessary, defeat aggression, used to great effect in Ukraine, are equally applicable in the Western Pacific, David Petraeus and Vance Serchuk write in FP's Winter 2023 issue. https://t.co/qWEwbztmSt pic.twitter.com/3igsK84Apr\n\u2014 Foreign Policy (@ForeignPolicy) January 16, 2023\n\nFormer Obama-era NATO Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen backs up Petraeus\u2019s emphasis on pumping weapons into Taiwan, stating:\nweapons are what counts . . . With the help of its partners [Taiwan] must become a porcupine bristling with armaments to deter any possible attempt to take it by force. China must calculate that the cost of an invasion is simply too high to bear.\nHowever,\u00a0Foreign Policy\u2019s war stenographers clarify that preparing for war with China is about much more than weapons.\nMaria Shagina, research fellow on sanctions at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a bellicose think tank funded by the weapons industry and State Department, argues that the U.S. and its allies should devise a coherent plan of \u201ceconomic statecraft\u201d against China as soon as possible.\nElisabeth Braw of the Carlyle Group-funded right-wing American Enterprise Institute\u00a0proposes that the U.S. and its allies secure control over the information airwaves to ensure citizens \u201cknow exactly what to look for\u201d from so-called \u201csubversive\u201d state and non-state actors that counter U.S. and NATO talking points.\nOf course, these so-called \u201cpreparations\u201d are already underway. The U.S. spends hundreds of millions in its information war against China, and it recently banned Chinese semiconductor exports to compliment an already wide-ranging economic war on China.\nForeign Policy\u2019s \u201cLessons for the Next War\u201d was part of a flurry indications that the U.S. foreign policy establishment is preparing for war with China.\nTwo days following\u00a0Foreign Policy\u2019s series, top U.S. General in Japan James Bierman made the stunning admission in the Financial Times\u00a0that U.S. is \u201csetting the theater of war\u201d by goading China into a Ukraine-style war over Taiwan.\nUS military deepens ties with Japan and Philippines to prepare for China threat https://t.co/5hZaenqwif\n\u2014 Financial Times (@FT) January 8, 2023\n\nThe next day, the Center for Strategic and International Studies\u00a0(CSIS) released a war simulation between the U.S. and China over Taiwan. Predictably, the U.S. government concluded that Chinese efforts to invade the island would fail at a great cost to the militaries of all parties.\nIn May 2022, The Center for New American Security (CNAS), which is principally funded by military contractors, showcased its own war simulation on NBC\u2019s\u00a0Meet the Press.\nBack in February 2022, the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force joined the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force in conducting joint military exercises, known as Noble Fusion, in the Philippine Sea.\nThe US and Japan in the Noble Fusion military exercise in the Philippine Sea in February 2022\nIt\u2019s important to note that U.S. war preparations with China have little do with Taiwan specifically. They\u2019re a response to imperial decline and the rise of China and Russia.\nBeijing and Moscow both present their own specific challenges to Washington\u2019s hegemony.\nRussia\u2019s growing sovereignty and political independence from the U.S.-led West has undermined the Wolfowitz Doctrine\u00a0of full-spectrum dominance over all territory of the former Soviet Union.\nChina\u2019s massive socialist-led market economy is set to surpass the U.S.\u2019s stagnant finance capitalist system\u00a0in GDP terms by 2035.\nWorse for the U.S. is that Russia and China have grown closer together.\nIn economic terms, the Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership has grown by leaps and bounds since the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation was established in 2001. Bilateral trade is expected to increase by 25% and reach a total volume of $200 billion ahead of the 2024 target date.\nSurging economic ties with China have given Russia further protection from U.S.-E.U. sanctions, with agricultural and energy exports to China increasing by the month.\nChina and Russia have also increased coordination on matters of military coordination, color revolutions, and diplomacy in the face of a common threat: U.S. imperialism.\nBut perhaps the biggest threat to U.S. hegemony resides in China and Russia\u2019s leadership in the global movement for integration and de-dollarization.\nChina and Russia are the principle leaders of multilateral institutions such as BRICS+ mechanism and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.\nThese multilateral institutions set out to strengthen investment in all sectors of economic and social development between participating countries, especially in the realm of finance.\nIn response to starvation sanctions imposed by the U.S. and E.U., and predatory loans from Western financial institutions, BRICS+ has united the largest Global South economies, uniting Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa in an effort to develop an alternative to the U.S. dollar-dominated neoliberal economic system.\nThe strength of BRICS+ grew immensely in 2022. Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iran, Argentina, and several other countries expressed interest in or applied\u00a0to join BRICS+.\nBRICS+ is complimented by China and Russia\u2019s own integration projects which aim to develop the infrastructure necessary to break free from the petrodollar.\nThe \u201cvirtual group photo\u201d taken at the 14th BRICS summit in 2022\nChina\u2019s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) sports major cooperation agreements with more than 140 countries and consists of at least 2,000 development initiatives, many of which are completed or under construction.\nTalks of possibly merging the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the BRI are already underway.\nThe same forces preparing for war with China have expressed deep concern about the future of the dollar amid growing Eurasian integration.\nForeign Policy\u00a0admitted in its marathon 12-essay series that U.S. sanctions have led China to pursue alternatives to the dollar with its trading partners.\nZoltan Pozsar, an economist and former strategist at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, recently sounded the alarm\u00a0about what he termed \u201cBRICSpansion\u201d and the potential of China, Russia, Iran, and the Global South uniting around a new currency system backed by the wealth of commodities in their possession.\nPozsar warns of \u201ccommodity encumbrance,\u201d or the growing possibility that resource-rich nations like Russia will use their commodities as collateral to increase reserves of credit and financing.\nThe interest that\u00a0China and Saudi Arabia have shown in trading oil in Chinese yuan, Russia\u2019s pursuit of an international reserve currency, and the idea of \u201cBRICS coin\u201d are presented as major threats to Western financial dominance.\nThe U.S.\u2019s answer to fading imperial hegemony is war \u2013 and more of it.\nWar is an inherent feature of predatory neoliberalism, where corporations seek favorable conditions to exploit and plunder the planet\u2019s laboring classes and resources.\nWar is also a permanent, and very profitable, industry dominated by a tiny few military contractors.\nThe ruling elite has calculated that U.S. imperialism cannot compete with China and Russia, making the rise of both an existential threat to the future of U.S.-led neoliberalism and imperialism.\nThis sentiment has been expressed by NATO\u2019s Atlantic Council think tank, and in the U.S.\u2019s successive national security strategies of \u201cGreat Power\u201d and \u201cStrategic\u201d Competition.\nThat U.S. foreign-policy strategists and experts are planning for the next war should come as no surprise.\nU.S. imperialism does not target singular \u201cenemies\u201d; it targets alternative development models and the nations attempting to build them.\nAs Henry Kissinger said, the United States \u201chas no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.\u201d\nThe Ukraine proxy war is thus a testing ground for the larger U.S. agenda of imperial expansion.\nA common condition of peace and prosperity for humanity will depend in large part on undermining of this agenda, particularly within the citadel of imperialism: the United States.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US waging \u2018unilateral\u2019 economic and tech war to halt China\u2019s rise, DC insiders say openly. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, China, Joe Biden, Jon Bateman, technology", "output": "The Biden administration\u2019s aggressive sanctions aim to \u201ckneecap\u201d China\u2019s tech sector. A former Pentagon official acknowledged it is a \u201cdisproportionate\u201d and \u201cunilateral\u201d attack, a \u201cform of economic containment.\u201d\n\nThe US government has imposed aggressive sanctions that aim to \u201ckneecap\u201d China\u2019s tech sector and halt the country\u2019s rise, Washington policymakers and industry analysts have admitted.\nThe Joe Biden administration took the extraordinarily aggressive action this October of blocking China from importing most semiconductors, machines to create chips, and supercomputer parts.\n\nA former Pentagon official acknowledged that this was a \u201cdisproportionate\u201d and \u201cunilateral\u201d attack, amounting to a \u201cform of economic containment.\u201d\nHe said this in an article in Foreign Policy, the magazine of the DC political class, titled \u201cBiden Is Now All-In on Taking Out China.\u201d\nJon Bateman, an ex analyst for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who served in several important policy roles in the Pentagon, wrote that US officials have \u201cimposed disproportionate measures\u201d and \u201cstrong-armed others into compliance.\u201d\nWashington\u2019s \u201cmindset all but guarantees a continued march toward broad-based technological decoupling,\u201d he concluded.\nBateman stated that the \u201cincreasing boldness of U.S. unilateral actions, and Washington\u2019s open embrace of a quasi-containment strategy\u201d reflect the US government\u2019s new cold war goal: \u201cChina\u2019s technological rise will be slowed at any price.\u201d\nToday, Bateman is a senior fellow in the technology and international affairs program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a powerful DC-based think tank that helps Washington craft policy \u2013 with plentiful funding from the US government, its allies, large corporations and banks, and billionaire oligarch family foundations.\nBateman is by no means a pro-China advocate. In April, he published a report for Carnegie called \u201cU.S.-China Technological \u2018Decoupling\u2019: A Strategy and Policy Framework.\u201d\nIn the lengthy document, Bateman \u201coffered a concrete picture of what centrist decoupling might look like and how implementation could work at the agency level.\u201d\nBateman wrote the Foreign Policy article as part of a debate with more hard-line hawks in elite Washington policy-making circles. He warned that their \u201cmaximalist\u201d strategy could backfire and hurt the US and its allies, and instead promoted a more cautious, incrementalist approach.\n\n\u201cAmerica\u2019s restrictionists\u2014zero-sum thinkers who urgently want to accelerate technological decoupling\u2014have won the strategy debate inside the Biden administration,\u201d he warned.\n\u201cMore cautious voices\u2014technocrats and centrists who advocate incremental curbs on select aspects of China\u2019s tech ties\u2014have lost,\u201d Bateman lamented.\nHe acknowledged that Washington\u2019s new cold war on China has been completely bipartisan, but \u201cDonald Trump\u2019s scattershot regulation and erratic public statements offered little clarity to allies, adversaries, and companies around the world,\u201d whereas \u201cJoe Biden\u2019s actions have been more systematic.\u201d\n\u201cThe United States has waged low-grade economic warfare against China for at least four years now\u2014firing volley after volley of tariffs, export controls, investment blocks, visa limits, and much more,\u201d he wrote.\nBateman said the Biden administration\u2019s new sanctions, however, \u201cmore so than any earlier U.S. action, reveal a single-minded focus on thwarting Chinese capabilities at a broad and fundamental level.\u201d\n\u201cAlthough framed as a national security measure, the primary damage to China will be economic, on a scale well out of proportion to Washington\u2019s cited military and intelligence concerns,\u201d he wrote.\nHe added, \u201cThe U.S. government imposed the new rules after limited consultation with partner countries and companies, proving that its quest to hobble China ranks well above concerns about the diplomatic or economic repercussions.\u201d\nBateman noted that the United States is trying to pressure allies to join its new cold war on China, leading an international campaign to economically isolate Beijing by building a \u201cChip 4\u201d alliance with South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan \u2013 which control the vast majority of the global semiconductor industry.\nWith the announcement of new export control policies, the Biden administration has made its stance clear: China\u2019s technological rise will be slowed at any price. https://t.co/74dKlNkFUp\n\u2014 Foreign Policy (@ForeignPolicy) October 14, 2022\n\nBateman\u2019s fears that these aggressive new cold war policies could backfire have already come true. Washington\u2019s rapid attempt to decouple the US economy from China is taking a\u00a0toll on US universities.\nAt least 1,400 scientists of Chinese descent have left US research institutions and instead gone to China, according to a report published this October by academics at Harvard, Princeton, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).\nThe South China Morning Post reported that the \u201chigh number illustrates a \u2018chilling effect\u2019 resulting from US government policies deterring research and academic activity by scientists of Chinese descent and suggests American research could suffer.\u201d\nAt least 1,400 US-based ethnic Chinese scientists exited American institutions for mainland: study https://t.co/aZd576RCJV\n\u2014 South China Morning Post (@SCMPNews) October 19, 2022\n\nThe tech press has sounded similar alarm bells about Washington\u2019s bellicose attacks on Beijing.\nElectronics industry website EE Times quoted a corporate analyst who said the US \u201csanctions put a temporary checkmate on China developing their foundry industry at more advanced nodes.\u201d\nThe website\u00a0also used cold war rhetoric to refer to the aggressive US policies, writing:\nThe latest U.S. salvo in the chip war against China will set back its domestic chipmakers by generations, while global suppliers of semiconductors and fab tools will incur billions of dollars in lost sales because of a giant dent in demand out of China, analysts told EE Times.\nThe administration of U.S. President Joe Biden has strengthened Cold War measures from longer than 40 years ago. In its new rivalry, the U.S. aims to freeze China\u2019s advancement on a new front: chip technology that is critical for economic development and military superiority.\n#NewArticle: Biden Administration\u2019s escalation of the #chipwar with #China is expected to at once hamper China\u2019s foundry industry and cost multinational #chipmakers billions of dollars in lost sales.\u27a1\ufe0f Read now: https://t.co/KxRPZ0CXaz\n\u2014 EE Times | Electronic Engineering Times (@eetimes) October 24, 2022\n\nWired magazine came to the same conclusion, reporting that the US sanctions aimed to \u201ckneecap\u201d China\u2019s tech industry.\nWired said\u00a0Washington\u2019s \u201csweeping new controls are designed to keep [China\u2019s] AI industry stuck in the dark ages while the US and other Western countries advance.\u201d\nThe tech magazine quoted Gregory Allen, director of the AI governance project at the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), an influential neoconservative think tank in DC that is bankrolled by the weapons industry, US government, and Washington\u2019s allies.\nAllen summed it up:\u00a0\u201cThe United States is saying to China, \u2018AI technology is the future; we and our allies are going there\u2014and you can\u2019t come.\u2019\u201d\nThe Biden administration\u2019s new export restrictions forbid companies from exporting advanced chips needed to train or run the most powerful AI algorithms to China. https://t.co/KgNbIcMVKn\n\u2014 WIRED (@WIRED) October 12, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Invocando la Doctrina Monroe, diputado de EEUU dice que Argentina es una \u2018amenaza\u2019, tras sus acuerdos con China. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Alberto Fern\u00e1ndez, Argentina, China, Doctrina Monroe, Matt Gaetz, Rusia, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping", "output": "El congresista derechista Matt Gaetz, un aliado de Donald Trump, calific\u00f3 a Argentina como una \u201camenaza\u201d para la \u201cseguridad\u201d de EEUU, y se quej\u00f3 de que su alianza con China desaf\u00eda la colonialista Doctrina Monroe.\n\n(You can read this article in English here.)\nUn influyente diputado estadounidense invoc\u00f3 la colonialista Doctrina Monroe en el pleno del Congreso y calific\u00f3 a Argentina de \u201camenaza\u201d debido a su alianza con China.\nEl congresista republicano Matt Gaetz, un aliado clave del ex presidente Donald Trump, dijo en un discurso en la C\u00e1mara de Representantes el 7 de febrero que existe una \u201camenaza significativa para nuestra naci\u00f3n que se acelera r\u00e1pidamente cerca de casa\u201d.\n\u201cArgentina, una naci\u00f3n y econom\u00eda importante en las Am\u00e9ricas, acaba de unirse al Partido Comunista Chino al sumarse a la Iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta\u201d, declar\u00f3 Gaetz.\nInvocando la colonialista Doctrina Monroe, el congresista derechista Matt Gaetz, un aliado de Donald Trump, calific\u00f3 a Argentina como una \u201camenaza\u201d para la \u201cseguridad\u201d de EEUU, debido a su alianza con China.\nLea m\u00e1s aqu\u00ed: https://t.co/AWRPXrh6IP pic.twitter.com/2fzI6IhUui\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 8, 2022\n\nEl legislador de la Florida estaba reaccionando a la noticia de que el presidente de Argentina, Alberto Fern\u00e1ndez, visit\u00f3 Mosc\u00fa y Beijing para reunirse con los mandatarios Vladimir Putin y Xi Jinping el 3 y 6 de febrero, respectivamente.\nAl explicar sus viajes, Fern\u00e1ndez dijo, \u201cArgentina tiene que dejar de tener esa dependencia tan grande que tiene con el FMI y los Estados Unidos, y tiene que abrirse camino hacia otros lados\u201d.\nArgentina se sum\u00f3 a la campa\u00f1a de infraestructura internacional de Beijing, la Iniciativa de la Franja y la Ruta, y China le ofreci\u00f3 a la naci\u00f3n sudamericana $23.700 millones de d\u00f3lares en inversiones y proyectos de infraestructura. Mosc\u00fa se comprometi\u00f3 de manera similar a fortalecer los lazos pol\u00edticos y econ\u00f3micos con lo que llam\u00f3 \u201cuno de los socios claves de Rusia en Am\u00e9rica Latina\u201d.\nArgentina est\u00e1 atrapada con $44 mil millones de deuda odiosa del FMI.\nBuscando alternativas a la hegemon\u00eda de EEUU, el presidente Alberto Fern\u00e1ndez viaj\u00f3 a Rusia y China, formando nuevas alianzas y incorpor\u00e1ndose a la Iniciativa de la Franja y la Rutahttps://t.co/h7Eg59LRjM\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) February 6, 2022\n\nEl representante Matt Gaetz describi\u00f3 con enojo los crecientes v\u00ednculos de Argentina con China como \u201cun desaf\u00edo directo a la Doctrina Monroe\u201d.\nLa Doctrina Monroe, que data de 1823, fue un mensaje a los colonialistas europeos de que Estados Unidos considera a Am\u00e9rica Latina como su propio territorio colonial.\nHace dos siglos, el secretario de estado John Quincy Adams cre\u00f3 la doctrina, y el presidente James Monroe la convirti\u00f3 en pol\u00edtica de gobierno, insistiendo en que EEUU no intervendr\u00eda en las esferas de influencia de las potencias coloniales europeas mientras reconocieran que Centroam\u00e9rica y Sudam\u00e9rica eran parte de la esfera de influencia imperial de Washington.\nEsta actitud de que Latinoam\u00e9rica es propiedad colonial de EEUU sigue muy viva hoy en d\u00eda, y es completamente bipartidista en Washington.\nVarios altos funcionarios de la administraci\u00f3n de Donald Trump invocaron la Doctrina Monroe para justificar su intento de golpe en Venezuela, incluido el ex director de la CIA y secretario de estado, Mike Pompeo, m\u00e1s el asesor de seguridad nacional, John Bolton.\nEste enero, el presidente Joe Biden se hizo eco de la ret\u00f3rica colonial de la Doctrina Monroe al referirse a Am\u00e9rica Latina como el \u201cpatio delantero\u201d de Washington.\nSi bien Matt Gaetz, al igual que su mentor pol\u00edtico Donald Trump, a veces critica de manera oportunista a otras facciones de derecha como los \u201cneoconservadores\u201d, propone una pol\u00edtica exterior imperialista igualmente agresiva.\nUna constante en pr\u00e1cticamente todos los discursos de Gaetz es su demonizaci\u00f3n obsesiva de China. Aboga firmemente por una nueva guerra fr\u00eda para contener a la superpotencia asi\u00e1tica.\nMientras muchos neoconservadores e intervencionistas liberales quieren una pol\u00edtica agresiva contra Rusia, el mensaje de Gaetz es esencialmente que China es la verdadera amenaza para Estados Unidos, no el Kremlin, y que Washington deber\u00eda buscar la guerra con Beijing en lugar de la guerra con Mosc\u00fa.\nEn su discurso ante el Congreso, en el que declar\u00f3 a Argentina como una \u201camenaza\u201d, Gaetz reiter\u00f3 este tema y afirm\u00f3 que \u201cChina es una potencia en ascenso. Rusia es una potencia en declive. Concentr\u00e9monos, para que no nos unamos a ellos en ese destino eventual\u201d.\nGaetz, que representa el Panhandle del noroeste de Florida, se uni\u00f3 a la administraci\u00f3n Trump para apoyar firmemente el intento de golpe de estado en Venezuela.\nEl legislador republicano tambi\u00e9n pide con frecuencia el derrocamiento del gobierno de Cuba, mientras difunde noticias falsas que afirman que \u201clos matones venezolanos, con algunos rusos, ahora son \u2018escuadrones de la muerte\u2019 que recorren los hogares. Est\u00e1n masacrando adultos y secuestrando ni\u00f1os\u201d.\nGaetz est\u00e1 estrechamente relacionado con la extrema derecha. En 2018, invit\u00f3 a un notorio bloguero nacionalista blanco, que ha promovido el revisionismo del Holocausto, al discurso del estado de la uni\u00f3n de Trump.\nAdem\u00e1s de su pol\u00edtica extremista, Gaetz ha sido investigado por las autoridades estadounidenses por el presunto tr\u00e1fico sexual de una ni\u00f1a de 17 a\u00f1os.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: After Ukraine, US readies \u2018transnational kill chain\u2019 for Taiwan proxy war. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, Link 16, Russia, Taiwan, Ukraine", "output": "Washington approved the dangerous sale of the Link 16 communications system to Taiwan. This is the final link of what the US military calls a \u201ctransnational coalition kill chain\u201d against China, and signals a commitment to kinetic war.\n\nIn many traditions, when you paint or sculpt a Buddha, the eyes are the very last to be painted. It\u2019s only after the eyes have been completed that the sculpture is fully alive and empowered.\nThe United States has approved a $75 million weapons package to Taiwan province, involving the sale of the Link 16 communications system.\nThe\u00a0acquisition of Link 16 is analogous to \u201cpainting the eyes on the Buddha\u201d: a last touch, it makes Taiwan\u2019s military systems and weapons platforms live and far-seeing.\nIt confers deadly powers, or more prosaically, in the words of the US military, it completes Taiwan as the final, lethal link of what the US Naval Institute calls a \u201ctransnational coalition kill chain\u201d, for war against China.\nWhat exactly is Link 16? It is a key system in the US military communications arsenal. Specifically, it\u2019s the jam-resistant tactical data network for coordinating NATO weapons systems for joint operations in war.\nIf this sale is completed, it signals serious, granular, and single-minded commitment to kinetic war. It would signal that the Biden administration is as serious and unwavering in its desire to provoke and wage large-scale war with China over Taiwan as it was with Russia over Ukraine, which also saw the implementation of this system.\nMore important than any single weapons platform, this system allows the Taiwan/ROC military to integrate and coordinate all its warfighting platforms with US, NATO, Japanese, Korean, Australian militaries in combined arms warfare.\nLink 16 would be the deadliest piece of technology yet to be transferred, because it allows sea, air, and land forces to be coordinated with others for lethal effect.\nIt permits, for example, strategic nuclear/stealth bombers\u00a0 (US B-1B Lancers, B-2 Spirits) to coordinate with electronic warfare and surveillance platforms\u00a0 (EA Growlers, Prowlers, EP-3s), fighters and bombers (F-16,F-22, F-35s) as well as conduct joint arms warfare with US, French, British carrier battle groups, Japanese SDF destroyers, and South Korean Hyun Moo missile destroyers, as well as THAAD and Patriot radars and missile batteries.\nIt also allows coordination with low-earth orbit satellites and other Space Force assets.\nIn other words, Link 16 supplies a brain and nervous system to the various deadly limbs and arms that the Taiwan authorities have been acquiring and preparing on the prompting of the US. It ensures interoperability and US control.\nIt effectively prepares Taiwan to be used as the spear tip and trigger of a multinational war offensive against China.\nTo give a shoe-on-the-other-foot analogy, this would be like China giving separatists in a US territory or state (e.g. Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, Texas) not just arms and training \u2013 already a belligerent act of war, which the US is currently doing \u2013 but connecting insurgent militaries directly to the PLA\u2019s surveillance, reconnaissance, and command/control systems.\nThis coordinates and completes, to borrow the words of the US Naval Institute (USNI), the final link in a \u201ctransnational coalition kill chain\u201d\u00a0for war.\nThe current US doctrine of war against China is based on distributed,\u00a0dispersed,\u00a0diffused, network-centric warfare to be conducted along the myriad islands of the archipelagic states encircling China in the Pacific.\nThese are the \u201cisland chains\u201d upon which the US has encircled and sown dragon\u2019s teeth: tens of thousands of troops armed with mobile attack platforms and missiles.\nThis is to be coordinated with subsurface warfare, automated/autonomous warfare, and longer-range stand-off weapons and attacks.\nPowerful think tanks like CSBA, CNAS, CSIS, RAND and the Pentagon have been working out the doctrine, details, logistics, and appropriations for this concept intensively for over a decade while advocating intensely for it.\nThe sale of link 16 to Taiwan realizes and completes a key portion of this, binding the Chinese island as the keystone of this \u201cmultinational kill chain\u201d.\nThis doctrine of dispersion is based on a \u201crock-paper-scissors\u201d concept that networked diffusion \u201coffsets\u201d (Chinese) precision.\nChina\u2019s capacity to defend itself and its littoral perimeter with precision missiles can be undermined with diffuse, distributed attacks from all across the island chains.\nNote that this diffusion and dispersion of attack platforms across the entire Pacific gives the lie to the claim that this is some inherently deterrent strategy to defend Taiwan island. Diffusion is clearly offensive, designed to overrun and overwhelm defenses: like Ukraine, this is not to deter war, but to enable it.\nThis thus signals that aggressive total war against China is being prepared, in granular, lethal fashion on tactical and operational levels.\nOn the strategic level, currently, at the CFR, CNAS, and other influential think tanks in Washington, the talk is all about \u201cprotracted warfare\u201d with China, about pre-positioning systems and munitions for war, about ramping up to an\u00a0industrial war footing\u00a0for\u00a0the inescapable\u00a0necessity of war\u00a0with China.\nThis discussion includes preparations for a nuclear\u00a0first strike\u00a0on China.\nThe US senses that the clock is running rapidly down on its power. If war is inevitable, then it is anxious to start war sooner rather than later.\nRAND warned in 2016 that 2025 was the outside window for the US to prevail in war with China. The \u201cMinihan window\u201d also hints at 2025. The \u201cDavidson window\u201d is 2027.\nThe question in Washington regarding war with China is not if, but when\u2013and how.\nLink 16 makes \u201chow\u201d easier, and brings \u201cwhen\u201d closer.\nThe current administration has hardline Russophobes who want to continue to bleed Russia out in Ukraine. It wants protracted war with Russia. It firmly believes it can wage ambidextrous, multi-front war.\nMany US officials also believe that war with Ukraine and war with China are connected. They see Russia and China as a single axis of \u201crevisionist powers\u201d (i.e., official enemies) conspiring against the US to undermine its so-called \u201crules-based order\u201d (i.e., US hegemony).\nFurthermore, if the US abandons Ukraine, this could weaken the Taiwan authorities\u2019 resolve and willingness to wage war on behalf of Washington.\nEarlier in the war, when Russian gains in Ukraine were uncertain, Bi-khim Louise Hsiao (Taiwan\u2019s current vice-president elect) gloated publicly and prominently that Ukraine\u2019s victories were a message to China, as well as proof-of-concept of an effective doctrine for waging and winning war against China. As such, the Taiwan authorities were and are a major supporter of the Ukraine proxy war.\nBut the converse also holds true. Based on the same premise, if the US abandons and loses Ukraine, it sends a clear message to the people on Taiwan island that they will be the next to be used and abandoned; that their US-imposed war and war doctrine (light, distributed, asymmetrical combined arms warfare) for fighting China is a recipe for catastrophic loss.\nThe US plans on using proxies for war against China: Taiwan, Korea, Japan (JAKUS), Philippines, and Australia (AUKUS). Thus it cannot signal too overtly its perfidious, unreliable, and instrumental mindset.\nWashington has to keep up the pretense. It cannot be seen to overtly lose in or abandon Ukraine. It needs a \u201cdecent interval\u201d, or a plausible pretext to cut and run.\nStill, the US is stretched thin. For example, it is relying on Korean munitions to Ukraine, and South Korea has provided\u00a0more munitions than all of\u00a0the\u00a0EU combined.\nMoreover, the US is currently at war with itself. The fracturing of its body politic can only be unified with a common war against a common enemy. Russia is not that enemy for the US. China is. The Republicans want war with China now.\nEli Ratner and Elbridge Colby have been fretting for years about the need to husband weaponry, arms, and munitions in order to wage war against China.\nSince the outbreak of Ukraine, Ratner has been working hard to pull India into the US defense industry\u2019s supply chain, and claims to have been successful.\nSouth Korea\u2019s considerable military-industrial complex is being pulled into sub-contracting for US war with China.\nSince many of its major Chaebol corporations got their start as subcontractors for the war in Vietnam (for example, Hyundai was a subcontractor for Halliburton/Brown & Root), the Korean economy is simply reverting back to its corporate-martial roots.\nSouth Korea\u2019s economy is currently tanking due to US-forced sanctions on China. Major Korean electronic firms have lost 60 to 80%\u00a0of their profits due to US-imposed\u00a0chip sanctions.\nUnder those conditions, military manufacturing and/or subcontracting looks to be the only way forward.\nIn this way, the US is forcing a war economy onto its vassals.\nFurthermore, US aid to Ukraine benefits its own arms industry.\nThe business of the US is war. Not only do existing US arms companies gain, but also the entire tech industry and supply chain benefits, and is currently re-orienting around this.\nMuch of the US tech industry is seeking to suckle from the government teat, now flowing copiously in preparation for war.\nOn the other hand, the general US economy is not doing well, with massive layoffs, especially in the consumer and business tech sector.\nThe backstop of military Keynesianism, with the integration of think-tank lobbying groups funded by the arms industry with close ties to the administration (such as CNAS, West Exec Advisors, and CSIS) ensure that war is always the closest ready-to-hand resort for tough economic times.\nThe US is simultaneously trying to decouple supply chains, which creates opportunities for US firms (both domestically and subcontracting with US vassals).\nAutomated, AI-enabled warfare will be a key part of this development, as will be dispersed, distributed warfare platforms using proxies such as South Korea and Japan.\nThis fits the existing historical pattern: the history of Western technology shows that technology and machinery have always been developed first for war.\nAfterwards, they become tools of entertainment and distraction, and later productive tools for general industrial use.\nThis pattern goes back to the earliest machines and inventions of the West: the crane, the pulley, the lever, were all military technologies \u2013 machines of war (used in sieges).\nLater they became machines of illusion and distraction (used as stage machinery in Greek theater).\nOnly much later were they applied for general use \u2013 and exploitation \u2013 in manufacture and production.\nThis holds true for many other technologies, including:\nNuclear power obviously derives from nuclear weapons.\nAI, too, from its inception, was conceived for automated battle management, especially to enable second strike after human life had been destroyed.\nAn AI war is already in the works, with US sanctions on AI-related chips and computing, along with an algorithmic race to suppress dissent and critique in the information domain.\nWar and business are intricately related in the west, and war is the first lever pulled when the economy stagnates critically or needs a boost.\nThe US needs to abandon its neoconservative fantasies of hegemonic global empire and retreat gently into that good night, for there to be peace.\nWashington needs to negotiate in good faith with Russia, and begin the process of de-escalating its proxies in Ukraine, as well as in Palestine, and the Pacific.\nIt needs to seek win-win cooperation in a multilateral order based on international law and mutual co-existence, not its own top-down \u201crules-based order\u201d.\nIt needs to respect the One China principle, end its interference in China\u2019s affairs, and stop preparing and provoking war with China.\nHowever, the US ruling class is unwilling to do so. And it has only a few levers left to pull. The military one is the closest and most ready to hand.\nAs Martin Luther King Jr. said, \u201cThe US is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world\u201d.\nLike a drunk at the bar after the final call \u2013 drunk with power \u2013 Washington is determined to go out with a fight.\nThat fight could involve a\u00a0nuclear first strike. Palestine has shown what it will try to get away with: brazen genocide with the whole world watching.\nThe issue is no longer war or peace in Ukraine. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell sees Ukraine as a \u201cunified field\u201d of war with China. He revels in the possibility of a \u201cmagnificent symphony of death\u201d in Asia.\nThe coda, of course, will be a deafening fermata of silence across the entire planet. Unless we stop this insane march to war.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Cold war two: US Secretary of State Blinken announces China containment policy. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Antony Blinken, China, Mike Pompeo, Russia, Xi Jinping", "output": "US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced a new policy of containment and siege of China, to \u201cshape the strategic environment around Beijing.\u201d This is similar to the strategy Washington pursued against the Soviet Union in the first cold war.\n\nThe head of the US State Department has publicly confirmed that Washington is waging a new cold war against China.\nSecretary of State Antony Blinken delivered a historic speech in which he essentially announced a policy of containment and siege of Beijing, similar to the strategy that Washington pursued against the Soviet Union in the first cold war.\n\u201cWe cannot rely on Beijing to change its trajectory. So we will shape the strategic environment around Beijing to advance our vision for an open, inclusive international system,\u201d he said.\n\u201cThe scale and the scope of the challenge posed by the People\u2019s Republic of China will test American diplomacy like nothing we\u2019ve seen before,\u201d he argued.\nBlinken even made implicit military threats against China.\n\u201cPresident Biden has instructed the Department of Defense to hold China as its pacing challenge, to ensure that our military stays ahead\u201d, he said.\nIn order to wage this new cold war, the US State Department announced the creation of a \u201cChina House\u201d, focused specifically on isolating Beijing.\nBlinken made these remarks in a May 26 talk titled \u201cThe Administration\u2019s Approach to the People\u2019s Republic of China,\u201d delivered at George Washington University, a major DC-based college that has a revolving door with the US government.\nThe speech was co-sponsored by the powerful think tank the Asia Society. Blinken praised the organization for \u201cforging closer ties with the countries and people of Asia to try to enhance peace, prosperity, freedom, equality, sustainability.\u201d\nThe Asia Society was founded by billionaire oligarch John D. Rockefeller III, a key political operative with deep ties to US intelligence agencies, who worked closely with the US government and para-state organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations to wage the first cold war on the Soviet Union.\nBlinken\u2019s speech was very similar to one given in July 2020 by Donald Trump\u2019s former CIA director and secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, in which he condemned China as \u201cthe primary challenge today in the free world\u201d and openly called to \u201cchange\u201d the government in Beijing.\nThe central thrust of Blinken\u2019s speech was that, after World War Two, the United States created the global political and economic architecture that governs the world today, and this has allowed Washington to dominate the planet.\nChina, however, now poses a unique challenge to that unipolar US hegemony, he lamented, calling Beijing\u00a0\u201cthe most serious long-term challenge to the international order\u201d.\n\u201cAfter the Second World War,\u201d Blinken said, \u201cwe and our partners [built] the rules-based order.\u201d\nHe described this liberal capitalist \u201crules-based order\u201d as one in which \u201cpeople, ideas, goods, and capital move freely.\u201d\nIn the nearly 7,000-word speech, Blinken reiterated this talking point constantly, using the phrase \u201crules-based international order,\u201d \u201crules-based order,\u201d or \u201cinternational order\u201d nine times.\n\u201cChina is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it,\u201d he declared.\nWith arrogant American exceptionalist rhetoric, Blinken described the United States as \u201cmagical,\u201d and depicted China as a threat to the \u201cmagical\u201d US system and its liberal capitalist order.\n\u201cWe have profound differences with the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Government\u201d, he stressed, adding that the US goal is \u201cto outcompete China in key areas.\u201d\nBlinken\u2019s speech reflected the deep neoliberal ideology of the US government, and showed how its capitalist economic system fundamentally clashes with China\u2019s socialist model.\nThe US secretary of state accused Beijing of supposedly unfairly competing in the \u201crules-based order\u201d because its government intervenes in the economy and implements socialist policies.\n\u201cUnlike U.S. companies and other market-oriented firms, Chinese companies don\u2019t need to make a profit \u2013 they just get another injection of state-owned bank credit when funds are running low,\u201d he complained.\nBlinken harshly condemned China\u2019s socialist policies, while calling for more neoliberal policies to be implemented.\n\u201cWe will push back on market-distorting policies and practices, like subsidies and market access barriers, which China\u2019s government has used for years to gain competitive advantage,\u201d he declared.\nThe top US diplomat claimed that state intervention in the economy is unfair, calling instead for \u201ccompetition\u201d on a \u201clevel playing field\u201d \u2013 ie, one in which corporations dictate policy, not governments.\n\u201cWe\u2019ll compete with China to defend our interests and build our vision for the future,\u201d Blinken asserted.\nHe put a particular emphasis on the technological sector.\u00a0Blinken accused China of \u201cunfair technology and economic practices,\u201d by which he largely meant state intervention to foster their growth.\nThe secretary of state complained that US corporations are heavily regulated in China, and that Beijing puts many restrictions on them.\n\u201cFor too long, Chinese companies have enjoyed far greater access to our markets than our companies have in China\u201d, Blinken grumbled.\nHe lamented that \u201cThe New York Times and Twitter are prohibited for the Chinese people,\u201d that \u201cAmerican companies operating in China have been subject to systematic forced technology transfer,\u201d and that \u201cBeijing strictly limits the number of foreign movies allowed in the Chinese market.\u201d\nIn his speech, Blinken boasted that the United States is building and strengthening a group of \u201callies and partners\u201d in order to challenge China.\nHe mentioned the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad, with Japan, Australia, and India; as well as AUKUS, the US military alliance with the United Kingdom and Australia.\nBlinken likewise bragged of expanding NATO\u2019s imperial sphere of influence into Asia, stating, \u201cwe\u2019re building bridges among our Indo-Pacific and European partners, including by inviting Asian allies to the NATO summit in Madrid next month [in June].\u201d\nHe was specifically referring to Japan and South Korea, which already participated in a meeting in NATO headquarters in April.\nNATO expanding into Asia-Pacific to militarily encircle China as well as Russia\n\n\u201cWe are not looking for conflict or a new Cold War\u201d, Blinken claimed in the speech. But at the same time, he contradicted this reassurance with his calls for containing and besieging China.\nThe US secretary of state also targeted Russia. And he warned about the growing alliance between Beijing and Moscow.\n\u201cPresident Xi and President Putin declared that the friendship between their countries was \u2013 and I quote \u2013 \u2018without limits,'\u201d he cautioned.\nBlinken warned that the Eurasian powers are carrying out joint military exercises.\n\u201cRussian President Vladimir Putin poses a clear and present threat,\u201d he declared.\n\u201cThe foundations of the international order are under serious and sustained challenge\u201d by both China and Russia, Blinken claimed.\nA significant part of Blinken\u2019s speech was dedicated to accusing China of outlandish misdeeds.\nWithout presenting a shred of evidence, he claimed China is committing \u201cgenocide and crimes against humanity\u201d in its Muslim-majority province Xinjiang.\nThis is despite the fact that the State Department\u2019s own lawyers concluded there is insufficient evidence for these hyperbolic allegations.\nBlinken also implicitly reiterated US support for separatist movements in Tibet and Hong Kong, stating, \u201cWe stand together on Tibet, where the authorities continue to wage a brutal campaign against Tibetans and their culture, language, and religious traditions, and in Hong Kong, where the Chinese Communist Party has imposed harsh anti-democratic measures under the guise of national security.\u201d\nIn a deeply hypocritical diatribe, Blinken claimed China had \u201cperfected mass surveillance,\u201d while making no mention of NSA mass spying.\nBlinken accused Beijing of \u201charming workers and companies in the United States,\u201d without acknowledging the rampant abuse of workers by Amazon, Uber, Walmart, and other US corporations.\nThe top US diplomat even went so far as to attack China for \u201cstanding with governments that brazenly violate\u201d sovereignty and territorial integrity, while completely ignoring US support for Israeli colonialism against Palestinians, the Saudi and Emirati war on Yemen, or the invasion and occupation of Syria by NATO member Turkey, let alone the US wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Somalia.\nHinting at the debunked myth of \u201cdebt-trap diplomacy,\u201d Blinken fearmongered about economic agreements that countries have made with China, stating, \u201cWe\u2019ve heard firsthand about buyer\u2019s remorse that these deals can leave behind\u201d.\n\u201cUnder President Xi, the ruling Chinese Communist Party has become more repressive at home and more aggressive abroad,\u201d he claimed.\nAntony Blinken\u2019s speech had striking similarities with one given by his predecessor, Mike Pompeo, at the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in July 2020.\nBoth secretaries of state complained that China threatens US global hegemony, and argued that the China of today is fundamentally different from the China in 1972, when President Nixon took a historic visit to the country to normalize relations.\nIn his speech, titled \u201cCommunist China and the Free World\u2019s Future,\u201d Pompeo essentially argued that Nixon\u2019s historic visit was a mistake.\nWashington thought that, by opening up, it could change China\u2019s political and economic system. But ultimately it was not able to do so, both US secretaries of state lamented.\n\u201cWe can\u2019t treat this incarnation of China as a normal country,\u201d Pompeo insisted. \u201cWe, the freedom-loving nations of the world, must induce China to change.\u201d\nTrump\u2019s secretary of state\u00a0accused Beijing of challenging the \u201crules-based order,\u201d the same concept that Blinken has endlessly repeated.\n\u201cIf we don\u2019t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build,\u201d Pompeo warned.\nBlasting \u201cChina\u2019s virulent strain of communism,\u201d he declared that \u201cCommunists almost always lie.\u201d (This was quite ironic, given Pompeo himself quipped in April 2019,\u00a0\u201cI was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire training courses.)\n\u201cWe have to keep in mind that the CCP regime is a Marxist-Leninist regime,\u201d Pompeo said. \u201cGeneral Secretary Xi Jinping is a true believer in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology.\u201d\nHe portrayed China as a monstrous squid, stating, \u201cEvery nation will have to come to its own understanding of how to protect its own sovereignty, how to protect its own economic prosperity, and how to protect its ideals from the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party.\u201d\nPompeo\u2019s remarks were more combative, but cutting through the rhetoric and looking at the ideas expressed, Blinken\u2019s speech was very similar.\nLike Blinken, Pompeo\u2019s complaints were ultimately rooted in China\u2019s socialist model. Many Chinese companies \u201cdon\u2019t answer to independent boards, and many of them are state-sponsored and so have no need to pursue profits,\u201d he complained.\nBlaming China for the global Covid-19 pandemic, Pompeo called China \u201cthe primary challenge today in the free world.\u201d\n\u201cSecuring our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time,\u201d the top US diplomat insisted.\nBoth speeches serve as confirmation that the United States is waging a new cold war on China, and that this aggressive strategy has bipartisan support in Washington, among both Republicans and Democrats.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: UN lies about US military occupation of Syria, reporter calls out Ukraine hypocrisy. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Dana Stroul, Donald Trump, Edward Xu, Farhan Haq, Fox News, Kurds, Mark A Milley, oil, Syria, Tom Bowman, UN, United Nations", "output": "US troops have illegally occupied Syria\u2019s oil-rich territory for years, but a top United Nations official, Farhan Haq, falsely claimed \u201cthere\u2019s no US armed forces inside of Syria\u201d. Chinese reporter Edward Xu called out the UN\u2019s hypocrisy on Ukraine.\n\nUS troops have illegally occupied Syria\u2019s oil-rich territory for years, but a top United Nations official falsely claimed \u201cthere\u2019s no US armed forces inside of Syria\u201d.\nIn a press briefing on March 24, Farhan Haq, the deputy spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ant\u00f3nio Guterres, sparred with Chinese reporter Edward Xu.\n\nXu pressed Haq about a US airstrike on Syria, which killed a dozen people, following an attack on US troops that have been illegally occupying Syrian territory.\n\u201cDo you think the presence of the US military in Syria is illegal or not?\u201d Xu asked.\n\u201cThat\u2019s not an issue that we\u2019re dealing with at this stage\u201d, Haq replied.\nXu countered, \u201cA foreign ministry based presence in another country without invitation, sounds like something else to me\u201d.\nThe UN spokesman then falsely claimed, \u201cThere\u2019s no US armed forces inside of Syria\u2026 It\u2019s not a parallel situation to some of the others\u2026 I believe there\u2019s military activity. But, in terms of a ground presence in Syria, I\u2019m not aware of that\u201d.\nThis statement is simply not true.\nUS troops have illegally occupied Syria's oil-rich territory for years, but a top United Nations official falsely claimed \"there's no US armed forces inside of Syria\"\nA reporter called out his lie, exposing the UN's hypocrisy on Ukraine.\nFull video here: https://t.co/9rOeW53fT8 pic.twitter.com/fp42QG9Fje\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 29, 2023\n\nThe New York Times published an article on March 4 revealing that US General Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has demanded that troops remain in Syria.\n\u201cAmerica still has more than 900 troops, and hundreds more contractors, in Syria\u201d, the Times reported.\nIn a March 24 newswire on the US airstrike in Syria, the Associated Press reported that \u201cAmerican troops have been in Syria since 2015\u201c.\nThe news outlet Kurdistan24 has published video footage of US armored vehicles occupying oil wells in Syria.\n\nIn 2018, the Washington Post printed an article boasting, \u201cIn Syria, we \u2018took the oil\u2019\u201c.\nThe piece quoted the director of research at the neoconservative, US government-funded think tank the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), who proudly stated, \u201cWe have this 30 percent slice of Syria, which is probably where 90 percent of the pre-war oil production took place\u2026 This is leverage\u201d.\nUS state media outlet NPR followed up in 2020, stating very clearly: \u201cU.S. forces in northeastern Syria have a relatively new mission: securing oil fields not only from ISIS, but also from Syrian government and Russian forces\u201d.\nNPR noted that its embedded reporter Tom Bowman \u201chas been travelling with American military forces\u201d.\nBowman explained that President Donald Trump \u201cagreed to keep a small number, about 600 or so, to secure these oil fields not only from ISIS but also from Syrian government and Russian forces. Now, they want their Kurdish forces, their allies, to use the proceeds from the oil to pay for their operations\u201d.\nFor his part, Trump was strikingly honest about what Washington was doing in Syria. He told Fox News, \u201cI left troops [in Syria] to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They\u2019re protecting the oil. I took over the oil\u2026 We have the oil. Right now, the U.S. has the oil\u201d.\nHere\u2019s irrefutable video evidence of Trump \u201cfighting the deep state\u201d ?\n\u201cI left troops [in Syria] to take the oil. I took the oil. The only troops I have are taking the oil. They\u2019re protecting the oil. I took over the oil\u2026 We have the oil. Right now, the U.S. has the oil\u201d pic.twitter.com/IYaep53GP5\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) March 31, 2023\n\nA hard-line neoconservative activist Dana Stroul, who oversaw Washington\u2019s Syria Study Group, boasted in 2019 that the US military \u201cowns\u201d one-third of Syria, including its oil-rich \u201ceconomic powerhouse\u201d.\nWhen President Joe Biden came to power in 2021, Stroul was made the top Middle East policy official in the US Department of Defense.\nThe top Pentagon Middle East policy official, neocon Dana Stroul, confirmed Biden is keeping troops to illegally occupy sovereign Syrian territory\nStroul once boasted that the US military \"owns\" 1/3rd of Syria, including its oil-rich \"economic powerhouse\"pic.twitter.com/NIEJ9elxhs https://t.co/01kZ22dhJ4\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) August 15, 2021\n\nAn official UN transcript of the March 24, 2023 press briefing follows below:\nJournalist Edward Xu: A couple of questions on Syria. Yesterday, there\u2019s a drone attack to a US base in north-east Syria which resulted in one death and six injured. After that, US launched an air strike, also killed 11 people in Syria. Any reaction from the Secretary-General on this incident?\nUN Deputy Spokesman Farhan Haq: Oh, well, of course, we continue to be worried about all of the continuing tensions, and we are trying to see what can be done to lower the tensions from different forces in Syria and will continue with those efforts.\nEdward Xu: Do you not urge everybody to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria?\nFarhan Haq: Well, of course, that\u2019s a given, and obviously, it\u2019s important that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria is respected. At the same time, you\u2019re aware of the complexity of the situation of foreign forces, but we call for them to exercise restraint.\nEdward Xu: But, do you think the presence of the US military in Syria is illegal or not?\nFarhan Haq: That\u2019s not an issue that we\u2019re dealing with at this stage. There\u2019s been a war.\nEdward Xu: But, is that\u2026 because it sounds very familiar this week. We talk a lot about the UN Charter, the international law and relative resolutions. But, it sounds to me, a foreign ministry based presence in another country without invitation, sounds like something else to me.\nFarhan Haq: I\u2019ll leave your analysis to you. That there\u2019s\u2026 At this stage there\u2019s no\u2026\nEdward Xu: What\u2019s the difference between the situation in Syria and the situation in Ukraine?\nFarhan Haq: There\u2019s no US armed forces inside of Syria. And so I don\u2019t have a\u2026 It\u2019s not a parallel situation to some of the others.\nEdward Xu: You\u2019re sure there\u2019s no US military personnel in Syria?\nFarhan Haq: I believe there\u2019s military activity. But, in terms of a ground presence in Syria, I\u2019m not aware of that.\nEdward Xu: Okay. Five US service members were injured in that attack. If there were no US service members in Syria, how could they got injured? That\u2019s weird, right? Should I ask you about that? And by the way, if you\u2019re talking about the resolution, the international law here is the resolution from Security Council 2254 (2015), I believe, it says in its PA [preambular] paragraph, \u201creaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations\u201d.\nFarhan Haq: Yes. I\u2019m aware of that. And as you see, that is accepted by the members of the Security Council itself.\nEdward Xu: Yeah. So, again, back to my question, is that illegal to have presence in Syria for the US base, according to the relevant resolution that I just read out?\nFarhan Haq: The relevant resolution does call for that and we call on all countries to respect that. I wouldn\u2019t go beyond that at this stage.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: How USA makes countries pay for its wars: Economics of American imperialism with Michael Hudson. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "dollar, economics, IMF, imperialism, Michael Hudson, Treasury, treasury bonds, World Bank", "output": "Economist Michael Hudson explains how American imperialism has created a global free lunch, where the US makes foreign countries pay for its wars, and even their own military occupation.\n\nEconomist Michael Hudson explains how American imperialism has created a global free lunch, where the US makes foreign countries pay for its wars, and even their own military occupation.Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton discuss the economics of Washington\u2019s empire, the role of the IMF and World Bank, attempts to create alternative financial systems like BRICS, and the new cold war on China and Russia.\nPART 2 OF 2\n(Interview recorded on April 13, 2020)\nPart 1: \u201cUS coronavirus \u2018bailout\u2019 is $6 trillion giveaway to Wall St \u2013 Economist Michael Hudson explains\u201d\n\n\n(Teaser \u2013 0:03)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: The World Bank has one primary aim, and that\u2019s to make other countries dependent on American agriculture. This is built into its articles of agreement. It can only make foreign currency loans, so it will only make loans to countries for agricultural development, roads, if it is to promote exports.\nSo the United States, through the World Bank, has become I think the most dangerous, right-wing, evil organization in modern in history \u2014 more evil than the IMF. That\u2019s why it\u2019s almost always been run by a secretary of defense. It has always been explicitly military. It\u2019s the hard fist of American imperialism.\nIts idea is that, we\u2019ll make Latin American, and African, and Asian countries export plantation crops , especially plantations that are foreign owned. But the primary directive of the World Bank to countries is: \u201cYou must not feed yourself; you must not grow your own grain or your own food; you must depend on the United States for that. And you can pay for that by exporting plantation crops.\u201d\n(Intro \u2013 1:45)\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Here at Moderate Rebels we talk a lot about imperialism. I mean it\u2019s really the kind of main point of this show. This program explores how US imperialism functions, how it works on the global stage, how neoliberal policies of austerity and privatization are forced at the barrel of a gun through the US military, through invasion and plunder.\nWe talk about it in Venezuela, and Iraq, and Syria, and so many countries. But we often don\u2019t talk about the specific economic dynamics of how it works through banks, and loans, and bonds.\nWell today we are continuing our discussion with the economist Michael Hudson, who is really one of the best experts in the world when it comes to understanding how US imperialism functions as an economic system, not just through a system of military force.\nOf course the economics are maintained, are undergirded, by that military force. And we talk about how the military force is expressed through regime-change wars and military interventions.\nBut Michael Hudson also explains how the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and the US financial system, and banks and Wall Street, they all work together, hand in glove with the military, to maintain that financial chokehold.\nHe spells this all out brilliantly in a book called \u201cSuper Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.\u201d He originally wrote that book back in 1968, and then recently updated it in 2002, published again in 2003 with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, and kind of updated and showed how, even though the system that he detailed 50 years ago hasn\u2019t really changed, but it has shifted in some ways.\nSo today we\u2019re gonna talk about how that international imperialist system dominated by the US works.\nMichael Hudson, who in the first part of this talked about the scheme that is the coronavirus bailout \u2014 if you want to watch the first part you can go find that at\u00a0moderaterebels.com; it\u2019s on YouTube, Spotify, iTunes, any other platform.\nMichael Hudson is an economist and he\u2019s also a longtime Wall Street financial analyst. He is also a professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, and you can find his work at\u00a0michael-hudson.com, which I will link to in the show notes for this episode.\nSo without further ado, here is the second part of our interview with Michael Hudson.\n(4:37)\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: I think it\u2019s a good transition point to talk about another kind of scam you\u2019ve identified. There\u2019s a really hilarious aside in the second preface to your book \u201cSuper Imperialism,\u201d where Herman Kahn, who is, I think he was a founder of the Hudson Institute, which you went to work for, he was also the inspiration for the Dr. Strangelove character and Stanley Kubrick\u2019s film.\nHerman Kahn is, there\u2019s an award that the neocons give out every year named for him; Benjamin Netanyahu is a recent award winner.\nBut he was he was in the audience, or on a panel for one of your talks, where you laid out your theory of \u201cSuper Imperialism,\u201d and how the United States actually gets other countries to subsidize its empire, and is able to expand and carry out this massive imperial project without having to impose austerity on its own population, as other countries have to do under IMF control.\nSo Herman Kahn comes up to you after the talk and says, \u201cYou actually identified the rip-off perfectly.\u201d And your book starts selling like hotcakes in DC, I guess among people who work for the CIA, and people who work in the military-intelligence apparatus.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: What he said was, \u201cWe\u2019ve pulled off the greatest ripoff in history. We\u2019ve gone way beyond anything that British Empire ever thought of.\u201d He said, \u201cThat\u2019s a success story. Most people think imperialism is bad; you\u2019ve shown how it\u2019s the greatest success story \u2014 we get a free lunch forever!\u201d\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Right. So explain the ripoff you identified there, and how it is being perpetuated under the Trump administration in ways that I think are pretty amazing, including through the imposition of unprecedented sanctions on something like one-third of the world\u2019s population.\n(6:40)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well I wrote \u201cSuper Imperialism\u201d in 1972, and it was published exactly one month after President Nixon took America off gold in August of 1971. And the reason he took America off gold was the entire balance of payments deficit from the Korean War to the Vietnam War was military in character.\nAnd every time, especially in the \u201960s, the more money that America would spend in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, all this money had to be spent locally. And the banks were all French banks, because it was French Indochina, all the money would be sent to Paris, to the banks\u2019 head offices, turned over from dollars into francs, and General de Gaulle would end up with all these dollars, and he would, every month, send in the dollars and want payment in gold. And Germany would do the same thing.\nAnd so the more America fought militarily, it was depleting its own gold stock, until finally, in August 1971, it said, \u201cWe\u2019ve been using gold as the key to our world power ever since World War I, when we put Europe on rations. So we\u2019re going to stop paying gold.\u201d\nThey closed the gold window. And most of the economists were all saying, \u201cOh my heavens, now it\u2019s going to be a depression. \u201cBut what I said was, \u201cWait a minute, now that other countries can no longer get gold from all this military spending\u201d \u2014 and when you talked about the balance of payments deficit, it\u2019s not the trade deficit, it\u2019s not foreign investment; it\u2019s almost entirely military in character.\nSo all these this money that spent abroad, how are we ever going to get it back? Well these dollars we have spent around the world, mainly for the 800 military bases and the other activities we have, these dollars would end up in foreign central banks.\nAnd foreign central banks, what are they going to do with them? Well we wouldn\u2019t let foreign central banks buy American industries. We would let them buy stocks, but not a majority owner.\nMy former boss, the man who taught me all about the oil industry, in Standard Oil, who became undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs, and when Herman Kahn and I went to the White House, he said, \u201cWe\u2019ve told the Saudi Arabians that they can charge whatever they want for their oil, but all the money they get, they have to recycle to the United States. Mostly they can buy Treasury bonds, so that we\u2019ll have the money to keep on spending, but they can also buy stocks, or they can do with the Japanese did and buy junk real estate and lose their shirts.\u201d\nSo basically, when America spends money abroad, central banks really don\u2019t have much \u2014 they don\u2019t speculate. They don\u2019t buy companies; they buy Treasury bonds. So we run a monetary deficit; the dollars are spent abroad; the central banks lend them back to the Treasury; and that finances the budget deficit, but it also finances the balance of payments deficit. So we just keep giving paper\nAnd I think President Bush, George W. Bush, said, \u201cWell we\u2019re never really going to repay this. They get counters, but we\u2019re not going to repay it.\u201d And then, as a matter of fact, you have Tom Cotton a senator from [Arkansas] saying, \u201cWell you know China holds savings of $2 trillion or so in US Treasury bonds. Why don\u2019t we just not pay them? They gave us the virus; let just grab it and nullify it.\u201d\nWe can nullify Iranian assets, Venezuelan assets \u2014 it\u2019s like a bank can just wipe out other deposits you have, if it wants militarily. So the United States doesn\u2019t have any constraint on military spending.\nNow Herman Kahn and I on another occasion went to the Treasury Department, and we talked about what the world would look like on a gold standard. And I said, \u201cWell gold is a peaceful metal. If you have to pay in gold, no country with a gold standard can afford to go to war anymore. Because a war would be entail a foreign exchange payment, and you\u2019d have to pay this foreign exchange in gold, not IOUs, and you would end up going broke pretty quickly.\u201d\nWell needless to say, I think someone from the Defense Department said, \u201cThat\u2019s why we\u2019re not going to do it.\u201d\nHere\u2019s an example: Let\u2019s suppose that you went to a grocery store. You decided, ok, you go to the grocery store and you buy \u2014 you sign an IOU for everything that you buy. You go to a liquor store, IOU. You buy a car, IOU.\nYou get everything you want just for an IOU, and people try to collect the IOUs, and you say, \u201cWell you know that IOU isn\u2019t for collecting from me. Trade it among yourselves. Trade it among yourselves and you\u2019ll get rich in no time. But treat it as an asset, just as you treat a dollar bill.\u201d\nWell you\u2019d get a free ride. You\u2019d be allowed to go and write IOUs for everything, and nobody could ever collect. That\u2019s what the United States position is, and that\u2019s what it wants to keep.\nAnd that\u2019s why China, Russia, and other countries are trying to de-dollarize, trying to get rid of the dollar, and are buying gold so that they can settle payments deficits among themselves in their own currency, or currencies of friendly countries, but just avoid the dollars altogether.\n(12:21)\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Michael, in the first part of this interview, when we were talking about the coronavirus bailout and the $6 trillion that were just basically given to Wall Street, you mentioned that basically it is just \u2014 I mean, I also said it \u2014 that\u2019s it\u2019s just a con scheme. But you said, really, that a lot of people are surprised, that they don\u2019t think the system can work this way, because it just seems so blatantly stacked against them, so blatantly unfair.\nIn your book \u2014 \u201cSuper Imperialism\u201d is just so mind-blowing because, in simplistic terms to someone who is definitely a non-expert like me, it just becomes so clear that, as you put it, the US for decades, since the end of World War Two, has been really obtaining \u201cthe largest free lunch ever achieved in history,\u201d the way you put it.\nI\u2019m gonna read just two paragraphs here really quickly from your book, and then maybe ask you to unpack exactly how this works. But right at the beginning \u2014 and this is the updated version of your book, and we\u2019ll link to your book in the show notes for this show. So anyone, I would highly recommend anyone listening could go buy \u201cSuper Imperialism.\u201d\nI\u2019m going to be republishing it through my own institute. It\u2019s very hard to get the book; that\u2019s why I\u2019m buying the rights back. Because it\u2019s really not marketed in this country very much. So at any rate it\u2019s on my website, and you don\u2019t have to buy the book; you can go to my website and get many of the chapters.\nExcellent, well I\u2019m gonna link to your website in the show notes that\u2019s\u00a0michael-hudson.com. And thank you for putting that up, because I\u2019ve been reading the PDF, and it\u2019s incredible.\nSo you write in the the introduction to the new updated version, which you wrote in 2002, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, you wrote:\n\u201cThe Treasury bonds standard of international finance has enabled the United States to obtain the largest free lunch ever achieved in history. America has turned the international financial system upside down, whereas formerly it rested on gold, central bank reserves are now held in the form of US government IOUs, that can be run up without limit.\n\u201cIn effect America has been buying up Europe, Asia, and other regions with paper credit, US Treasury IOUs that it has informed the world it has little intention of ever paying off.\n\u201cAnd there is little Europe or Asia can do about it except to abandon the dollar and create their own financial system.\u201d\nSo this seems to me as an outsider to be totally insane, to be a total con scheme. Can you explain how that scheme works, and especially in light of neoliberal economics?\nI took, just in college, basic introductory economics classes that were mandatory, especially microeconomics, and in those classes they teach you this neoliberal, libertarian form of economics, and they teach you the famous Winston Churchill quote, \u201cThere is no such thing in economics as a free lunch.\u201d But you\u2019re pointing out that actually, on the international stage, this whole thing is just all a giant free lunch for the US empire.\n(15:53)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well the whole financial economy is a free lunch, and if you\u2019re going to get a free lunch, then you protect yourself by saying there is no such thing as a free lunch. Obviously it does not want to make itself visible; it wants to make itself as invisible as possible.\nWell most of these countries in Asia get the dollars from US military spending. They say, \u201cWhat are we going to do with the dollars?\u201d They buy US Treasury bonds, that finance the military spending on the military bases that encircle them. So they\u2019re financing their own military encirclement!\nIt\u2019s a circular flow. The United States spends dollars in these countries; the local recipients turn them over for local currency; the local currency recipients, the food sellers and the manufacturers, turn the dollars over to the banks for domestic currency, which is how they operate; and the dollars are sent back to the United States; and it\u2019s a circular flow that is basically military in character.\nAnd the gunboats don\u2019t appear in your economics textbooks. I bet your price theory didn\u2019t have gun boats in them, or the crime sector, and probably they didn\u2019t have debt in it either.\nSo if you have economics talking as if the whole economy is workers spending their wages on goods and services; government doesn\u2019t play a role except to interfere, but government is 40 percent of GDP, mainly military in character, then obviously economics doesn\u2019t really talk about what you think of the economy; it doesn\u2019t talk about society.\nIt talks about a very narrow segment that it isolates, as if we\u2019re talking about a small organ in the body, without seeing the body as a whole economic system, a whole interrelated system that is dominated and controlled by the finance and real estate sector, which has gained control of the government.\nAnd if the finance, and the insurance, and military sector, military-industrial complex, make themselves invisible and absent from the textbook, then people are just not going to look there to say, \u201cHow did that affect our life? How does that affect the economy?\u201d And they\u2019re not going to see that that\u2019s what\u2019s making the economy poor and pushing it into depression.\n(18:11)\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Well I can\u2019t give out IOUs on everything, on my own debts, because when the debt collector comes, I don\u2019t have gunboats; I don\u2019t have machine guns; I don\u2019t have any gun.\nI mean if I wanted to get a gun I couldn\u2019t get one, because they\u2019re all bought up in Virginia, across the river, because you know everyone\u2019s panicking. And I\u2019m sure they\u2019re defending themselves by like having their guns accidentally go off and shoot their dogs.\nBut that\u2019s kind of what\u2019s missing as well from this theory is that, if people try to collect their debt on the US, the US can do severe damage to them, militarily or otherwise.\nLet\u2019s game this out. I mean how do you see this playing out in Venezuela, where the Venezuelan government has tried to go around US sanctions, has tried to to work with Russia and China to sell gold; it\u2019s had something like $5 billion of assets stolen by the US through sheer piracy in the past year.\nAnd now the US has dispatched I think more naval ships than we\u2019ve seen in Latin America or in South America at any time in the last 30 years.\n(19:27)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well that\u2019s the other part of the \u201cSuper Imperialism\u201d book: debt bondage. Venezuela had a US-installed dictator, a right-winger, some years ago, and changed the law in Venezuela so that Venezuela\u2019s foreign debt, sovereign debt, when it borrows in dollars, is backed by the collateral of its oil reserves. And it has the largest oil reserves in South America.\nSo the United States wants to grab the oil reserves. Just as Vice President Cheney said we\u2019re going into Iraq and Syria to grab the oil, America would like all these oil reserves in Venezuela.\nHow does it get the oil reserves? Well it doesn\u2019t have to technically invade, or at least finance is the new mode of warfare.\nIt tried to grab these reserves by saying, \u201cLet\u2019s block Venezuela from earning the money by exporting the oil and earning the money from its US investments to pay the foreign debt. So we\u2019re just going to grab the investment, and we\u2019re going to select a mini dictator; we\u2019re going to give it to Mr. Guaid\u00f3, and say, \u201cThis doesn\u2019t belong to Venezuela; we\u2019re arbitrarily taking it away and we\u2019re giving the oil distribution assets in North America to Guaid\u00f3.\u201d\n\u201cWe\u2019re going to block Venezuela from paying the debt, and that means it\u2019ll default on a foreign debt, and so the vulture funds and the bondholders can now grab Venezuelan oil, anywhere, under international law, because it is pledged as collateral for its debt, just as if you\u2019d borrowed a mortgage debt and you\u2019d pledged your home and the creditor could take away your home\u201d \u2014 like Obama had so many people lose their home.\nWell now they\u2019re trying to force Venezuela into relinquishing its debt, but Venezuela still is managing to scrape by. And so they may need a military force out to invade Venezuela, like Bush invaded Panama or Grenada.\nIt\u2019s an oil grab. So what finance couldn\u2019t achieve, finally you really do need the military fist.\nFinance is basically backed by military, and domestically by force, by the sheriff, by the police department. It\u2019s the force that are going to kick you out of the house.\nSo the question is, is the only defense by the indebted people in America, your Virginia defense? Does there have to be an armed revolution here to cancel the debts? Do they have to eat the rich? That\u2019s the whole question for the politics of America.\nI don\u2019t see it being solved. If it is not solved by the indebted people simply starving to death, committing suicide, getting sick, or emigrating, then there will have to be a revolution. Those are the choices in Americ.\nAnd Venezuela said, \u201cWe\u2019re not going to starve quietly in the dark.\u201d And so there\u2019s a military buildup pretending that it\u2019s all about drugs, when Venezuela is threatening to interrupt the CIA\u2019s drug trade. I mean that\u2019s the irony of this! It\u2019s the CIA that\u2019s the drug dealer, not the Venezuelan government.\nSo we\u2019re in the Orwellian world that works through the organs or the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, National Public Radio, the real right-wing of America.\n(23:00)\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I\u2019m so glad you boiled it down like that. Because so much of what we do at The Grayzone is to punch holes in the propaganda constructs that are used to basically provide liberal cover for what is sheer gangsterism.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: It\u2019s much more black and white than gray.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah well, we should call it The Black and White Zone.\nWe\u2019re seeing it as well in Syria, where we\u2019ve had one kind of human rights propaganda construct after another. And now at the end of the line, as the whole proxy war ends, Trump says, \u201cWe have to keep the troops there because of oil. We need them to guard the oil fields.\u201d\nSo it all becomes clear. But it\u2019s unclear to everyone who\u2019s been confused for the past years, following the way that the war has been marketed to them through these corporate media and US government publications that you just named. It\u2019s just, we\u2019re there for the oil.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Michael, I mean there are so many ways we could explore this topic further, and hopefully we can have you back more often in the future, because we definitely need more economics coverage. We frequently talk about the political side of a lot of these issues of US imperialism, but of course the economic element is absolutely integral to understand what\u2019s happening.\nI\u2019m also very interested, you mentioned before we started this interview, that your book \u201cSuper Imperialism\u201d is very popular in China, and that even in schools there people are reading it.\nAnd the question of China I think is the central question of this century \u2014 the rise of China, the so-called \u201cthreat\u201d that China poses, in scare quotes, to the US. Of course China doesn\u2019t threaten the American people, but rather the chokehold that the US has on the international financial system.\nAnd we have seen under Trump \u2014 I mean it\u2019s been happening for years; it really actually began under Obama with the \u201cPivot to Asia,\u201d and that was really Hillary Clinton\u2019s State Department strategy was to move toward the encirclement of China.\nBut now under Trump it has really become the main foreign policy bogeyman of the Trump White House. And especially now with coronavirus, every single day the corporate media is full of non-stop anti-china propaganda \u2014 \u201cChina is the evil totalitarian regime that\u2019s going to take over the world, and we have to unite with the Republicans in order to fight against China.\u201d\nAnd we now even see figures openly defending the \u201cnew cold war,\u201d as they call it. They say we\u2019re in a new Cold War, as the right-wing historian from Harvard Niall Ferguson put it in the New York Times recently.\nSo I\u2019m wondering, your book I think is even more relevant now than it was when you first wrote it, it\u2019s so, so relevant. But what about the question of China? And what about the question of this new cold war?\nDo you think that could challenge the US-dominated financial system that was created after World War II, using the weapons of the World Bank and the IMF, as you spell out? Are we heading maybe toward the creation of a new international financial system?\n(26:24)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well what makes China so threatening is that it\u2019s following the exact, identical policies that made America rich in the 19th century. It\u2019s a mixed economy.\nIts government is providing the basic infrastructure and subsidized prices to lower the cost of living and the cost of doing business, so that its export industry can make money. And it\u2019s subsidizing research and development, just like the United States did in the 19th century and early 20th century.\nSo America basically says to the rest of the world, \u201cDo as we say, not as we do, and not as we\u2019ve done.\u201d\nSo China has a mixed economy that is working very well. You can just see the changes occurring there. And it realizes that the United States is trying to disable it, that that the United States wants to control all the sectors of production that have monopoly pricing \u2014 information technology, microchip technology, 5G communications, military spending.\nAnd the United States wants to be able to essentially buy goods from the rest of the world with overpriced exports, American movies, anything that has a patent that yields a monopoly price. And China wants to become \u2014 it has decided that.\nAmerica, in the 1950s tried to fight China by sanctioning grain exports to China. You mentioned sanctions earlier, the first sanctions were used against China, to prevent them, trying to starve them with grain.\nCanada broke that embargo for grain, and China was very friendly to Canada, until Canada turned out to be \u2014 the prime minister, now that he has moved into a small basement in the Pentagon, and has agreed to grab Chinese officials. It\u2019s right there in Washington; Canada is right there in Washington in one of the basements. It\u2019s not a country anymore. So China does not feel so friendly towards Canada now that it\u2019s moved.\nBut it realized, we can\u2019t depend on America for anything. It can cut us off with sanctions like it has tried to do with Iran, with Venezuela, with Cuba.\nSo the idea of China, Russia, and the countries in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has been: \u201cWe have to be independent within ourselves, and make a Eurasian trading area, and we will take off because we are successful industrial capitalism, evolving into socialism, into a mixed economy, with the government handling all of the monopoly sectors to prevent monopoly pricing here.\u201d\n\u201cAnd we don\u2019t want American banks to come in, create paper dollars, and buy out all of our industries. We\u2019re not going to let America do that.\u201d\n(29:29)\nI have gone back to China very often. And I\u2019m a professor at Peking University; I have honorary professorships in Wuhan. I probably lecture mainly in Tianjin. There are a number of articles on my website from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences on de-dollarization, essentially how China can avoid the use of the dollar by becoming independent in agriculture, and technology, and other goods.\nAnd the threat of China is that it will not be a victim. Victimizers always look at the victims as vicious attackers of themselves. So America says China is a vicious threat because it\u2019s not letting us exploit them and victimize them.\nSo again, it\u2019s an Orwellian rhetoric of the bully. The bully always believes that the person he\u2019s attacking is a threat. Just like in Germany, Goebbels said that their surefire way to mobilize the population behind any attack is to say, \u201cWe\u2019re defending ourselves against foreign attack.\u201d\nSo you have the American attack on China pretending to be defense against their wanting to be just as independent as the United States always has been. The United States doesn\u2019t want any other country to have any leverage to use over the United States. The United States insists on veto power in any organization that it\u2019ll join \u2014 the World Bank, the IMF, the United Nations.\nAnd China essentially says, ok, this is the very definition of national independence, to be independent from other countries available to choke us, offering a choke point, whether it\u2019s a grain that we need; or technology; or the bank clearing system, the SWIFT interbank clearing system, to make our financial system operate; or the internet system.\nSo by essentially waging this economic warfare against China to protect America monopolies, America is integrating China and Russia. And probably the leading Chinese nationalist in the world, the leading Russian nationalist, is Donald Trump.\nHe\u2019s saying, \u201cLook boys, I know that you\u2019re influenced by American neoliberals. I\u2019m gonna help you. I believe that you should be independent. I\u2019m gonna help you, Chinese, and Russians, and Iranians, be independent. I\u2019m going to keep pushing the sanctions on agriculture, to make sure that you\u2019re able to feed yourself. I\u2019m gonna be pushing sanctions on technology, to make sure that you can defend yourself.\u201d\nSo he obviously is, I believe he\u2019s a Chinese and Russian agent, just like MSNBC says.\n(32:09)\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah and Michael, this actually reminds me, I used to follow you regularly at The Real News, and I worked there for a bit, and unfortunately there was kind an internal coup there, and it has moved to the right a bit.\nBut the point is, a few years ago at The Real News, I remember you did an amazing debate between you and the Canadian economist Leo Panitch, and it was about the nature of the BRICS system.\nThis was when this is before the series of coups that that overthrew the left in Brazil and installed the fascist government now of Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing extremist. And at the time there was Dilma Rousseff, a progressive from the Workers\u2019 Party.\nAnd Brazil and Russia were helping to take the lead in the BRICS system. This is Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.\nAnd of course the coups, the series of coups in Brazil, kind of ended that project of South-South regional integration. And also the rise of the right-wing, the far-right, in India with Narendra Modi.\nBut there was a moment there when the BRICS community, these countries were trying to build their own bank. China of course has a series of banks. You mentioned the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.\nSo there have been these international institutions, multilateral institutions, created to kind of challenge the hegemony of the World Bank and the IMF.\nAnd I remember in that debate, Leo Panitch was arguing that, \u201cOh the BRIC system and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, all of these institutions are just going to be the new form of neoliberalism, and they\u2019re just going to replace the World Bank and implement many of the same policies.\u201d You disagreed with that.\nSo maybe can you kind of relitigate that debate here a little bit and just kind of articulate your position for our viewers?\n(34:08)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: The World Bank has one primary aim, and that\u2019s to make other countries dependent on American agriculture. This is built into its articles of agreement. It can only make foreign currency loans, so it will only make loans to countries for agricultural development, roads, if it is to promote exports.\nSo the United States, through the World Bank, has become I think the most dangerous, right-wing, evil organization in modern in history \u2014 more evil than the IMF. That\u2019s why it\u2019s almost always been run by a secretary of defense. It has always been explicitly military. It\u2019s the hard fist of American imperialism.\nIts idea is that, we\u2019ll make Latin American, and African, and Asian countries export plantation crops , especially plantations that are foreign owned. But the primary directive of the World Bank to countries is: \u201cYou must not feed yourself; you must not grow your own grain or your own food; you must depend on the United States for that. And you can pay for that by exporting plantation crops that can\u2019t be grown in temperate zones like the United States.\u201d\nSo China and Russia, they\u2019re not really agricultural economies. The buttress of America\u2019s trade balance has been agriculture, not industry. Obviously, we de-industrialized. Agriculture, since World War II, has been the foundation of the trade balance.\nAnd you need foreign dependency. The purpose of the World Bank is to make other countries\u2019 economies distorted and warped into a degree that they are dependent on the United States for their trade patterns.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Well Michal, isn\u2019t it also true though that China has massive agricultural production, and Russia produces a lot of wheat right?\n(36:14)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Sure, but it does it doesn\u2019t have to base its exports on agriculture to African countries. It can afford having African countries growing their own food supply so that they won\u2019t have to buy American food; they can grow their own food.\nImagine, if China helps other countries grow their own food and grain, then America\u2019s trade surplus evaporates. Because that\u2019s the only advantage that America has, agribusiness.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah it\u2019s like that famous quote: If you give a man a fish, he\u2019ll eat for one day; if you teach a man to fish, he\u2019ll eat for the rest of his life. And then I think Marx, didn\u2019t Marx complicate that?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: But if you lend them the money to buy a fish, then he ends up bankrupt and you get to grab up all his property.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah I mean we saw this play out clearly in Haiti.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah, that\u2019s the typical \u2014 what America has when it has a free a reign, that\u2019s exactly the Haiti story. That\u2019s absolutely terrible. It\u2019s depressing to read.\nI get cognitive dissonance, because it\u2019s just so unfair. It\u2019s so awful to read; I avert the page.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah I mean just observing all of this is what kind of brought me to the point where I concluded that there had to be another international financial system, when I saw how Haiti was brought to its knees.\nFirst with the School of the Americas graduates staging a coup, and Bill Clinton reinstalls Jean-Bertrand Aristide. And so it all it takes place under the guise of goodwill by Washington.\nBut Aristide is forced to sign off, basically sign away Haiti\u2019s domestic agricultural production capacity. And the next thing you know, their rice economy\u2019s wiped out, and they\u2019re importing rice from Louisiana.\nAnd the only economy left, the only economic opportunity left, is to work in these free trade zones for US companies.\nAnd that\u2019s just the model writ large. It kind of helped lead to the next coup, that removed Aristide, and look where Haiti is today.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Right, it means, you must not protect your own economy; only America can protect its own economy. But you must not. That\u2019s free trade.\n(38:45)\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Right, going back to the JFK Seeds of Peace program. It\u2019s big agro subsidies, and then you bomb the Third World with cheap seeds and cheap goods, and then you have a migration crisis.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Seeds for Starvation is what the program is known as. Because by giving a low price of foreign aid to these countries, they they prevented domestic agricultural development, because no farmer could compete with free crops that America was giving.\nThe purpose of the Seeds for Starvation program was to prevent countries from feeding themselves, and to make them dependent.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, when I lived in LA I would meet families who had initially come across the border because of the program \u2014 they would point the finger directly at Seeds for Starvation. They\u2019d say, \u201cWe came from rural Mexico, and our livelihood was wiped out.\u201d\nSo this is a long-standing program. And we\u2019ve seen in the coronavirus bailout five times more money provided to USAID for so-called stabilization programs than for hospital workers.\nAnd that\u2019s to do exactly what you just described: USAID is sort of the spearhead of these programs which aim to wipe out land reform programs, and replace them with US aid in the form of these cheap seeds and so on, cheap bananas to Burundi, and everywhere else.\nSo do you see, through your experience in China, that Belt and Road is a genuine alternative to this model?\n(40:27)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well they\u2019re certainly trying to make it. By the way, what you\u2019ve just described, it\u2019s not a bug; it\u2019s a feature.\nWhen you have the same problem occurring after 50 years, it\u2019s either insanity \u2014 and we know it\u2019s not \u2014 or it\u2019s the intent.\nYou have to assume at a certain point that the results of these aid programs are the intended results. And certainly if you look at the congressional testimony, Congress knows this, but the media don\u2019t pick it up.\nIn China, they\u2019re really trying to create an alternative. They want to break free from the United States. And if Trump\u2019s policies of \u201cAmerica First\u201d continue, and as he said, \u201cWe have to win every deal.\u201d That means, any deal we make with the foreign country, that country has to lose.\nSo he\u2019s integrating the whole world, and isolating the United States. And when you isolate the United States, China realizes that what will be isolated is the neoliberal philosophy that is the cover story, the junk economics that justifies all of these destructive policies.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Well Michael, this was I think one of our most interesting episodes. We want to more economics coverage, so hopefully we can talk more with you and get some more of your analysis.\nI guess just concluding here, my final question would be, I mentioned that the term cold war has been thrown around a lot. And of course, the new cold war is going to be different from the old cold war in a lot of different ways.\nAnd of course Russia is not the Soviet Union at all. Russia does not have a socialist system. China\u2019s system as you mentioned is mixed, there are still socialist elements, but even China\u2019s economy is not nearly as state controlled as the Soviet Union was at the peak of the cold war.\nSo I\u2019m wondering, it\u2019s pretty clear if you listen to the rhetoric coming from the Pentagon, that \u201cgreat power competition\u201d as they refer to it is now the the undergirding philosophy of US foreign policy. What is the economics of that?\nBecause the economics of neoliberalism, after the destruction of the Socialist Bloc, and George H. W. Bush\u2019s declaration of a \u201cnew world order,\u201d which is of course just neoliberalism and US hegemony \u2014 in that period, the clear economic philosophy, the kind of guiding foreign policy, was destruction of independent socialist-oriented states and forcible integration of those countries into the international neoliberal economy.\nWe saw that with Iraq; we saw that with former Yugoslavia; we saw that with Libya \u2014 which is really just a failed state.\nSo now I think we\u2019re in a kind of new phase. The Pentagon released two years ago its national defense security strategy saying that the new goal of the Pentagon and US foreign policy is to contain China and Russia. That is the stated, professed goal.\nWhat does that look like economically going forward?\n(43:31)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well I think that\u2019s quite right. Of course it\u2019ll contain Russia and China, and there\u2019s nothing that Russia and China want more than to be contained.\nIn other words, that they\u2019re talking about is decoupling from the US economy. And the US will say, \u201cWell we\u2019re not going to let them have access to the US market, and we\u2019re not going to have anything to do with them.\u201d And Russia and China say, \u201cBoy that\u2019s wonderful, ok we\u2019re on the same wavelength there. You can contain us; we will contain you. You go your way; we\u2019ll go our way.\u201d\nSo basically the cold war was an attempt \u2014 it\u2019s neoliberalism and privatization. It\u2019s Thatcherism. It\u2019s, \u201cHow do we make China and Russia look like Margaret Thatcher\u2019s England, or Russia in the 1990s under Yeltsin?\u201d\n\u201cHow do we prevent other countries from protecting their industry and their financial system from the United States financial system and US exports? How do we prevent other countries from doing for themselves what America does for itself? How do we make a double standard in world finance, and world trade, and world politics?\u201d\nAnd the result of trying to prevent other countries from doing this is simply to speed the parting guest, to accelerate their understanding that, they have to make a break; they have to be contained.\nIn other words, they have to create their own food supply, not rely on American food exports. They have to create their own 5G system, not let America\u2019s 5G, with its spy portals all built in. And they have to create their own society, and go their own way.\nWhich is what China was like before the 16th century. It was always the \u201cCentral Kingdom\u201d; it always looked at itself as being central and independent from the rest of the world. And it\u2019s going back to that. Except it realizes that it needs raw materials from Africa and other countries.\nAnd the question is, what is Europe going to do? Is Europe going to just follow the Thatcher right deflationary Eurozone policies and end up looking like Greece? Or is it going to join with Eurasia, with Russia and China, and make a whole Asiatic continent?\nThe cold war really is about what is going to happen to Europe. Because we have already isolated China and Russia and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.\nThe question is what will happen to Europe, and what will happen to Africa.\n(Outro \u2013 46:04)\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Great, well I think that\u2019s the perfect note to end on. We were speaking with the economist Michael Hudson. He is a Wall Street financial analyst and a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri \u2013 Kansas City.\nHe\u2019s also the author of many books, and we were talking about \u201cSuper Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.\u201d He has two versions of that, and we will link to that book in the show notes of this episode.\nWe will also link to his website, where you can find a lot of great interviews with transcripts, his articles \u2014 and that\u2019s michael-hudson.com.\nMichael, thanks a lot. That was a really great, two-part interview. I learned a lot, and I think our viewers will benefit a lot.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah thanks a lot Michael.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Thank you. I hope we can fill out all the details in subsequent broadcasts.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Absolutely.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US Congress candidate Geoff Young: Abolish CIA, stop arming Nazis, end drug war. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CIA, Congress, Geoff Young, Kentucky, Nazis, podcast, Ukraine, war on drugs", "output": "US Congress candidate Geoff Young, who is running in Kentucky on an anti-war platform, explains why he wants to abolish the CIA, dismantle AFRICOM, end the war on drugs, and stop arming Nazis in Ukraine.\n\nMultipolarista host Benjamin Norton interviewed US Congress candidate Geoff Young, who is running in Kentucky\u2019s 6th district on an anti-war platform calling for abolishing the CIA.\nWe discussed Young\u2019s 12-point program, which also seeks to \u201cEnd the failed \u2018War on Drugs,'\u201d prevent nuclear war, establish a Medicare-for-All system of universal healthcare, dismantle the US military\u2019s Africa Command (AFRICOM), increase taxes on billionaires and millionaires, and \u201cGet Big Money out of politics.\u201d\n\nYoung won Kentucky\u2019s Democratic primary election on May 17. But he explained that the state\u2019s Democratic Party branch has refused to support him against incumbent Republican Congressman Andy Barr.\nKentucky\u2019s Democratic governor, Andy Beshear, has in fact publicly criticized Young over his opposition to the proxy war in Ukraine.\nYoung said he is \u201cprobably the only anti-war Democrat\u201d running for Congress.\nPreventing nuclear war \u201cis my main concern. That\u2019s been my main concern for 40, 45 years,\u201d he explained.\nAnd \u201cit\u2019s most likely to happen, looking at today\u2019s situation, when there is a tense, perhaps a war going on, such as Ukraine. And that\u2019s where the chances of an accidental nuclear war are the highest,\u201d he warned.\nYoung criticized the US government for sending weapons to Ukraine\u2019s neo-Nazi Avoz Regiment, which has officially been part of the country\u2019s National Guard since a 2014 Washington-sponsored coup.\nAt the top of his campaign website, young4ky.com, Young has a promise: \u201cUnlike Andy Barr, I will never vote to send weapons to Nazis.\u201d\nIn the interview with Multipolarista, Young stressed that\u00a0Nazis \u201care enemies of humanity.\u201d\n\u201cI thought Americans were against Nazis in general, you know, since World War II,\u201d he added.\nYoung noted that sitting congressmen like Barr \u201ccan\u2019t acknowledge the fact that the federal government, both parties, have been sending weapons to Nazis since 2014, in Ukraine.\u201d\n\u201cOne of my objectives during the next five months is to inform every voter in the sixth district, regardless of what party they are registered as, that Andy Barr knew about it since 2014 or 2015, and he never objected, and now he wants President Biden to do it even more,\u201d Young explained.\nWhen asked why he wants to abolish the CIA, Young said,\u00a0\u201cSince it was founded in 1947, right after World War II, the CIA has been the worst, most well-funded, most powerful, most dangerous, most deadly terrorist organization in the world. It still is today.\u201d\n\u201cWe\u2019ve got 16 other intelligence agencies. Let\u2019s get rid of the worst one and save some money,\u201d he added.\nYoung also condemned the US government\u2019s so-called war on drugs, arguing \u201cit has never been effective at fighting addiction. It has always been a bonanza for drug smuggling, you know, organized crime. The CIA has made a whole lot, billions of dollars on the Afghan opium and heroin trade, for example.\u201d\n\u201cThe war on drugs is just wrong-headed from the start,\u201d he continued. \u201cIt should be treated as a public health issue, as an addiction treatment issue, and not as a criminal issue, where people get thrown in prison.\u201d\nYoung stressed that the drug war has hurt his state in particular. \u201cThe overdose problem in Kentucky has been horrible for years. We\u2019ve been losing thousands of people a year, because they get poisoned by the stuff they buy on the street.\u201d\n\u201cAnd the harm reduction approach, the public health approach, would reduce all of that,\u201d he argued.\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US kidnapped and imprisoned Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab for buying food. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Alex Saab, Camilla Fabri Saab, CLAP, Iran, sanctions, Venezuela", "output": "Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab was essentially kidnapped by the United States because he was buying food for the government\u2019s CLAP food program, to feed the people of Venezuela.\n\n(Se puede leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\n\u201cIt\u2019s not a crime to fulfill a diplomatic mission. It\u2019s not a crime to evade sanctions that are harming an entire country. It can\u2019t be illegal to help a people.\u201d Camilla Fabri Saab made these impassioned remarks when explaining the situation behind the illegal arrest and extradition \u2013 the kidnapping, in essence \u2013 of her husband, Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab.\nSaab is virtually unknown in the United States, where he is currently languishing in a Miami prison, but he has been vital to Venezuela\u2019s ability to survive the brutal economic war being waged by the U.S.\nHe is a political prisoner whose case has parallels to that of Julian Assange. Both have been subjected to extraterritorial reach by U.S. authorities, as neither are U.S. citizens, and their alleged crimes took place outside of the country. Assange is in jail for telling the truth. Saab is in jail for helping feed Venezuelans.\nSaab faces a charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering for his involvement in Venezuela\u2019s housing program, and was sanctioned by the Trump administration in 2019 for his work with Venezuela\u2019s CLAP, a program that sends food and other necessities to Venezuelan families.\nRoutinely referred to in the media as a Colombian businessman, Saab has dual Venezuela-Colombian citizenship and is a diplomat. He was appointed as a Venezuelan special envoy in April 2018, more than two years before his arrest.\nUnder the Vienna Convention and the U.S. Diplomatic Relations Act, a diplomat cannot be arrested by a foreign power. This includes diplomats who are in transit between the sending and receiving countries, Venezuela and Iran, in Saab\u2019s case.\nAlex Saab was flying from Venezuela to Iran when his plane stopped to refuel in Cabo Verde, an island country off the western coast of Africa. He was arrested without a warrant and held in Cabo Verde for nearly 500 days, as a protracted battle over his extradition to the U.S. played out in the courts.\nHe was beaten, denied medical care, and held in isolation. Cabo Verde ignored a ruling from a regional court ordering his release, as well as a decision by the United Nations Human Rights Committee suspending his extradition. Neither his family nor his lawyers were informed of his extradition until after it occurred.\nIn short, Saab was kidnapped twice: once when his plane was refueling and again when he was spirited to the U.S.\nThe U.S. government argues that the extradition was legal and that any violation of the Vienna Convention was committed by Cabo Verde. David Rivkin, one of Saab\u2019s attorneys, says the fact that \u201cCabo Verde absolutely violated its legal obligation does not provide any excuse for the United States.\u201d\nRivkin describes the case against Saab as \u201cunprecedented,\u201d given the broad and protective view the U.S. has typically held on diplomatic immunity. Saab has an April appearance in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on this very issue.\n\u201cThe U.S. cannot have a world in which third countries can molest U.S. diplomats and if you establish a rule that says third country diplomats can be molested by the United States, it is inevitable that the same would happen to U.S. diplomats. This prosecution is not based on the law and is not in the long-term interests of the United States itself,\u201d Rivkin explains.\nBeyond the crucial issue of diplomatic immunity, the charges and case against Saab are clearly political. For years, the U.S. has gone after key figures in Venezuela, including putting bounties on President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro and others, as part of its attempts to overthrow the government.\nThese attempts, which include waging a barbaric and illegal economic war that has decimated Venezuela\u2019s economy, led to increased migration and caused the deaths of tens of thousands of Venezuelans. Camila Saab rightfully calls U.S. sanctions an \u201cact of war against the entire Venezuelan population.\u201d\nHer husband played a key role in mitigating the disastrous consequences of the sanctions. He first became involved with Venezuela by winning contracts for the Great Housing Mission, a government social program that has built 3.9 million homes for working-class Venezuelans since 2011, the majority of those with the country under sanctions.\nSaab later won contracts for Venezuela\u2019s CLAP program, through which 7 million Venezuelan families receive boxes of food and essential goods each month.\nThe sanctions not only make life difficult for Venezuelans; they make it a challenge to do business with Venezuela. Banks refuse to carry out transactions, even when they\u2019re perfectly legal. Insurance companies raise prices or back out altogether. Shipping companies raise rates. Vendors demand cash and won\u2019t operate on credit.\nInstead of pulling out from Venezuela, as many businesspeople did, Saab decided to stick with the Venezuelan people and went from the private sector into the public one, becoming a diplomat tasked with finding \u201cpractical solutions\u201d to the \u201ceconomic and financial blockade\u201d imposed on Venezuela since 2015, which included brokering trade deals with Iran.\nThe economic relationship with Iran has been critical in helping with the recuperation of Venezuela\u2019s oil industry, and by extension, its economy.\nSaab played a critical role in trade agreements between Iran and Venezuela for everything from gasoline and spare parts to food and medicine. According to Forbes, Saab was a target of the U.S. because he had \u201cthe means and know-how to help discreetly keep an entire economy moving under the eyes of a watching\u00a0world.\u201d\nSaab has denied the allegations against him, and points to a Swiss investigation that was dropped after three years due to a lack of evidence.\n\u201cThe merits of the charges are weak on their face. They involve activities that did not take place in the United States and their connection to the U.S. is very tenuous,\u201d says attorney David Rivkin.\nSaab\u2019s arrest in Cabo Verde, at the behest of the U.S. government, came just months after Trump announced a \u201cmaximum pressure\u201d campaign on Venezuela. His extradition to the U.S. derailed the dialogue between the Venezuelan government and opposition.\nThe U.S. now plans to \u201cpressure\u201d Saab \u201cto shed light on Venezuela\u2019s post-sanction economic network,\u201d according to Forbes. After enduring torture in Cabo Verde, the word pressure is an\u00a0understatement.\n\u201cSince the day he flew to Iran, they have persecuted all of us. We have been harassed in the media, they have demonized us, they have not let us see him,\u201d Camilla Saab said, describing what her family has been through.\nA cancer survivor, Alex Saab hasn\u2019t been able to take his daily medicines since his arrest. He has lost 65 pounds. His parents died of Covid-19 while he was imprisoned in Cabo Verde.\nSaab\u2019s family has been targeted too. His adult children were sanctioned by the Trump administration. His youngest daughter has never met him. Yet in all of his communications, Saab maintains his allegiance to the Venezuelan people.\nIn persecuting him, Camila Saab believes the U.S. is sending a message: \u201cThey\u2019re trying to intimidate but the Venezuelan people resist and continue in their fight for sovereignty. The U.S. is not the world\u2019s police force. Free Alex Saab!\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US kills 4th UN call for peace in Gaza, helping Israel violate Hague\u2019s genocide ruling. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Canada, Gaza, Hague, ICJ, International Court of Justice, Israel, Joe Biden, Josep Borrell, M\u00e9lanie Joly, Palestine, Rafah, Security Council, UN Security Council, United Nations", "output": "The US used its veto power to block a fourth UN Security Council resolution that called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. The Biden administration keeps sending weapons to Israel, helping it violate an ICJ ruling that says Netanyahu must respect the Genocide Convention and stop killing Palestinians.\n\nThe United States has since October voted against four United Nations Security Council resolutions that called for peace in Gaza.\nTop UN officials have called for a ceasefire, but the US government has stood in their way, facilitating further violence.\nIn January, the highest UN judicial authority, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), ruled that Israel must abide by the Genocide Convention and stop killing Palestinians. But Tel Aviv ignored the Hague\u2019s decision and killed thousands more Palestinian civilians.\nBy vetoing a fourth Gaza-related Security Council resolution on February 20, and by continuing to provide weapons to Israel, the US government has helped Israel violate an ICJ order.\n\nThe resolution that Washington vetoed on February 20 had been introduced by Algeria, and called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire.\nIn the session, 13 of the 15 members of the Security Council voted in support of the resolution. The UK abstained, and the US was the only country that voted against it.\n#BREAKING\nUS vetoes Algerian-led draft resolution that would have, inter alia, demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire that must be respected by all parties\nIN FAVOR: 13AGAINST: 1 (US)ABSTAIN: 1 (UK)\nLive coveragehttps://t.co/fLIqiQv9A4 pic.twitter.com/5lqhlix7RV\n\u2014 UN News (@UN_News_Centre) February 20, 2024\n\nThe 13 nations that voted in support of the resolution were permanent members China, France, and Russia, plus Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, and Switzerland.\nUnited States vetoes latest draft resolution on the ongoing crisis in #Gaza\nThe text was put forward by Algeria on behalf of Arab States. It demanded, among other issues, \u201can immediate humanitarian ceasefire that must be respected by all parties\u201d\nMore: https://t.co/fLIqiQv9A4 pic.twitter.com/Nd1sCDQMEf\n\u2014 UN News (@UN_News_Centre) February 20, 2024\n\nThe US designed the United Nations after World War II by concentrating power in the Security Council and giving permanent seats to the war\u2019s five victors: the US, UK, France, Russia (the former Soviet Union), and China.\nThe Security Council\u2019s permanent members have veto power, which Washington has abused to advance its foreign-policy interests.\nOn December 9, the US vetoed another resolution in the Security Council, which had been introduced by the United Arab Emirates and called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.\nThat vote was the same: 13 countries in support, an abstention from the UK, and the US veto.\n#BREAKING United States vetoes Security Council draft resolution that would have demanded an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, and immediate and unconditional release of all hostages\nVOTEIn Favour: 13Against: 1 (US)Abstain: 1 (UK) pic.twitter.com/hY0YcJ1JKF\n\u2014 UN News (@UN_News_Centre) December 8, 2023\n\nBack on October 18, the US vetoed a resolution that had been introduced by Brazil, which the UN News Agency noted \u201cwould have called for \u2018humanitarian pauses\u2019 to deliver lifesaving aid to millions in Gaza\u201d.\nIn this case, 12 countries voted in favor. The US voted against it, and two countries abstained: the UK and Russia.\nUS vetoes Security Council resolution that would have called for \u201chumanitarian pauses\u201d to deliver lifesaving aid to millions in Gaza\nFavor: 12 (Albania, Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Gabon, Ghana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Switzerland,UAE)Against: 1 (US)Abstain: 2 Russia, UK pic.twitter.com/y4tiAbRMUQ\n\u2014 UN News (@UN_News_Centre) October 18, 2023\n\nWhy did Russia abstain on this resolution that had been introduced by Brazil?\nThis was because two days before, on October 16, there was a vote on a stronger competing resolution that Russia had introduced, which called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.\nThis had been the first resolution concerning Gaza to be introduced in the Security Council since the war began on October 7.\nIn this first resolution, five countries voted in support of the ceasefire: China, Gabon, Mozambique, Russia, and the UAE.\nFour countries voted against it \u2013 the major imperial powers that had colonized much of the world: France, Japan, the UK, and the US.\nSix countries abstained: Albania, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, Malta and Switzerland. (Brazil only abstained because it had introduced its own competing resolution, which was voted on two days later, and vetoed by the United States.)\nThe Western powers killed a UN Security Council resolution that proposed a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza\nThe resolution was proposed by Russia\n5 countries voted for the ceasefire:???????? China???????? Gabon???????? Mozambique???????? Russia???????? UAE\n4 voted against:???????? France???????? Japan???????? UK???????? US\u2026 pic.twitter.com/6UMfoRRqQH\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 17, 2023\n\nThe US veto of the Algerian resolution on February 20 is particularly scandalous, because Washington did it after the top legal authority on Earth, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), located at the Hague, ruled in January that Israel had to stop killing Palestinians.\nThe Hague stated that there is sufficient evidence to investigate Israel on charges of genocide.\nThe ICJ was very clear in its ruling. It ordered (emphasis added):\nIsrael must, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, in relation to Palestinians in Gaza, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of \u2026 (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.\nSince this ruling, Israel has killed thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, and injured tens of thousands more.\nICJ\u2019s Israel genocide decision: Historic victory for Palestinians and Global South\n\nThe United States has also continued to send weapons to Israel, to help it kill Palestinians \u2013 and violate the Hague\u2019s ruling.\nMeanwhile, the UN World Health Organization (WHO) reported on February 5 that roughly 100,000 Palestinians in Gaza had either been killed or wounded by Israel, or were missing \u2013 trapped under the rubble of the buildings that Israel had destroyed with US weapons.\nFurthermore, the WHO estimated that \u201c60% of the 27,019 fatalities reported by the enclave\u2019s health authorities have been women and children\u2026 with more than 66,000 now injured and requiring medical care that remains difficult to access\u201d.\nAs of February 21, Israel had killed more than 29,000 Palestinians, according to the health ministry in Gaza.\nThe Gaza health ministry\u2019s data has proven to be consistently accurate. Israeli intelligence agencies have used its casualty figures for their own analysis.\nMoreover, despite US President Joe Biden\u2019s misleading claims to the contrary, multiple medical experts published peer-reviewed scientific articles in the leading medical journal The Lancet, scrutinizing the data from the Palestinian health ministry and concluding that it is accurate. If anything, the death toll is conservative, and actually understates the number of Palestinians who have been killed by Israel.\nIn fact, the most mainstream of media outlets in the US, the Associated Press, or AP, published a report in January titled \u201cIsrael\u2019s military campaign in Gaza seen as among the most destructive in recent history, experts say\u201d. It wrote (emphasis added):\nThe Israeli military campaign in Gaza, experts say, now sits among the deadliest and most destructive in recent history.\nIn just over two months, researchers say the offensive has wreaked more destruction than the razing of Syria\u2019s Aleppo between 2012 and 2016, Ukraine\u2019s Mariupol or, proportionally, the Allied bombing of Germany in World War II. It has killed more civilians than the U.S.-led coalition did in its three-year campaign against the Islamic State group.\nThe Israeli military has said little about what kinds of bombs and artillery it is using in Gaza. But from blast fragments found on-site and analyses of strike footage, experts are confident that the vast majority of bombs dropped on the besieged enclave are U.S.-made. They say the weapons include 2,000-pound (900-kilogram) \u201cbunker-busters\u201d that have killed hundreds in densely populated areas.\n\nThe Wall Street Journal reported in December that the US has sent Israel these 2,000-pound bunker buster bombs during the war.\nThe newspaper noted that, between October 7 and December 1, the US had delivered to Israel 15,000 bombs and 57,000 artillery shells.\nIn fact, the Biden administration has repeatedly bypassed Congress, using extraordinary measures to ship more weapons to Israel.\nWhile US officials claim that they supposedly want a ceasefire in Gaza, the Wall Street Journal reported on February 17 that the US plans to continue shipping Israel tens of millions of dollars worth of additional weapons.\nEven the European Union, which strongly supports Israel, has publicly criticized its atrocities in Gaza.\nEU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell admitted in a press conference on February 13 that Israel is carrying out a \u201cslaughter\u201d in Gaza.\nBorrell highlighted the \u201cillogical\u201d hypocrisy of the US, arguing, \u201cIf you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people being killed\u201d.\nThe top European diplomat stated:\nI don\u2019t pretend to be in charge of the foreign policy of the US. I have enough with the foreign policy of European Union. But let\u2019s be logical.\nHow many times have you heard the most prominent leaders and foreign ministers around the world saying too many people are being killed? President Biden said this is too much on the top; it is not proportional.\nWell, if you believe that too many people are being killed, maybe you should provide less arms in order to prevent so many people being killed. It\u2019s not logical.\n\u2026\nThey [Palestinians] are going to evacuate. Where? To the moon? Where are they [Israel] going to evacuate these people?\nSo if the international community believes that this is a slaughter, that too many people are being killed, maybe they have to think about the provision of arms.\nAnd by the way, today [February 13], a court in the Netherlands has said, has ordered the government to stop exporting the spare parts of the F-35 fighters to Israel, in order to be sure that the International Court of Justice ruling is being implemented.\nSo I don\u2019t know; every member state is an owner of its foreign policy. But this is a little bit contradictory to continue saying that there are too many people being killed, too many people being killed; please take care of people; please don\u2019t kill so many.\nStop saying please, and do something.\nThe Canadian government has been equally hypocritical. Canada\u2019s Foreign Minister M\u00e9lanie Joly tweeted on February 10, \u201cWe are deeply concerned by reports of an Israeli military operation in Rafah. It would have devastating impact, putting the lives of Palestinians and foreign nationals, including [Canadians], seeking refuge in grave danger and making the vital delivery of humanitarian aid dangerous\u201d.\nHowever, local news outlet The Maple reported that the Canadian government has approved $28.5 million worth of new permits for military equipment exports to Israel during its brutal war on Gaza.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: To celebrate Obama Day, here are Barack\u2019s worst crimes: wars, coups, slavery, sanctions, al-Qaeda, colonialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "ATF, Barack Obama, Brazil, deportations, Flint, Gaza, Honduras, immigration, Israel, Libya, Mexico, migrants, Operation Fast and Furious, Palestine, Project Gunrunner, Puerto Rico, Syria, TPP, Venezuela, Yemen", "output": "Obama\u2019s had no real scandals, aside from the tan suit, wars on Libya, Syria, and Yemen, coups in Honduras, Ukraine, and Brazil, Wall Street bailouts, and drone assassinations\n\nIn the United States, June 14 is considered \u201cBarack Obama Day.\u201d On social media, the hashtag #ObamaDayJune14th went viral.\nTo commemorate this day, Multipolarista has compiled a list of the former Democratic president\u2019s many accomplishments.\nAs his\u00a0supporters\u00a0are so keen to\u00a0point out, Obama\u00a0had no\u00a0major\u00a0scandals, except for:\nHere are some more unforgettable classics from Obama:\nAnd be sure not to forget these other timeless hits from Obama:\nThis last act in Flint is especially symbolic, and instructive. Watch video of it below, and you can see how the beloved 44th president cared just as little about his own population as he did the imperial subjects he bombed across the planet.\n\nObama did this repeatedly, just to rub it in.\n\nBut Obama is not alone; you can\u2019t be commander in chief of the US empire without being willing to commit horrific crimes like these. It is the most important job requirement.\nObama certainly isn\u2019t alone when it comes to being a war criminal; every modern US president is. Barry just managed to pull it off with style.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Polls show almost no one trusts US media, after decades of war propaganda and lies. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Bolivia, CIA, corporate media, Jeff Bezos, Libya, media, Nicaragua, propaganda, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, Washington Post", "output": "The CIA has long manipulated the media, spreading disinformation to justify US wars. Today just 11% of North Americans trust television news.\n\n(Se puede leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nVery few people in the United States trust the mainstream corporate media. This is confirmed by a July survey from the major polling firm Gallup, which found that just 11% of North Americans trust television news, and a mere 16% have confidence in newspapers.\nIt\u2019s quite easy to understand why. The US media apparatus has repeatedly shown itself over decades to be completely unreliable and highly politicized.\nThe corporate media\u2019s treachery has been especially clear in the demonstrably false stories it disseminated to try to justify the US wars on Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria.\nThis disgraceful legacy continues today, in the proxy war that Washington is waging on Russia via Ukraine. Fake news echoed by the press has served as a powerful form of US information warfare.\n\nA co-founding officer of the CIA, Frank Wisner, famously referred to the media as a \u201cmighty wurlitzer,\u201d a type of musical instrument. He boasted that the US spy agency had so many assets in news rooms across the world that Washington could play the press like a musician, in order to manipulate public opinion.\nRevolutionary Black nationalist leader Malcolm X, who was assassinated in an operation backed by US police agencies, recognized the power of the US media in the 1960s, warning, \u201cThe media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that\u2019s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.\u201d\nUS media outlets have a kind of symbiotic relationship with the government, and especially with intelligence agencies like the CIA, which act on behalf of Wall Street and powerful corporations. US spies selectively leak stories to journalists, controlling media narratives to serve elite economic interests.\nMainstream news publications frequently promote stories based on flimsy accusations made by anonymous US government officials, without any concrete evidence. In this way, the US national security state can spread propaganda and fake news to demonize and destabilize Washington\u2019s adversaries.\nThis is not journalism; it\u2019s information warfare. But large media corporations willingly go along with it, because they profit from it.\nMany mainstream news outlets have a revolving door with the US government, and are owned by billionaire oligarchs who also have large contracts with US government agencies.\nTop newspaper the Washington Post, for instance, is the personal property of Jeff Bezos, the richest man on Earth. Bezos is the founder of mega-corporation Amazon, which has billions of dollars worth of contracts with the CIA, Pentagon, and National Security Agency (NSA).\nBillionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, meets with US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter at the Pentagon in 2016\nThe North American public has lost confidence in the media in no small part because of its long history of spreading blatant propaganda and fake news in an attempt to justify US wars of aggression.\nThe media\u2019s history of lying in defense of US wars can be traced back to the very beginning of the country. Newspapers rationalized genocide and ethnic cleansing of Indigenous peoples by European settler-colonialists by claiming the Natives were \u201cbarbarians\u201d and \u201cuncivilized.\u201d\nIn the 1898 war between the Spanish empire and the newly emerging US empire, North American media outlets promoted false stories to justify Washington\u2019s colonization of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines. This propaganda came to be known as \u201cyellow journalism.\u201d\nWhen the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, major media outlets scrambled to defend the crime against humanity.\nTop newspapers falsely claimed that the atomic bombing was necessary to end the war \u2013 despite the fact that the US government\u2019s own Strategic Bombing Survey admitted that this was false, and that the Japanese empire would have surrendered even without the nuclear attack.\nThe New York Times published a patently ridiculous article titled \u201cNo Radioactivity in Hiroshima Ruin.\u201d The respected media outlet obediently echoed a US general who \u201cdenied categorically that [the nuclear attack] produced a dangerous, lingering radioactivity.\u201d\n\nThen, as the US empire sought to justify its scorched-earth wars in Southeast Asia in 1960s, media outlets echoed fake claims by Washington that Vietnamese communists had supposedly attacked US forces in the Gulf of Tonkin. This was soon proven to be false; it was actually a US act of provocation.\nIn the 1980s, US media outlets absurdly blamed Nicaragua\u2019s Sandinista government for atrocities carried out by the right-wing CIA-sponsored Contra gangs waging war on the Sandinista Front. Former Contra leader Edgar Chamorro later admitted that the Contras were \u201ca proxy army controlled by the U.S. Government,\u201d describing them as a \u201cCentral Intelligence Agency puppet\u201d that massacred and tortured civilians in a \u201cpremeditated policy to terrorize civilian noncombatants to prevent them from cooperating with the Government.\u201d\nWhile\u00a0US media outlets falsely accused the Sandinistas of harming civilians, Edgar Chamorro wrote that the CIA-backed \u201c\u2018contras\u2019 burn down schools, homes and health centers as fast as the Sandinistas build them.\u201d\nThis US strategy of laundering information warfare through the press continued in 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. US media outlets promptly spread fake news claiming that Iraqi soldiers had removed Kuwaiti babies from incubators and left them on the ground to die.\nThis was a complete lie, but was used to justify the US war on Iraq in 1990 and 1991. The fabrication originated with the daughter of Kuwait\u2019s ambassador, who spread the false claim in testimony before the US Congress, which identified her simply as Nayirah, without disclosing her familial ties.\nThe daughter of Kuwait\u2019s ambassador, referred to simply as Nayirah, spreads lies in the US Congress in 1990\nJust over a decade later, Washington waged another war on Iraq. In the lead-up to the illegal US-led invasion in 2003, the media spread fake stories about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein supposedly harboring \u201cweapons of mass destruction\u201d (WMDs).\nThis WMD conspiracy theory was also proven to be totally false. But almost no journalists who spread the US government\u2019s fake claims were punished or faced professional consequences. This is because they were obediently serving the interests of Washington\u2019s war machine \u2013 and that is the true role of the media.\nDuring the NATO war on Libya in 2011, the press once again repeated fake stories, claiming that leader Muammar Gaddafi gave his soldiers Viagra and ordered them to assault women. This was an utter lie.\nLikewise, in the Western proxy war on Syria that began on 2011, media outlets spread false reports blaming the government in Damascus for atrocities that were actually carried out by CIA-backed Salafi-jihadist extremist insurgents.\nSome of these falsehoods in the Syria war were exposed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh. Yet despite his impressive credentials, Hersh has been basically blacklisted by the corporate media, because he damaged the reputation of the US empire. Mainstream outlets now refuse to publish the renowned and accomplished reporter.\nMore recently, US media outlets were exposed for publishing blatantly fake stories about so-called Havana Syndrome, a vague medical condition allegedly affecting US spies and diplomats. Media networks claimed, without any evidence, that Russia, China, and/or Cuba were attacking US officials with futuristic \u201cdirected energy\u201d weapons. The CIA later admitted that this was false.\nThe media spread another ridiculous conspiracy theory during the administration of US President Donald Trump. The press ludicrously claimed for years that Trump was a puppet of Moscow, and that the Kremlin had supposedly helped him win the 2016 presidential election. No concrete evidence was ever presented, because it was false.\nThis scandal came to be known popularly as \u201cRussiagate.\u201d The\u00a0fake story was endlessly debunked. But it had a massive effect on US politics, and still today many media figures repeat the nonsensical myth that Trump was a Russian asset.\nRussia is one of the US media\u2019s favorite bogeymen. In 2020, the press targeted Moscow with another fake news campaign. Dozens of major media outlets published false reports, based on unsubstantiated claims by anonymous CIA officials, that Russia was paying Taliban militants to kill the US soldiers who had been occupying their country for two decades.\nThis story was, once again, shown to be a falsehood, but only after it had the intended impact of temporarily blocking the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.\nToday, in the ongoing US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, Western media outlets have ramped up their dissemination of fake news to demonize Moscow.\nTop publications spread the false claim that Russia killed Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island. Many media networks echoed the myth of a virtuosic Ukrainian pilot known as the \u201cGhost of Kiev,\u201d celebrating him as a hero, when in reality he didn\u2019t exist. Some major outlets even published video game footage and claimed it showed Russia attacking Ukraine.\nNBC News admits that Ukraine\u2019s \u201cGhost of Kyiv\u201d myth, which was amplified by the media, was false\nAny independent journalists in the United States who challenge the lies of the mainstream media are demonized and vilified.\nThe New York Times attacked me personally because I reported on the objective historical fact that the United States sponsored a violent coup d\u2019etat in Ukraine in 2014. A leaked recording of a phone call between top State Department official Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, proves they were planning the putsch against Ukraine\u2019s democratically elected government.\nBut despite this undeniable fact, the New York Times smeared me in an irresponsible and defamatory article, claiming I was spreading \u201cconspiracy theories\u201d and implying that I am supposedly collaborating with China and Russia.\nWhenever the United States carries out a coup d\u2019etat, mainstream media outlets act as Washington\u2019s loyal lapdog, spreading false claims to justify its aggression.\nWhen the CIA overthrew Chile\u2019s democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende in 1973, the press published fake stories to justify it and falsely portray the putsch as a popular uprising.\nThe media used the same tactics of deception and information warfare to justify the 1953 CIA coup against Iran\u2019s democratically elected leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, because he tried to nationalize his country\u2019s oil, challenging the interests of British and US capitalists.\nStill today, we see the same propaganda and fake news. When the US government and right-wing extremists that it sponsored in Nicaragua tried to violently topple the democratically elected government in 2018, media outlets in both English and Spanish insisted that the violent putsch was actually \u201cpeaceful protests.\u201d\nThe press falsely blamed the Nicaraguan government for all deaths during the coup attempt, ignoring the fact that a huge number of the victims were people who supported the Sandinista Front or members of state security services who were killed by the fanatical coup-plotters.\nIn a similar vein, the media played a key role in the US-backed far-right coup in Bolivia in November 2019. The press tried to justify the violent overthrow of democratically elected socialist President Evo Morales by falsely claiming that he rigged the election.\nThis myth originated with the Washington-dominated Organization of American States (OAS), which helped sponsor the anti-democratic Bolivia putsch. The OAS\u2019 false accusations were obediently spread by the media. But these lies were later thoroughly debunked by prominent academics.\nAn academic expert debunks the lies spread by the OAS, US government, and media to try to justify the 2019 coup in Bolivia\nThe reason that mainstream media outlets continue to spread these fake reports, based on evidence-free claims of anonymous US government officials, is precisely because they help to advance Washington\u2019s foreign-policy interests. For US elites, the fact that the stories are false is irrelevant.\nThe professional reputation of corporate journalists is not hurt because they are fulfilling their political role as agents of information warfare, serving the US empire and the billionaire capitalist oligarchs who own the media companies and dictate US government policy.\nBut for the North American public, it has become clearer and clearer by the year that the media is lying to us.\nThe United States claims to be a model of \u201cdemocracy\u201d and \u201cfreedom,\u201d defending a so-called \u201crules-based order\u201d \u2013 in which Washington makes the rules and orders everyone around. But the reality is that many scientific studies prove that that US regime is deeply undemocratic and unpopular.\nThe general mistrust that North Americans have in the media is a symptom of an overall lack of faith in the authoritarian US political system.\nA June poll by Gallup found staggeringly low levels of confidence in the US government. A mere 2% of North Americans believe their government does what is right \u201cjust about always,\u201d and only 19% think it does what\u2019s right \u201cmost of the time.\u201d\n\nMany of these results fall on partisan lines. Liberals have confidence in the Democratic Party and are skeptical of Republicans, whereas conservatives have faith in the Republican Party and don\u2019t believe Democrats.\nThis extreme partisanism in the United States is partly a result of media conditioning. US news outlets compliantly follow the lines of one of the two corporate parties, the Democrats or Republicans.\nAlthough these two parties are nearly identical in their warmongering foreign policy and their neoliberal economic policy, they are at each other\u2019s throats. These ruling corporate parties constantly squabble over cultural issues in order to distract the US public from the more important problems that directly affect their lives.\nNorth Americans likewise have very little faith in the other institutions that make up our deeply undemocratic society.\nJust 7% of North Americans have confidence in Congress, 14% in the justice system, 14% in big business, 23% in the presidency, 25% in the Supreme Court, 26% in large technology companies, and 45% in the police, according to another study by Gallup.\nOne of the only US institutions that remains trusted is ironically the military, which constantly wages illegal wars around the world, with some 800 foreign bases.\nThis widespread lack of confidence in institutions in the United States is a product of its ultra-capitalist model.\nThe USA is a deeply individualistic, consumerist society in which the free market and capitalist profits are valued above everything else. This has led to an atomized culture in which many North Americans feel hopeless, depressed, and lonely. There is very little solidarity and empathy for the many people who suffer from poverty and homelessness.\nCorruption is rampant and systemic in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are legally considered people. This means there is no limit to how much money large companies and billionaire capitalist oligarchs can spend on politics.\nIn other words, bribery is essentially legal in the US political system. And candidates who have more money nearly always win the elections.\nIn the 2016 election cycle, 95.41% of candidates running for the US House of Representatives who spent more money won, while 85.29% of candidates running for Senate with more funding won.\n\nAccording to any consistent definition of the term, this system cannot be considered a democracy. It is the textbook example of an undemocratic oligarchy and a plutocracy \u2013 a government ruled by the rich.\nWhile the United States portrays itself as the paradigm of democracy and freedom, actual scientific studies by academic experts show that the opposite is true: The USA is an authoritarian oligarchy run by a small handful of rich capitalists, plagued by brutal systematic violence, mass repression, and rampant racism.\nYet the US empire seeks to impose its undemocratic model on countries around the world. Washington spends billions of dollars propping up corrupt right-wing dictatorships and bankrolling neoliberal opposition groups that use violence and other extremist tactics to destabilize independent foreign governments \u2013 especially socialist or nationalist states that use their natural resources to benefit their populations instead of Western corporations.\nWashington does this because the US oligarchy, the wealthy capitalists that truly control the government, want to exploit the resources and labor of the Global South to keep their authoritarian system going.\nThese are the same plutocrats who own the press. And they use large media companies to spread propaganda and fake news to deceive the public and advance their economic interests.\nPolls show that most people in the United States can clearly see through this scam. But because the US system is so undemocratic and repressive, average working people have no real means of changing it.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US gov\u2019t body plots to break up Russia in name of \u2018decolonization\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Casey Michel, colonialism, Congress, imperialism, Russia, Steve Cohen, Ukraine", "output": "The US government\u2019s Helsinki Commission held a Congressional briefing plotting ways to break up Russia as a country, in the name of supposed \u201cdecolonization.\u201d\n\n(Se puede leer este informe en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nA US government body held a Congressional briefing plotting ways to break up Russia as a country, in the name of supposed \u201cdecolonization.\u201d\nThe participants urged the United States to give more support to separatist movements inside Russia and in the diaspora.\nThey proposed the independence of numerous republics in the Russian Federation, including Chechnya, Tatarstan, and Dagestan, as well as historic areas that existed centuries ago such as Circassia.\nThis is far from the first time that hawks in Washington have fantasized about carving up foreign countries. During the first cold war, the US sponsored secessionist groups inside the Soviet Union. In the 1990s, the US-led NATO military cartel successfully dismantled Yugoslavia. And Washington has long backed separatists in the Chinese regions of Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.\nAfter the overthrow of the USSR, neoconservative operative and future Vice President Dick Cheney wanted to slice up Russia into several smaller countries. Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski even published an article in elite Foreign Affairs magazine in 1997 proposing to create a \u201cloosely confederated Russia \u2014 composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic.\u201d\nYet this Congressional hearing was one of the most high-profile and provocative calls for balkanization yet, held in broad daylight.\nTitled \u201cDecolonizing Russia: A Moral and Strategic Imperative,\u201d the June 23 briefing was organized by the US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), known more commonly as the Helsinki Commission.\nThis commission claims to be \u201cindependent,\u201d but it is a US government agency created and overseen by Congress.\n\n\nThe event was introduced by Congressman Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee who co-chairs the commission.\nRepresentative Cohen claimed Russians \u201chave in essence colonized their own country,\u201d and argued that Russia is \u201cnot a strict nation, in the sense that we\u2019ve known in the past.\u201d\nUS Congressman Steve Cohen speaks at the \u201cdecolonizing Russia\u201d briefing\nAt the virtual hearing, which was livestreamed on YouTube, the congressman was joined by veteran regime-change activists who have worked for an array of US government agencies.\nThe event was moderated by Bakhti Nishanov, a senior policy advisor to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe.\nHe excitedly noted, \u201cWe have many, many participants. I think this is pretty much a record for a House commission briefing.\u201d\nNishanov argued that Western condemnation of Moscow\u2019s war in Ukraine should expand to opposition to \u201cRussia\u2019s interior empire.\u201d\nHe added that the panelists hoped to \u201ccome up with ideas that will actually contain Russia.\u201d\nThe most active speaker in the hearing was Casey Michel, a millennial neoconservative activist who has made a career out of advocating for regime change against the US government\u2019s adversaries.\nMichel got his start professionally working for the US Peace Corps on the Russia-Kazakhstan border, and later capitalized on the new cold war hysteria in Washington.\nHe is an adjunct fellow at the ironically named Kleptocracy Initiative of the Hudson Institute, a right-wing DC think tank that has been handsomely funded by the Koch oligarchs, WalMart\u2019s Walton family, massive corporations like ExxonMobil, and the Pentagon.\nIn May, Michel published an article in Washington\u2019s establishment magazine The Atlantic, titled \u201cDecolonize Russia,\u201d which appears to have been an inspiration for the Congressional briefing.\nNeoconservative activist Casey Michel\n\u201cRussia continues to oversee what is in many ways a traditional European empire, only that instead of colonizing nations and peoples overseas, it instead colonized nations and peoples over land,\u201d Michel declared in the hearing.\nThe neoconservative activist lamented that the United States did not use the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 to break up Russia itself. He complained that Western support for secessionist movements in Russia did not go far enough.\n\u201cThese are colonized nations that we consider to be part of Russia proper, even though, again, these are non-Russian nations themselves that remain colonized by, as we\u2019ve seen yet again, another dictatorship in the Kremlin,\u201d Michel said.\nHe insisted that the event was not simply about advocating for the \u201cdismemberment and partition\u201d of Russia, but was rather motivated by genuine opposition to colonialism and imperialism.\nThis was deeply ironic, because Michel has spent years viciously smearing the anti-imperialist left in the United States, while frequently caricaturing the term to demonize the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.\nWhen it comes to supporting separatist movements inside Russia, however, Michel curiously fashions himself one of the world\u2019s most vocal advocates of a unique form of \u201canti-imperialism\u201d that just so happens to advance US foreign policy interests.\n.@cjcmichel: choosing to ignore the kinds of anti-colonial, pro-sovereignty, and anti-imperial movements that will emerge in Russia is a luxury we no longer have. https://t.co/RQA2bR4pd9\n\u2014 Helsinki Commission (@HelsinkiComm) June 23, 2022\n\nJoining Michel at the Congressional briefing was\u00a0Erica Marat, a professor at the College of International Security Affairs at the Pentagon\u2019s National Defense University.\nMarat accused Russia of committing \u201cgenocide.\u201d She condemned so-called \u201cimperial collaborators\u201d in Russia, singling out Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov. She did not acknowledge the incongruity that she herself works for the US Department of Defense.\nMarat also complained that the \u201cGlobal South continues to consider Russia as an anti-Western, anti-colonial power and denies the dignity of non-Russian people and especially people of color from the former Soviet states.\u201d\nSimilar comments were made by fellow panelist Botakoz Kassymbekova, a lecturer at Switzerland\u2019s University of Basel.\nKassymbekova lamented that the Soviet Union\u2019s anti-imperialist \u201cnarrative was very attractive, especially in the Global South.\u201d\nShe rejected \u201cthe Marxian idea, that was popular all around the world, that capitalism produces colonialism,\u201d and the \u201cvery successful anti-Western narrative of the Soviet Union that colonialism is a Western problem.\u201d\nKassymbekova insisted that the USSR was colonialist, although her argument was contradictory because she simultaneously admitted that, after the Bolshevik Revolution, the former Russian czarist empire \u201cpartially underwent decolonization.\u201d\nIronically, she also repeatedly mentioned \u201cStalinism\u201d and the need for thorough \u201cde-Stalinization,\u201d without ever acknowledging that Joseph Stalin was himself Georgian, not Russian.\nKassymbekova used the briefing to call for the US government to provide more resources for secessionist movements by \u201csupporting civic initiatives and civil societies of its neighbors and within Russia.\u201d\n.@BotakozKassymb1: Today Russia attempts to restore the Soviet empire based on the idea of Russian cultural superiority and genocidal suppression of peoples. https://t.co/RQA2bR4pd9\n\u2014 Helsinki Commission (@HelsinkiComm) June 23, 2022\n\nAnother panelist was Fatima Tlis, a Circassian separatist activist from Russia who was given a fellowship by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a notorious CIA cutout used to finance US regime-change operations around the globe.\nTlis has worked extensively with US government propaganda outlets Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. According to her publicly available LinkedIn profile, Tlis has also worked with the Jamestown Foundation, a neoconservative DC think tank closely linked to the CIA.\nTlis claimed in the hearing that her \u201chomeland\u201d Circassia is \u201coccupied\u201d by Russia. She also spoke of \u201cwhite slavery.\u201d\nIn the Q&A session, a guest asked how the panelists could discuss \u201cdecolonization\u201d in Russia while they are in the United States and work for the US government, which was founded on genocide of Indigenous peoples. Tlis dismissively shot back, \u201cAs for your question, everybody who has ever dealt with the Russian disinformation and propaganda would immediately recognize it for what it is. It\u2019s called \u2013 there\u2019s actually a professional term for this disinformation: whataboutism.\u201d\nKassymbekova responded similarly, arguing \u201cthis is kind of a very typical way of blaming the West rather than looking inwards.\u201d\nThe final participant in the briefing was Hanna Hopko, a former of member of Ukraine\u2019s parliament, who previously chaired its Foreign Affairs Committee, and a significant figure in the 2014 US-sponsored coup in Ukraine, marketed as Euromaidan.\nHopko insisted that Washington must think \u201chow to change not just the regime, but how to change the imperialistic nature of Russian statehood.\u201d\nBut because she was traveling, Hopko\u2019s call signal was very weak, and she was not able to speak much in the briefing.\nThe panelists concluded the hearing condemning Russia\u2019s military intervention in Syria, while making no mention of the billions of dollars the United States, its European allies, Gulf monarchies, Israel, and NATO member Turkey spent arming and training sectarian Islamist rebels in order to wage a proxy war in the country.\nThey likewise failed to acknowledge that Russia only entered Syria at the request of the country\u2019s internationally recognized government. Tlis referred to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as an illegitimate Russian \u201casset,\u201d and depicted Moscow\u2019s defense of Syria\u2019s territorial integrity against Western attempts at state collapse as a form of aggression.\nThis \u201cDecolonizing Russia\u201d briefing is one of a growing number of examples of the US government co-opting left-wing rhetoric in order to advance its imperial interests.\nNumerous Biden administration officials have exploited rhetoric about \u201cintersectionality,\u201d the principle that various forms of oppression like racism and sexism intersect.\nThe White House claimed to follow an \u201cintersectional approach.\u201d Secretary of State Antony Blinken insisted the State Department supports \u201cdiversity and intersectionality.\u201d\nThe CIA published a recruitment ad featuring a Latina agent who proudly called herself a feminist. The spy agency \u2013 which is notorious for organizing right-wing coups d\u2019etat and torturing detainees \u2013 has likewise portrayed itself as a supporter of the trans community.\nThe US government funds a podcast co-created and hosted by a CIA veteran that claims to speak on behalf of the \u201cUyghur diaspora\u201d and employs intersectional feminist rhetoric to demonize China.\nThis strategy of intersectional imperialism shows how Washington has modified its propaganda tactics, employing progressive-sounding talking points to appeal to left-leaning youth.\nDC\u2019s call to \u201cdecolonize\u201d Russia is reminiscent of an award-winning paper by academic Cara Daggett, titled \u201cDrone Disorientations: How \u2018Unmanned\u2019 Weapons Queer the Experience of Killing in War.\u201d This article whitewashed the US assassination program by arguing it is subversive and anti-heteronormative, because \u201ckilling with drones produces queer moments of disorientation.\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Ex Guant\u00e1namo detainee: Ron DeSantis aided torture, laughed at force-feeding. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "GOP, Guant\u00e1namo Bay, Republican Party, Ron DeSantis, torture", "output": "Former Guant\u00e1namo prison camp detainee Mansoor Adayfi said Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a top US presidential helpful, was complicit in torture and laughed when hunger strikers were violently force-fed.\n\nA former detainee at the US military\u2019s prison camp at Guant\u00e1namo Bay said Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was complicit in torture when the Republican politician served there as an Army lawyer.\nAccording to the ex prisoner, DeSantis was brought in to break a hunger strike, and he laughed when detainees were violently force-fed by US torturers.\nHe described these horrors in an interview with journalist Mike Prysner, on his podcast Eyes Left.\nPrysner spoke with Mansoor Adayfi, a Yemeni man who was held at Gitmo, without charge, from 2002 to 2016.\nDeSantis is a presidential hopeful who is widely considered a top candidate for the Republican Party in the 2024 election. Today he serves as governor of Florida, the third-most populous US state, and he was previously a member of the House of Representatives.\n\nAfter graduating from elite Yale University, DeSantis briefly taught at an expensive private school, where students recalled he was sympathetic to the white-supremacist Confederacy in the Civil War.\nDeSantis went on to study at Harvard Law School. As an avid supporter of the US \u201cwar on terror,\u201d he also joined the Navy.\nHe served as a lawyer in the military\u2019s judicial arm the Judge Advocate General\u2019s Corps (JAG), going on to advise top officers as they committed atrocities in the illegal US occupation of Iraq.\nBut before he went to Iraq, DeSantis was sent to work at Guant\u00e1namo Bay in 2006, where he helped oversee the US torture camp there located on occupied Cuban territory.\nWhile DeSantis has mentioned his time at Gitmo to gain political capital, he has always been very vague about what he did there, and public records related to his service are largely redacted.\nThere is not much mainstream corporate media coverage of DeSantis\u2019 time in Guant\u00e1namo, and the little reporting that exists whitewashes it, claiming he was there to make sure the US military was following the law.\nAdayfi told Prysner in the podcast interview that DeSantis was stationed in Gitmo specifically to break a hunger strike that started in 2005. Hundreds of prisoners refused to eat to protest the inhumane conditions in the torture camp, in which several detainees died.\n\u201cThey brought in a collection of new ruthless individuals to break the strike,\u201d Adayfi recalled. He said that DeSantis told the detainees he was there to help them, \u201cbut it was a trap.\u201d\nDeSantis monitored the hunger strikers, gathered intelligence, and advised military officials at the torture camp.\nWhen US prison guards began to force-feed the detainees, Adayfi reported that DeSantis simply watched the torture and laughed.\n\u201cWe were crying and screaming,\u201d he said. \u201cWe were tied to the feeding chair. And that guy was watching. He was laughing.\u201d\nWhile DeSantis has tried to market himself in domestic US politics as a right-wing \u201cpopulist,\u201d he completely follows bipartisan neoconservative orthodoxy on foreign policy.\nDeSantis is a hawk who praised the US \u201cwar on terror\u201d and participated in the illegal military occupation of Iraq. He has since pushed for new wars on both China and Iran.\nDeSantis strongly supports the illegal US blockades and sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela, and he praised US-led coup attempts in Venezuela and Nicaragua.\nBoasting that \u201cFlorida is the most Israel-friendly state in the country,\u201d DeSantis even moved to criminalize protest against the apartheid regime.\nDeSantis has tried to crush\u00a0the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which advocates for basic Palestinian human rights.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: How Trump and John Bolton attempted a coup in Venezuela. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Donald Trump, John Bolton, Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, podcast, Venezuela", "output": "Donald Trump\u2019s National Security Advisor John Bolton wrote a book, \u201cThe Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,\u201d detailing the US coup attempt and hybrid war against Venezuela.\n\nDonald Trump\u2019s neoconservative US National Security Advisor John Bolton admitted on CNN he \u201chelped plan coups d\u2019etat\u201d in Venezuela and \u201cother places.\u201d\nMultipolarista editor\u00a0Benjamin Norton analyzes Bolton\u2019s book \u201cThe Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,\u201d which details the US hybrid war on Venezuela.\n\n\nThe following is an excerpt from the Multipolarista report \u201cTrump advisor John Bolton admits planning US coups in Venezuela and beyond\u201c:\nTrump fired John Bolton in September 2019, partially due to his failure in the Venezuela coup attempts.\nIn 2020, Bolton published a 500-page tell-all memoir, titled \u201cThe Room Where It Happened.\u201d He was offered a $2 million advance for the book, and promised millions more in royalties.\nThe memoir turned Bolton into a media celebrity. He cashed in on the opportunity to criticize Trump for supposedly not being enough of a warmonger.\n\u201cThe Room Where It Happened\u201d mentions Venezuela and Venezuelans more than 300 times, and has a 35-page chapter dedicated specifically to detailing his coup attempt, titled \u201cVenezuela Libre\u201d (Free Venezuela).\nBolton did not hide his neocolonialist worldview in the book, once again invoking the nearly 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine.\nFearmongering about Venezuela\u2019s alliance with China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba, he declared, \u201cAmerica had opposed external threats in the Western Hemisphere since the Monroe Doctrine, and it was time to resurrect it.\u201d\nBolton\u00a0wrote that Trump shared this colonialist mentality. He claimed the president said that Venezuela is \u201creally part of the United States,\u201d and that \u201cit would be \u2018cool\u2019 to invade Venezuela,\u201d according to White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly.\n\u201cTrump still wanted a military option,\u201d Bolton emphasized. This is consistent with what former\u00a0Defense Secretary Mark Esper described in his book.\nThe neoconservative national security advisor also boasted in the book that the Trump administration\u2019s coup attempt against Venezuela had bipartisan backing from both Republicans and Democrats \u201con the Hill, where support on both sides of the aisle for our hard line in Venezuela was almost uniform.\u201d\n\u201cAnd the press coverage was uniformly favorable,\u201d he added contently.\nBolton pointed out the coincidental timing that, \u201cShortly after I became National Security Advisor, while Maduro was speaking at a military awards ceremony on August 4, he was attacked by two drones.\u201d\nMaduro said his government has intelligence proving that Bolton had planned the assassination attempt.\nShowing his sadistic streak, Bolton wrote that the photos of Venezuela soldiers running away from the killer drones was \u201chilarious.\u201d\nIn a meeting after the drone assassination attempt, Bolton wrote that \u201cTrump said to me emphatically, \u2018Get it done,\u2019 meaning get rid of the Maduro regime. \u2018This is the fifth time I\u2019ve asked for it,\u2019 he continued.\u201d\nThe national security advisor noted that Trump\u2019s secretary of state,\u00a0former CIA Director Mike Pompeo, was strongly in agreement, stating \u201c\u2018we should go to the wall\u2019 to get Maduro out.\u201d\nBolton added, \u201cTrump insisted he wanted military options for Venezuela and then keep it because \u2018it\u2019s really part of the United States.\u2019\u201d\nTrump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Advisor John Bolton in April 2019\nTrump had made it clear that he was considering invading Venezuela as far back as August 2017, Bolton pointed out. In a press conference that August, Trump had stated, \u201cWe have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary.\u201d\nIn the memoir, Bolton admitted that that illegal unilateral sanctions the United States imposed on Venezuela were aimed at \u201cdriving the state-owned oil monopoly\u2019s production as low as possible,\u201d in an attempt \u201cto crash Maduro\u2019s regime.\u201d\n\u201cTrump stressed that he wanted the \u2018strongest possible sanctions\u2019 against Venezuela,\u201d Bolton wrote.\nTrump also \u201cwanted assurances regarding post-Maduro access to Venezuela\u2019s oil resources, trying to ensure that China and Russia would not continue to benefit from their deals,\u201d he added.\nBolton stressed that Trump had great \u201cinterest in Venezuela\u2019s oil fields,\u201d and he recalled that the US president insisted \u201cwe should take the oil in Venezuela after ousting Maduro.\u201d\nSimilarly, Bolton recalled numerous stories that showed how Trump\u2019s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs banker and hedge fund manager, was most concerned about the interests of US corporations.\nHe wrote that Mnuchin frequently \u201ctalked to oil-company executives.\u201d Mnuchin was concerned about remaining \u201cUS oil-and-gas assets in Venezuela,\u201d and \u201cworried that steps in the banking sector would hurt Visa and Mastercard.\u201d\nBolton also revealed he pressured the UK government to illegally freeze more than\u00a0$1 billion of gold reserves\u00a0that Venezuela held in the Bank of England.\nHe celebrated sanctions as instruments of US financial warfare, declaring that \u201cthey\u2019re about using America\u2019s massive economic power to advance our national interests. They are most effective when applied massively, swiftly, and decisively, and enforced with all the power available.\u201d\nBoasting of the sadistic sanctions he imposed on Venezuela, Bolton gleefully wrote, \u201cwe had Maduro by the windpipe and needed to constrict it.\u201d\nTrump with National Security Advisor John Bolton and CIA Director Gina Haspel in January 2019\nIn an incredibly hypocritical moment of his book, Bolton accused the Venezuelan government, without any evidence, of supposedly trafficking drugs. But he simultaneously fondly recalled a meeting he had \u201cin my office with Honduran President Juan Hernandez, who was similarly optimistic, in contrast to the situation in Nicaragua, on his border.\u201d\nHonduras\u2019 right-wing authoritarian leader Juan Orlando Hern\u00e1ndez (JOH) came to power after a US-backed military coup in 2009. JOH was a key US ally, and joined Washington in recognizing Guaid\u00f3. JOH was also a notorious drug dealer.\nIn 2022,\u00a0JOH was extradited\u00a0to the United States, and the Justice Department said \u201cHernandez allegedly partnered with some of the largest cocaine traffickers in the world to transport tons of cocaine.\u201d\nBolton concluded the chapter lamenting that the various US-sponsored coup attempts in Venezuela failed.\nHe also complained that Trump was not supportive enough. While Trump had pushed for extremely aggressive policies against Venezuela, he apparently did not much have faith in Guaid\u00f3, calling him \u201cweak\u201d and allegedly joking that he was the \u201cBeto O\u2019Rourke of Venezuela.\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Media regurgitates fake news from US spies, risking World War III with Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "AP, Associated Press, media, Poland, Russia, Ukraine", "output": "Top news outlet the Associated Press falsely claimed Russia fired a missile at NATO member Poland, risking World War III. This fake story came from an anonymous US spy. AP\u2019s correspondent insisted, \u201cI can\u2019t imagine a U.S. intelligence official would be wrong on this.\u201d\n\nTop Western media outlets published a false report claiming Russia attacked Poland with a missile. This fake news originated with an anonymous US intelligence official, whose unsubstantiated accusations were mindlessly regurgitated by the press.\nOn November 15, two people in Poland were killed in a missile attack that crossed over Ukraine\u2019s western border.\nNATO and Polish officials later admitted that this missile was likely fired by accident by Ukrainian authorities. But soon after it happened, many Western media outlets blamed Russia.\n\nGiven that Poland is a member of the US-led NATO military cartel, a Russian attack on its territory could have triggered a direct US military entry into the proxy war in Ukraine, potentially risking World War III between two nuclear superpowers.\nOne of the main culprits in amplifying the false claim that Russia had attacked Poland was leading US news agency the Associated Press (AP).\nThe AP reporter who published the fake news, James LaPorta, had been fed the story by a US spy.\n\nThe website Semafor obtained internal communications between LaPorta and his colleagues using the chat app Slack.\nA screenshot of the messages shows that a \u201csenior American intelligence official\u201d had told LaPorta that \u201cRussian missiles crossed into Poland,\u201d killing \u201cat least two people.\u201d The anonymous US spy also claimed that \u201cmissiles entered Moldova.\u201d\nCredit: Semafor\nLaPorta said the unnamed source in the US intelligence agency had been \u201cvetted by Ron Dixon,\u201d referring to the vice president of news and head of investigations at the Associated Press.\nAP editor Lisa Leff asked if the website could publish the claim, or if it needed \u201cconfirmation from another source and/or Poland.\u201d\nLaPorta replied, \u201cthat call is above my pay grade.\u201d\nThe AP correspondent based in Warsaw, Poland, Vanessa Gera, chimed in, arguing they should publish the fake story, because, \u201cI can\u2019t imagine a U.S. intelligence official would be wrong on this.\u201d\nSource: Semafor\nThe AP\u2019s deputy news director for Europe, Zeina Karam, ultimately approved the fake story. She wrote, \u201cYes, should be ok, I see source vetted by @rnixon,\u201d in reference to the vice president.\nKaram previously served as\u00a0AP\u2019s news director for Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq.\nLisa Leff, the AP editor, subsequently sent out the news alert, stating that a \u201csenior U.S. intelligence official says Russian missiles crossed into NATO member Poland, killing two people.\u201d\nBy\u00a0publishing the fake news, the AP set off an international scandal that could have triggered a direct US military attack on Russia.\nTo try to save face, the AP fired LaPorta on November 21.\nBut the Associated Press told the Washington Post that it does not plan on punishing Gera, Leff, Karam, or any of the editors who obediently echoed the unsubstantiated claim of an unnamed US spy.\nThis controversy shows how cozy mainstream corporate media outlets are with US intelligence agencies, and how anonymous spies feed them claims that are often false, but that serve Washington\u2019s foreign-policy interests.\nLaPorta himself previously worked for the US military. The Post noted that he is a \u201cformer U.S. Marine who served in Afghanistan, [and] he joined AP in April 2020 after several years as a freelance reporter.\u201d\nBut he was too close to his US government sources, and he got burned.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: FBI spied on and harassed Black revolutionary who was killed and set on fire. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Black liberation, Black Lives Matter, Darren Seals, FBI, Ferguson, Michael Brown, police, police brutality, racism", "output": "The FBI harassed Black revolutionary Darren Seals and compiled a 900-page report on his organizing against racism and police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri, birthplace of Black Lives Matter. He was shot to death in 2016, then set on fire in his car.\n\nThe FBI harassed Black revolutionary Darren Seals and compiled a 900-page report on his organizing against racism and police brutality in Ferguson, Missouri, birthplace of the Black Lives Matter movement.\nSeals was shot to death in 2016, then set on fire in his car in an unsolved murder.\n\nLocal St. Louis media outlet the Riverfront Times obtained a declassified copy of the more than 900-page FBI report on Seals.\nThe FBI fully redacted approximately 860 of the pages, and partially redacted parts of the remaining roughly 45 pages.\nIn the report, the FBI called Seals \u201ca self-described revolutionary who has espoused somewhat militant rhetoric and has access to weapons.\u201d\nThe Riverfront Times article shows how the FBI used local police to harass Seals.\nIn June 2016, the activist was \u201cinvestigatively detained\u201d by local police who pulled over Seals in his car on FBI orders.\n\nSeals had proudly described himself on his Twitter account as a \u201cRevolutionary, Activist, Unapologetically BLACK, Afrikan in AmeriKKKa.\u201d\nAlthough he was one of the co-founders of Black Lives Matter, Seals was very critical of the nonprofit-industrial complex and the attempt to co-opt the popular movement.\nA working-class activist who made a modest living as on an assembly line at General Motors, Seals harshly criticized people like DeRay Mckesson, who were handpicked by the corporate media, funded by billionaire-backed corporate foundations, and turned into so-called \u201cleaders\u201d of what had been a grassroots movement.\nMckesson used his media celebrity to make large amounts of money, doing ads for corporations. He also joined the Democratic Party, unsuccessfully ran for office, and endorsed Hillary Clinton for president.\nSeals condemned them as opportunistic \u201csellouts.\u201d He ridiculed:\u00a0\u201cLet me start an organization; give me a couple grants; start me a couple Gofundmes; tweet a little bit; and now they\u2019re big shots; they\u2019re traveling the world.\u201d\n\u201cThey\u2019re in these orgs, getting paid $5000, $10,000 a month, traveling the fucking world, speaking like y\u2019all are fucking helping the community, but you ain\u2019t doing shit for the community.\u201d\n\u201cWe got blood, sweat, and tears in the streets, for nothing,\u201d Seals added. \u201cPeople risked their lives; people lost their jobs, lost their homes. There are cats in prison right now, doing five, 10 years for Mike Brown shit. This shit was real.\u201d\n\u201cWe could have changed the fucking world. All you wanted was a fucking donation, and a couple Twitter followers\u201d\nSeals also criticized capitalism and US imperialism.\n\u201cMoney is the root of all evil; being broke is the root of all evil; white supremacy is the root of all evil in this country,\u201d he said. \u201cThat\u2019s why the government, they\u2019re going to war every year, taking resources, land, gold, oil.\u201d\n\u201cI didn\u2019t get in it for no money,\u201d Seals explained. \u201cFirst of all, I didn\u2019t even know you could make money off that type of shit, like I didn\u2019t know shit about soliciting grant funds.\u201d\n\u201cI came out there strictly to talk about racism, educate people, let them know how we need to come together,\u201d he said.\nHe emphasized,\u00a0\u201cWe need grassroots organizations from the people in the community, people who genuinely give a fuck, people from the struggle.\u201d\n\u201cLeadership don\u2019t come from Yale, Princeton; leadership don\u2019t come from Harvard. They ain\u2019t been through this shit.\u201d\n\u201cThey ain\u2019t gonna sacrifice their life for this shit. They ain\u2019t gonna die for y\u2019all or y\u2019all\u2019s kids. They don\u2019t want to lose their motherfucking position.\u201d\n\u201cI don\u2019t give a fuck about none of this shit. You kill me tomorrow; I ain\u2019t never gonna not speak on this, on the real. And they know that. They knew that when they met me.\u201d\n\u201cThat\u2019s why they made sure my face ain\u2019t get too big.\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US threatened to invade International Criminal Court. Now it loves ICC for targeting Putin. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "\u00c1frica, African Union, Antony Blinken, AU, Burundi, colonialism, Gambia, ICC, ICJ, International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, John Bolton, Jos\u00e9 Bustani, Karim Khan, Mike Pompeo, neocolonialism, racism, Rome Statute, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, Vladimir Putin", "output": "The US government imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, threatened to arrest judges, and passed a \u201cHague Invasion Act\u201d. Previously, the ICC only prosecuted Africans. But now that it wants to arrest Russian President Putin, Washington praises the court (while still refusing to join it).\n\n(Se puede leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nMany countries in the Global South have denounced the International Criminal Court as a neocolonial institution, biased in favor of the West. Its leadership has been dominated by Europeans, and as of 2016, only Africans had been brought to trial at the court.\nIn a rare point of agreement, the United States has also opposed the International Criminal Court (ICC) since its inception. The US is not a member of the ICC, and Washington has even imposed sanctions on its top officials and threatened to arrest judges and prosecutors.\nIn fact, when the court first opened in the Netherlands in 2002, the United States passed a law known as the \u201cHague Invasion Act\u201d, according to which Washington threatens to send its soldiers to free anyone being tried at the ICC who is a US citizen or is deemed important to its \u201cnational security\u201d interests.\n\nBut after relentlessly attacking the ICC for its 21-year history, Washington has suddenly done a 180, and now publicly supports the ICC in its attempt to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin.\nOn March 17, the ICC\u2019s Polish president, Piotr Hofma\u0144ski, issued an arrest warrant for Putin, over alleged atrocities committed in the proxy war in Ukraine between NATO and Russia.\nThe ICC arrest warrant was issued almost exactly 20 years to the day after the beginning of the US invasion of Iraq, which caused more than 1 million deaths, and which even United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said was illegal and violated the UN Charter.\nNot a single US official was held responsible for the war crimes committed in Iraq. But the ICC now has its sights on Russia.\n\nRussia is not party to the ICC. Ukraine is not a full member either.\nMoscow said the \u201ccriminal prosecution is obviously illegal\u201d and is a reflection of the Western-dominated court\u2019s \u201cclear hostility\u201d to Russia.\nDespite the fact that the United States is not a member of the ICC, President Joe Biden strongly supported the court\u2019s arrest warrant.\nIn collaboration with the European Union, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is pressuring countries that are members of the ICC to comply and arrest Putin.\nThis is quite a reversal for Blinken, because in March 2021, when the court was investigating Israel over war crimes it committed in the occupied Palestinian territories, the top US diplomat published a furious statement denouncing the ICC.\nBlinken roared:\nThe ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter. Israel is not a party to the ICC and has not consented to the Court\u2019s jurisdiction, and we have serious concerns about the ICC\u2019s attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel. The Palestinians do not qualify as a sovereign state and therefore, are not qualified to obtain membership as a state in, participate as a state in, or delegate jurisdiction to the ICC.\nLike Israel and the United States, Russia is not a member of the ICC. But just two years after arguing that the court cannot investigate non-member Israel over its war crimes, Blinken is suddenly insisting that the ICC must take action against non-member Russia on behalf of non-member Ukraine.\nBlinken\u2019s predecessor went so far as to impose sanctions on top ICC officials.\nIn 2020, when President Donald Trump was in office, the ICC opened an investigation into war crimes committed in Afghanistan by the US, NATO, and Afghan government allies.\nIn response, Trump\u2019s former CIA Director turned Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an angry rant denouncing the court.\n\u201cWe oppose any effort by the ICC to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. We will not tolerate its inappropriate and unjust attempts to investigate or prosecute Americans\u201d, he declared in March.\nPompeo blasted the ICC as \u201can embarrassment\u201d and \u201ca so-called court which is revealing itself to be a nakedly political body\u201d. He asserted that \u201cwe are exposing and confronting its abuses\u201d.\nThe top US diplomat even threatened the family members of top ICC officials, vowing, \u201cWe want to identify those responsible for this partisan investigation and their family members\u201d.\nLater that September, the US State Department hit the court\u2019s chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and her colleagues with sanctions.\nBREAKING: In shocking attack on #ICC @secpompeo threatens collective punishment against named staff of the court and their FAMILIES for court's ongoing investigation into #Afghanistan crimes that implicate US  https://t.co/OsCTrC5YJs\n\u2014 Sarah Leah Whitson (@sarahleah1) March 17, 2020\n\nWhen the Biden administration entered office in early 2021, it removed these US sanctions on the ICC. But Washington still kept attacking and undermining the court.\nUS state media outlet Voice of America cited Blinken, who stressed that Washington continued \u201cto disagree strongly with the ICC\u2019s actions relating to the Afghanistan and Palestinian situations\u201d and object to ICC \u201cefforts to assert jurisdiction over personnel of non-States Parties such as the United States and Israel\u201d.\nThat is to say, the Biden administration strongly opposed the ICC\u2019s efforts to investigate US and NATO war crimes committed in Afghanistan and Israeli war crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territories.\nBut now that the ICC is going after Putin, the political class in Washington is ecstatic.\nThe military leadership in the Department of Defense, on the other hand, is more cautious.\nThe New York Times reported in early March, just a week before the ICC issued its arrest warrant for Putin: \u201cThe Pentagon is blocking the U.S. from sharing evidence on Russian atrocities in Ukraine with the International Criminal Court, officials said. Military leaders fear setting a precedent that might pave the way for it to prosecute Americans\u201d.\nBreaking News: The Pentagon is blocking the U.S. from sharing evidence on Russian atrocities in Ukraine with the International Criminal Court, officials said. Military leaders fear setting a precedent that might pave the way for it to prosecute Americans. https://t.co/xnHCjkkZnK\n\u2014 The New York Times (@nytimes) March 8, 2023\n\nThe International Criminal Court is only 21 years old, but it has clearly demonstrated an extreme bias toward the Global South, and against Africa in particular.\nThe Los Angeles Times published an article in 2016 that clearly illustrated the one-sidedness: \u201cOnly Africans have been tried at the court for the worst crimes on Earth\u201d.\nOnly Africans have been tried at the court for the worst crimes on Earth https://t.co/lxy2AEejbX\n\u2014 Los Angeles Times (@latimes) October 24, 2016\n\nThat same year, Canada\u2019s state media outlet CBC reported: \u201cInternational Criminal Court facing exodus of African nations over charges of racism\u201d.\nCBC acknowledged that \u201cnine of the 10 cases currently under investigation by the ICC are based in Africa\u201d.\nBurundi, Gambia, and South Africa condemned the ICC as a racist institution, vowing to withdraw from the court.\nGambia\u2019s information minister said the ICC \u201cis in fact an International Caucasian Court, for the prosecution and humiliation of people of colour, especially Africans\u201d.\nIn 2016, Gambia did withdraw from the court.\nSouth Africa left as well \u2013 although its high court later revoked the withdrawal.\nIn 2017, the African Union called on its members to leave the ICC.\nAfrican intellectuals have since continuously denounced the ICC as a neocolonial institution.\nHow colonialism's legacy continues to plague the International Criminal Court https://t.co/wuV2K1tzTG\n\u2014 The Conversation Africa (@TC_Africa) July 16, 2020\n\nGambian ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda appeared to try to change the court\u2019s reputation by opening the investigations into US and NATO war crimes in Afghanistan and Israeli war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories.\nThe Trump administration hit back with sanctions and threats. Israel\u2019s far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by baselessly accusing the ICC of \u201canti-semitism\u201d.\nBut Bensouda\u2019s efforts \u2013 as minimal as they were \u2013 were thwarted when her nine-year term ended in 2021.\nShe was replaced with the ICC\u2019s current prosecutor, a\u00a0Karim Ahmad Khan, a British lawyer.\nKhan is the brother of right-wing politician Imran Ahmad Khan, a former member of Parliament for the UK Conservative Party (who also happens to be a convicted pedophile).\nAlmost immediately after Karim Khan took over the ICC, he ended the investigations into US and NATO war crimes in Afghanistan and Israeli war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories.\nReuters cited Afghan human rights activist Horia Mosadiq, who called Khan\u2019s decision \u201can insult to thousands of other victims of crimes by Afghan government forces and U.S. and NATO forces\u201d.\nThis story should be a huge scandal:\nThe new International Criminal Court prosecutor, @KarimKhanQC, quietly dropped the investigation into US war crimes committed in Afghanistan, supposedly \"due to lack of resources\"\nMore impunity for US war criminalshttps://t.co/KFXR7RUDOv\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 6, 2021\n\nKhan claimed in 2021 that the ICC was struggling with a lack of resources and would instead focus on \u201cthe scale and nature of crimes within the jurisdiction of the court\u201d.\nBut the issuing of an arrest warrant for the president of Russia \u2013 a non member \u2013 over alleged atrocities committed in Ukraine \u2013 which is not a full member either \u2013 clearly contradicts Khan\u2019s purported commitment to focus on \u201ccrimes within the jurisdiction of the court\u201d.\nThe Israeli media revealed that Israel, which is not a member of the ICC, had \u201cworked hard behind the scenes\u201d to pressure countries that are parties to the court to elect Khan as chief prosecutor.\nIt keeps getting better: Now the report says Israel \u201cworked hard behind the scenes\u201d to get #KarimKhan elected to #ICC pic.twitter.com/rdSF3vaK59\n\u2014 Noa Landau \u05e0\u05e2\u05d4 \u05dc\u05e0\u05d3\u05d0\u05d5 (@noa_landau) February 12, 2021\n\nIn 2022, the Times of Israel praised Khan, noting that the \u201cnew ICC prosecutor has not issued a single public statement nor taken any single public action regarding Israel-Palestine to date\u201d.\nThe Israeli newspaper added excitingly, \u201cMany Israeli officials believe that Bensouda would already have taken actions and maybe even have issued arrest warrants had she continued in office past her nine-year term\u201d.\nWashington\u2019s opposition to the International Criminal Court goes back to before it was even officially opened in 2002.\nOn the last day of 2000, just three weeks before his term ended, US President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute that laid the foundations for the ICC. But his successor President George W. Bush later \u201cunsigned\u201d the treaty.\nThe Bush administration then waged a political war against the newly created ICC.\nArch-neoconservative John Bolton, who helped lead Bush\u2019s State Department, called the US withdrawal from the ICC \u201cthe happiest moment of my government service\u201d. (Bolton also threatened the family members of the chief of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Jos\u00e9 Bustani, telling him, \u201cWe know where your kids live\u201d.)\nEven the billionaire oligarch-funded lobby group Human Rights Watch, which is notorious for its pro-Western bias, warned in July 2002 that the \u201cprinciple of universal justice is still under serious threat from Washington\u201d. And that was before the US government passed the notorious \u201cHague Invasion Act\u201d.\nFollowing Bush, Presidents Obama, Trump, and Biden have refused to re-sign the Rome Statute, meaning the US is not a member of the ICC.\nAfter Trump appointed Bolton as his national security advisor, the neoconservative hawk promised in 2018: \u201cWe will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us\u201d.\nBolton even threatened to arrest ICC judges and prosecutors, proclaiming, \u201cWe will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the United States, we will sanction their funds in the US financial system, and we will prosecute them in the US criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans\u201d.\nUS threatens to arrest ICC judges if they pursue Americans for Afghan war crimes https://t.co/ljCNvPgjWV pic.twitter.com/k7Dc0Q4Ldb\n\u2014 FRANCE 24 (@FRANCE24) September 10, 2018\n\nOnly 123 countries are members of the ICC. (The United Nations recognizes 193 countries on Earth, meaning less than two-thirds are parties to the ICC, and these nations represent less than half of the global population.)\nProminent countries that are not state parties include the\u00a0US, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Cuba, Vietnam, T\u00fcrkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.\nSignatories of the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court\nDespite popular confusion, the ICC is not an organ of the United Nations. The court is independent from the UN\u2019s official judicial arm, the International Court of Justice (ICJ).\nWhile the ICC was founded in 2002, the ICJ opened in 1945. Further compounding the confusion is the fact that both are located in the Hague, in the Netherlands.\nThe ICJ litigates state disputes, whereas the ICC focuses on individuals.\nBut the ICJ has been very limited in its capabilities due to a fundamental problem with the structure of the UN: permanent members of the Security Council can use their veto to block the implementation of the court\u2019s decisions.\nThe United States has done precisely this, effectively neutering the ICJ.\nIn 1984, Nicaragua took the US to the Hague over its support for the Contras, far-right death squads that systematically used terrorism against civilians in an attempt to violently overthrow the Central American nation\u2019s revolutionary Sandinista government.\nIn the case Nicaragua v. United States of America, the ICJ found Washington guilty of violating international law, by supporting the Contra terrorists and putting mines in Nicaragua\u2019s ports.\nThe ICJ ordered that the US pay Nicaragua reparations. But Washington refused to do so, and used its veto in the Security Council to prevent any implementation of the ruling.\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US now world\u2019s top LNG exporter, as Europe boycotts cheaper Russian gas. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "energy, Europe, gas, LNG, Russia, Ukraine", "output": "The USA has rapidly become the world\u2019s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), tied with Qatar. Europe replaced Asia as the top market for US LNG in 2022, boycotting cheaper Russian energy over the proxy war in Ukraine.\n\nThe United States has rapidly become the world\u2019s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), tied with Qatar.\nA significant reason for this meteoric increase is because Europe replaced Asia as the top market for US LNG in 2022, as Brussels pledged to boycott Russian energy over the proxy war in Ukraine.\n\nAmong the principal importers of US LNG are France, Spain, Britain, the Netherlands, and Italy.\nEurope is now paying significantly more for expensive US LNG than it had previously for Russian pipeline gas.\nAs of 2022, Europe had the highest energy prices on the planet. This was a key factor in fueling an inflation crisis that spread worldwide, and hit Europe especially hard.\nBloomberg reported that the \u201cUS tied Qatar as the world\u2019s top exporter of liquefied natural gas\u201d in 2022, calling it \u201ca milestone for the meteoric rise of America as a major supplier of the fuel.\u201d\nThe outlet added that the United States, \u201cwhich only began exporting LNG from the lower-48 states in 2016 and has seemingly overnight become a dominant force in the industry.\u201d\nA graph from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) illustrates the monumental shift in US LNG exports in just six years.\n\nS&P Global reported in September 2022 that European imports of LNG made up the \u201clion\u2019s share\u201d of US exports in the first six months of 2022.\nGlobal imports of US LNG nearly doubled from $10.8 billion in the first half of 2021 to $21.2 billion in same period in 2022.\n\u201cMany U.S. LNG export cargoes departed for Europe in the first half of 2022 as the war in Ukraine prompted a scramble for LNG supplies,\u201d S&P Global wrote, adding that \u201cLNG market experts have warned that shipments of LNG cannot quickly replace curtailed pipeline imports from Russia and that the region\u2019s need for significant LNG volumes will remain strong.\u201d\nThe market intelligence unit stressed that Europe has the highest gas prices on Earth. Its benchmark energy price hit a historic high of roughly \u20ac320 per megawatt hour in August.\nS&P Global followed up with another report in November, stating that the \u201cEuropean energy crisis has put US natural gas in high demand and in a position of acute geopolitical relevance.\u201d\nThe financial information firm used the same language, that the \u201clion\u2019s share headed to Europe following Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine in February\u201d and the escalation of the NATO-Russia proxy war.\n\nThe industry monitor LNGPrime reported that\u00a0France, Spain, the Netherlands, Japan, and Italy bought nearly half (46.4%) of total US LNG exports in May 2022.\nReuters noted in December 2022 that US LNG prices had approximately doubled in the previous year. It added that US LNG exports to Europe increased by a staggering 137% in the first 11 months of 2022, compared to 2021.\nThe news wire added that \u201cthe United States will remain the primary supplier of LNG to Europe for at least 2023. This will likely generate even greater revenue for U.S exporters after a record 2022, which totaled $35 billion through September, compared to $8.3 billion over the same period in 2021.\u201d\nThis massive spike in energy prices is causing economic chaos in Europe. Politico published an article in November 2022 titled \u201cWhy cheap US gas costs a fortune in Europe.\u201d\nIt pointed out that US LNG is almost four times more expensive in Europe. And it is not just North American corporations that are profiting from this substantial markup, but also European importers and resellers.\nEven France\u2019s right-wing President Emmanuel Macron, a former investment banker, complained to French industrial executes, \u201cIn today\u2019s geopolitical context, among countries that support Ukraine there are two categories being created in the gas market: those who are paying dearly and those who are selling at very high prices\u2026 The United States is a producer of cheap gas that they are selling us at a high price\u2026 I don\u2019t think that\u2019s friendly.\u201d\nPolitico added, \u201cMacron\u2019s dig conveniently ignored that the largest European holder of long-term U.S. gas contracts is none other than France\u2019s own TotalEnergies.\u201d\nIn 2018, the CEO of Austrian fossil fuel company OMV estimated that Russian pipeline gas was 50% cheaper than US LNG. The corporate executive, Rainer Seele, said, \u201cI think it is about 50% difference between LNG and Russian gas.\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Intersectional imperialism: US military\u2019s new ideology reflected in Thomas Friedman\u2019s \u2018one hard fist\u2019 of diversity. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "military, New York Times, Thomas Friedman", "output": "New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman boasted that \u201cthe real source of\u201d US military power is diversity, and Washington\u2019s \u201cability to blend\u201d different racial groups \u201cinto one hard fist\u201d.\n\nInfluential New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, in an April 18 article on his visit to NATO-occupied Afghanistan with Joe Biden, provided the clearest example yet of the newly hegemonic ideology of intersectional imperialism.\n\u201cThe real source of our power,\u201d Friedman wrote, is the racial diversity of US society, and especially that of its military.\nIt is the fact that US Special Forces teams \u2014 the symbol of Washington\u2019s ubiquitous covert operations and meddling across the globe \u2014 are \u201cmade up of a collection of Black, Asian, Hispanic, and white Americans. It is our ability to blend those many into one hard fist\u201d, he boasted.\n\nThis has become the US empire\u2019s modus operandi: Justify imperial exploitation and expansion by claiming that Washington is spreading enlightened views of anti-racism, feminism, and LGBTQ equality.\nThe strategy is not entirely new. The US and NATO exploited women\u2019s rights to rationalize a 20-year military occupation of Afghanistan. Israel, too, frequently uses pinkwashing to defend its colonial violence against the Palestinian people.\nBut US hawks are now eagerly proselytizing a kind of inverted \u201cWhite Man\u2019s Burden\u201d \u2014 one that preaches a superficial version of \u201canti-racism\u201d while still fundamentally reinforcing the centuries-old colonial trope that the empire is helping to \u201ccivilize\u201d the barbaric hordes in the rest of the world.\nThe incredible hypocrisy just beneath the surface of this liberal-imperialist philosophy was reflected in the condescending tone of Friedman\u2019s column, which portrayed the Afghan people as knuckle-dragging brutes.\nIn one of such patronizing passages, Friedman lamented the surge in Trumpian racism at home in the United States, writing, \u201cI confess that I wonder if we have become more like the Afghans and not the Afghans more like us\u201d.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CIA\u2019s \u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 conspiracy implodes: Here are media\u2019s worst fake news stories. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, CIA, CNN, Fox News, Havana Syndrome, media, New York Times, Russia, The Guardian, The Independent, Washington Post", "output": "The CIA admitted US spies/diplomats aren\u2019t being attacked by foreign adversaries. \u201cHavana Syndrome\u201d is mass hysteria. Here are the top corporate media outlets that spread this bogus conspiracy theory.\n\nFor five years, major corporate media outlets have cited anonymous US government officials to baselessly accuse Russia, China, and/or Cuba of attacking Washington\u2019s spies and diplomats with \u201cpulsed microwave weapons,\u201d \u201cdirected-energy arms,\u201d or other exotic technologies that might as well have been lifted from a B science fiction movie.\nThere was never an iota of evidence for this ridiculous conspiracy theory, which has now totally collapsed, but it spread like wildfire through the mainstream press.\nAs recently as November 2021, the Washington Post \u2014 one of the US intelligence community\u2019s most reliable media partners \u2014 broadcast an extraordinary threat to the world: \u201cCIA director warns Russian spies of \u2018consequences\u2019 if they are behind \u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 incidents.\u201d\n\nA year before that, in December 2020, the New York Times promoted a bizarre conspiracy theory: \u201cReport Points to\u00a0Microwave \u2018Attack\u2019 as Likely Source\u00a0of Mystery Illnesses That Hit Diplomats and Spies.\u201d\nThe US newspaper-of-record quoted an official report, commissioned by the State Department and conducted by the United States\u2019 brightest scientific minds, that concluded that a group of North American spies and diplomats allegedly suffering from \u201cdizziness, fatigue, headaches, and loss of hearing, memory and balance\u201d had been targeted by \u201cdirected, pulsed radiofrequency energy\u201d weapons.\n\nThis January, however, natsec reporters\u2019 favorite conspiracy theory hit a curb at 90 miles an hour, flipped over, and exploded.\n\u201cCIA says \u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 not result of sustained campaign by hostile power,\u201d NBC News reported on January 19. In an internal assessment, the spy agency admitted that there was no evidence of foreign attacks, and it ruled out the possibility, saying there were other medical explanations for the symptoms.\nIt is clear that top US intelligence officials approved the leak of this story, because the article was co-authored by Ken Dilanian, a veritable CIA roadie who was once disowned by his former employer the LA Times for doing\u00a0unethical propaganda on behalf of the spy agency.\nThe CIA officially conceding that Russia, China, and Cuba are not attacking its spooks with scary ray guns should put in the nail in the coffin of an outlandish conspiracy theory that, over five years, has been promoted by basically every major English-language media outlet, including the most respected newspapers in both the United States and Britain.\nMultipolarista reviewed this onslaught of fake news coverage and found that \u201cHavana Syndrome\u201d conspiracies were eagerly promoted by the following establishment networks:\nWe have assembled a collection of some of their most outrageous fake news stories below.\nWe discussed this scandal\u00a0with Dr.\u00a0Robert Bartholomew, a medical sociologist and leading expert on mass hysteria and social panics, who correctly predicted all of this in his 2020 scholarly book \u201cHavana Syndrome: Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story Behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria.\u201d\nA medical expert explains how he knew Russia/China/Cuba weren't attacking US diplomats with microwave guns, and \"Havana Syndrome\" was mass hysteria.\nI documented how top media outlets promoted this fake news story: https://t.co/KbajqIUGer\nFull interview: https://t.co/TEj41yq096 pic.twitter.com/uFUhFj9Vhr\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 23, 2022\n\n\u201cI can summarize the book in one sentence,\u201d he told us: \u201cWhen you hear the sound of hoof beats in the night, first think horses, not zebras.\u201d\n\u201cThe doctors at the American State Department went for the most exotic, far out, far-fetched explanations early on. They went on a search for unicorns when they should have stuck to mundane explanations,\u201d Bartholomew said.\n\u201cMy first career was as a journalist,\u201d he continued. \u201cAnd this is a case of bad journalism, bad government, and bad science.\u201d\nBartholomew cautioned that the Havana Syndrome scandal is an example of the problem of politics mixing with science.\n\u201cWhen you break it down and you start analyzing the studies that were done, it\u2019s like, whoa, it\u2019s actually a really methodologically flawed study, and probably never should have been published in the first place,\u201d he explained.\nYou can watch or\u00a0listen\u00a0to our\u00a0full interview here:\n\nIt\u2019s quite instructive to review how top media outlets enthusiastically promoted this bogus story. It shows how the most respected newspapers in the United States and United Kingdom are more than willing to publish harebrained conspiracy theories when it does political damage to NATO\u2019s adversaries.\nAll of these scoops were fed to reporters in the corporate media by their handlers in the CIA and Pentagon. These stenographers never exercised a shred of skepticism, mindlessly attributing the outlandish accusations to anonymous officials.\nFox News declared in June 2021 that\u00a0Russia was suspected\u00a0of targeting US diplomats \u201cin \u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 attacks\u201d not only abroad, but even in Washington, DC.\n\nMSNBC followed up with a ludicrous video in August 2021 titled \u201cSen. Shaheen:\u00a0Russia \u2018at the top of suspect list\u2019 for directed energy attacks on Americans.\u201d\n\nBack in August 2017, Time magazine stated unequivocally that \u201cU.S. Diplomats in Cuba Were Injured by a \u2018Sonic Weapon.\u2019\u201d This is objectively false.\n\nSome reports were careful to add qualifiers that there was no solid proof that Russia, China, or Cuba were behind these so-called \u201cattacks,\u201d but it was always presumed that they were exactly that: attacks.\nThe idea that Havana Syndrome was the result of a foreign power intentionally seeking to harm North Americans was indisputable to the press. It was holy dogma, and simply could not be challenged.\nThe question on the minds of the CIA/Pentagon water boys (and girls) in the corporate media was not whether or not US spies and diplomats are being attacked, but rather by whom? Which villainous US adversary?\nThe mainstream press didn\u2019t stop to question if this was an attack; instead it immediately went to the question: What weapon is responsible? Exotic microwave weapons? Directed energy? Ray guns wielded by fur hat-wearing Russian communist bears wrapped in tin foil?\nIn May 2018, CNN gave credibility to the neo-McCarthyite conspiracy with a report titled \u201cWhat we know about the possible\u00a0\u2018sonic attacks\u2019 in Cuba and now China.\u201d\n\nThis massive fake news campaign was then given a stamp of approval from the New York Times, with a September 2018 article titled, \u201cMicrowave Weapons Are Prime Suspect\u00a0in Ills of U.S. Embassy Workers.\u201d\nThis blockbuster story was on the front page of the Gray Lady, and had the subtitle, \u201cDoctors and scientists say microwave strikes may have caused sonic delusions and very real brain damage among embassy staff and family members.\u201d\nThe article is filed online under the Times\u2019 science vertical.\n\nThe fact that these outlandish accusations were published in the US newspaper-of-record gave other media outlets the green light to run with the conspiracy theory. And they went wild.\nIn October 2020, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, a close ally of the CIA, published a column titled \u201cRussia is an obvious suspect in Havana Syndrome, but the evidence is inconclusive.\u201d\n\nThen in December 2020, NBC News published a similar article titled \u201c\u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 likely\u00a0caused by pulsed microwave energy, government study finds.\u201d\nOne of the co-authors of this story was Ken Dilanian, the CIA whisperer who published the article this January suddenly admitting that Havana Syndrome was not caused by attacks.\n\nThe UK government-backed BBC mindlessly echoed the conspiracy: \u201c\u2018Havana syndrome\u2019 likely caused by directed microwaves\u00a0\u2013 US report.\u201d\n\nThis latest episode in widespread mainstream fake news \u2014 like the Russiagate hysteria or WMDs conspiracy \u2014 shows how Western corporate media outlets don\u2019t require a single shred of evidence to make extraordinary, outlandish accusations against Washington\u2019s Official Enemies.\nIf a US government official intimates something about Beijing, Moscow, or La Habana being involved in some supposed evil-doing, the bellicose stenographers in the press will find 200 reasons why we should instantly believe the politically motivated accusations \u2014 and anyone who doubts such baseless claims is branded a \u201cconspiracy theorist\u201d or \u201cKremlin shill.\u201d\nIn April 2021, CNN went so far as to claim that \u201cHavana Syndrome\u201d attacks were taking place in the heart of Washington.\n\u201cUS investigating possible\u00a0mysterious directed energy attack near White House,\u201d CNN reported.\n\nThen in May, CNN followed up the story with an equally preposterous part two: \u201cUS investigates second suspected case of mystery \u2018syndrome\u2019 near White House.\u201d\n\nA few days later, perhaps the most respected media outlet in the United States, if not the world, the Associated Press, joined in the fake news hysteria.\n\u201cGrowing mystery of\u00a0suspected energy attacks\u00a0draws US concern,\u201d the AP reported.\n\nPolitico took the conspiracy theory even further that same month, pointing the finger at Moscow in a story titled \u201cRussian spy unit suspected of directed-energy attacks\u00a0on U.S. personnel.\u201d\nThis \u201cexclusive\u201d scoop was attributed exclusively to anonymous US government officials, naturally.\n\nAcross the pond in June 2021, The Guardian ran a story titled \u201cMicrowave weapons that could cause Havana Syndrome exist, experts say.\u201d\nIt was written by the leading UK newspaper\u2019s world affairs editor,\u00a0Julian Borger, a hardline hawk\u00a0who is also quite friendly with Western intelligence agencies.\n\nIn September 2021, British newspaper The Independent ran the ridiculous clickbait article \u201cWhat is the \u2018Havana syndrome\u2019? Inside the\u00a0creepy \u2018directed energy\u2019 attacks on US diplomats.\u201d\nWhat is really creepy is how hordes of Western reporters will obediently regurgitate the same fake news without a scintilla of skepticism.\n\nBut the conspiracy theory just wouldn\u2019t die \u2014 it was too politically useful.\nIn October 2021, Politico declared, \u201cU.S. investigators increasingly confident\u00a0directed-energy attacks behind Havana Syndrome.\u201d\n\nThe liberal magazine Slate pondered, \u201cAre Russians Using Microwaves to Attack Americans?\u201d\n\nOn the other side of the Atlantic, the UK\u2019s Sunday Times declared, \u201cUS diplomats hit by new Havana Syndrome attack.\u201d\n\nThen in November 2021, the Washington Post published its risible report, \u201cCIA director warns Russian spies of \u2018consequences\u2019 if they are behind \u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 incidents.\u201d\nThis story was echoed by many other media outlets, including Washington\u2019s most respectable pro-Trump website, The Hill, which declared, \u201cCIA director says there will be consequences if\u00a0Russia is behind \u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 attacks.\u201d\n\nAnd it wasn\u2019t just media outlets; academia joined in as well.\nIn September 2021, respected academic website The Conversation ran a ridiculous story called \u201cScientists suggest\u00a0US embassies were hit with high-power microwaves\u00a0\u2013 here\u2019s how the weapons work.\u201d\nThe article was written by Edl Schamiloglu, a distinguished professor of electrical and computer engineering and associate dean for research and innovation at the University of New Mexico\u2019s School of Engineering.\nThe website published a Brobdingnagian disclosure statement: \u201cEdl Schamiloglu receives funding from AFOSR, DARPA, and ONR to perform basic research on the development of high power microwave sources. He also receives support from industry (Verus Research, General Atomics Electromagnetic System Division). He serves as Chair of IEC SC77C which develops civilian standards to protect equipment and infrastructure from IEMI.\u201d\n\nIn September 2021, The Conversation followed up with another article titled \u201cDirected energy weapons shoot painful\u00a0but non-lethal beams \u2013 are similar weapons behind the Havana syndrome?\u201d\nIt was written by Iain Boyd, a professor of aerospace engineering sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder, who disclosed that he \u201creceives funding from the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of Energy, NASA, Lockheed-Martin Corporation, Northrop-Grumman Corporation, L3-Harris Corporation.\u201d\n\nThe weapons industry-backed website Defense One re-published the same article with the title \u201cAre\u00a0Directed-Energy Weapons Behind the Havana Syndrome?\u201d\nThis headline was indirectly answered by the sub-head: \u201cAs an aerospace engineer and former Vice Chair of the U.S. Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, I can attest to the effectiveness of such weapons.\u201d\nWith \u201cexperts\u201d like these\u2026\n\nThe list of fake news stories goes on and on.\nVirtually every major English-language media outlet did its part in helping to spread this conspiracy theory on behalf of the US government \u2014 as they did with the Russiagate racket at the exact same time.\nNow that the CIA has admitted there are no Russian ray guns or Chinese microwave weapons involved, will anything change? Will anyone or any institution be held accountable?\nWell, if the total impunity for the fervent promoters of the \u201cPutin controls Trump\u201d conspiracy is any indication, it is very unlikely that there will be any consequences. Mindlessly regurgitated the claims of anonymous spooks to feed baseless conspiracy theories that help advance US foreign-policy interests is, in reality, the job description for mainstream \u201cnational security\u201d reporters.\nIf we had the glasses from John Carpenter\u2019s classic \u201cThey Live,\u201d that\u2019s exactly what New York Times job listings would say.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US sends Ukraine $228 million per day in military aid to wage proxy war on Russia. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Joe Biden, military-industrial complex, Russia, Ukraine", "output": "The Joe Biden administration pledged Ukraine $39.87 billion in military aid between February and August 2022, for an average of $228 million per day, fueling a brutal proxy war causing tens of thousands of deaths.\n\nThe Joe Biden administration pledged Ukraine $39.87 billion in military aid in the six months between February and August 2022, for an average of $228 million per day, fueling what even former US government officials admit is a \u201cbrutal proxy war\u201d\u00a0that is causing tens of thousands of deaths.\nResearcher Stephen Semler documented the 21 distinct military aid packages that the Joe Biden administration approved for Ukraine in the year between August 2021 and August 2022, at a total of $40.13 billion.\nTwo of those 21 pledges were approved before Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Excluding these two presidential drawdowns from August and December 2021, which are worth $260 million combined, the Biden administration passed $39.87 billion for military aid in Ukraine between February 25, 2022 (the day after the Russian invasion) and August 19, 2022.\nThis $39.87 billion in pledged military aid divided by the 175 days between February 25, 2022 and August 19, 2022 comes out to an average of approximately $228 million per day.\nThis spending does not include the billions more that the US government has pledged in economic aid to Ukraine. It likewise excludes the tens of billions of dollars of military aid that European countries have approved for Ukraine.\n\n\n\u201cHow much military aid has Biden sent to Ukraine?,\u201d Stephen Semler, Speaking Security\n\n\u201c51% of young Americans support tuition-free public college,\u201d CNBC:\nA survey from the Harvard Kennedy School\u2019s Institute of Politics found that 51% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 support eliminating tuition and fees at public colleges and universities for students from families that make up to $125,000, and making community college tuition-free for all income levels for an estimated cost of $47 billion.\n\u201cRussia Is Right: The U.S. Is Waging a Proxy War in Ukraine,\u201d Hal Brands, Bloomberg / The Washington Post\n\u201cAustin\u2019s assertion that US wants to \u2018weaken\u2019 Russia underlines Biden strategy shift,\u201d CNN\n\u201cAmerica\u2019s Hesitation Is Heartbreaking,\u201d Eliot A. Cohen, The Atlantic\n\u201cCommando Network Coordinates Flow of Weapons in Ukraine, Officials Say,\u201d New York Times\nCIA and Western special ops commandos are in Ukraine, directing proxy war on Russia\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US bombing of Iraq and Syria is illegal aggression \u2013 Occupiers have no right to \u2018self-defense\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Iraq, Joe Biden, Syria", "output": "Militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democrat and Republican presidents.\n\n(Puedes leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nThe United States believes it has the right to bomb, militarily occupy, and economically strangulate any country, anywhere, without consequence. But the peoples of the world are standing up more and more to the global dictatorship of US hegemony.\nOn June 27, Washington launched airstrikes against forces in both Iraq and Syria, two sovereign countries that are illegally occupied by the US military and that have repeatedly called for American troops to leave.\nThe US attack proved to be a gift to the genocidal extremists in ISIS: it helped provide cover as remnants of the so-called \u201cIslamic State\u201d launched a\u00a0terror attack\u00a0on a\u00a0power grid in northern Iraq. Similarly, the US bombing killed several members of Iraqi government-backed units who had been protecting their nation from ISIS and al-Qaeda.\nThis is far from the first time Washington has clearly been on the same side as far-right Takfiri fanatics. Current US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan admitted in an email to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012 that \u201cAQ is on our side in Syria.\u201d And the US government supported al-Qaeda extremists in its\u00a0wars on Yemen\u00a0and\u00a0Libya.\nIn addition to aiding notorious terrorist groups, these US strikes on Iraq and Syria were glaringly illegal under international law. They constitute a clear act of aggression against the peoples of West Asia, who for decades have struggled for self-determination and control over their own, plentiful natural resources \u2014 resources that the US government and its all-powerful corporations seek to control and exploit.\nThe Pentagon tried to justify its attack claiming it was an act of \u201cself-defense.\u201d Absurdly, the US Department of Defense \u2014 the world champion in violating international law \u2014 even cited international law to try to legitimize the airstrikes.\nIn reality, the US military\u2019s very presence in Iraq and Syria is illegal. And under international law, a military power that is illegally occupying a territory\u00a0does not have the right to self-defense. That is true just as much for apartheid Israel in its settler-colonial aggression against Palestine as it is for the United States in its imperial wars on the peoples of Iraq and Syria.\nIraq\u2019s prime minister, Mustafa al-Kadhimi, made that clear. He condemned the US strikes as a \u201cblatant and\u00a0unacceptable violation of Iraqi sovereignty\u00a0and Iraqi national security.\u201d\nIn January 2020, in response to Washington\u2019s assassination of top Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis \u2014 a\u00a0criminal act of war\u00a0against both Iraq and Iran \u2014 the democratically elected\u00a0parliament in Baghdad voted\u00a0170 to 0 to expel the thousands of US troops occupying Iraq.\nWashington simply ignored the vote, silencing the voices of the Iraqi people \u2014 while threatening more economic sanctions on their government. The Pentagon stressed that the vote was nonbinding, but even the US government-backed RAND Corporation acknowledged that there \u201cis\u00a0no treaty or status of forces agreement\u00a0(SOFA) authorizing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq.\u201d\nLikewise, the United States is illegally occupying one-third of Syrian sovereign territory. The internationally recognized government in Damascus has repeatedly called on the US military occupiers to leave, but they have refused, in a flagrant violation of Syrian sovereignty.\n\u201cThe\u00a0presence of Americans in Syria is a sign of occupation, and we believe that all nations and governments must stand up to their unlawful presence in the region,\u201d Syrian Prime Minister Imad Khamis declared in 2020, after the US assassinations of the top Iraqi and Iranian military leaders.\nWhile former Republican President Donald Trump radiated a kind of neocolonial arrogance, boasting that US troops would illegally remain in Syria because \u201cwe want to keep the oil,\u201d the Democratic Joe Biden administration has not acted much differently.\nPresident Biden appointed hardline neoconservative operative Dana Stroul as the top Pentagon official for Middle East policy. In 2019, Stroul bragged that\u00a0Washington \u201cowned\u201d one-third of Syrian territory, including its \u201ceconomic powerhouse,\u201d which includes the vast majority of the country\u2019s oil and wheat reserves.\nStroul\u2019s promotion was an unambiguous sign that the Democrats are endorsing the same sadistic, Trumpian strategy to militarily occupy Syria, steal its natural resources, starve its government of revenue, deny its people gasoline and bread, and prevent reconstruction of what Stroul snidely referred to as the widespread \u201crubble.\u201d\nThe reality is that militarily occupying Iraq and Syria is a thoroughly bipartisan policy in the United States. And bombing West Asia has become a favorite pastime that unites both Democratic and Republican presidents.\nTrump launched airstrikes against Syria in April 2018 on totally unsubstantiated accusations that Damascus had carried out \u201cgas attacks,\u201d claims that have since been proven false by\u00a0multiple whistleblowers\u00a0from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).\nThen in December 2019, the Trump administration bombed anti-ISIS militias in both Syria and Iraq.\nBiden carried out a similar, illegal attack on these same fighters in eastern Syria in February 2021. It was yet another example of Washington serving as the de facto air force for the remnants of the so-called \u201cIslamic State.\u201d\nThe December 2019, February 2021, and June 2021 US airstrikes targeted the Iraqi government-backed\u00a0Popular Mobilization Forces (PMFs), known in Arabic as the al-Hashd al-Sha\u2019abi. The Pentagon stated unequivocally in its official statement on the June bombing that it was attacking Kata\u2019ib Hezbollah and Kata\u2019ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, two prominent Iraqi armed groups in the Hashd.\nThe Department of Defense misleadingly referred to these units as \u201cIran-backed militia groups.\u201d The US government and the corporate media outlets that act as its obedient mouthpiece always describe the Hashd as \u201cIran-backed\u201d to try to downplay their role as indigenous protectors of Iraqi sovereignty and deceptively portray them as foreign proxies of Washington\u2019s favorite bogeyman.\nIn reality, the PMFs are Iraqi units supported by the elected, internationally recognized government in Baghdad. And the Hashd played a leading role in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other extremist Takfiri groups in both Iraq and Syria \u2014 while the United States, apartheid Israel, and NATO allies spent billions of dollars backing\u00a0Salafi-jihadist death squads\u00a0in their genocidal war on the people of Syria.\nThe Hashd do indeed receive assistance from Tehran, and they have every right to. Iran is Iraq\u2019s neighbor, after all, whereas the United States is on the other side of the planet. But Washington, NATO, and their de facto stenographers in the corporate press corps seek to discredit all resistance to criminal US aggression in West Asia by erasing its organic, indigenous roots and lazily depicting it as a vast conspiracy controlled by an omnipresent Iranian puppet-master.\nThe PMFs made it clear that they will not tolerate Washington\u2019s assault on their nation\u2019s sovereignty. \u201cWe reserve the\u00a0legal right to respond to these attacks\u00a0and hold the perpetrators accountable on Iraqi soil,\u201d the Hashd declared.\nUnlike the US military occupiers, the people of Iraq and Syria do have a right to exercise self-defense in response to strikes by foreign aggressors. They can legally resist American military occupation and neocolonialism, just as the people of Palestine have the right to resist Israeli military occupation and Zionist settler-colonialism. This is a right enshrined in international law \u2014 and an inalienable right that any nation would defend.\nIf Washington wants to stop attacks on its troops, there is an easy way to do that: withdraw them from the region, where they are not wanted. American soldiers will be much safer at home.\n(This article was\u00a0written for Al Mayadeen English.)\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Is a huge war coming? US bombs Yemen, Iraq & Syria. Israel bombs Gaza & Lebanon. Both threaten Iran.. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Ansarallah, Donald Trump, Gaza, Houthis, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Joe Biden, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Yemen", "output": "The US military is attacking Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, while Israel bombs Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. Both are threatening Iran. Is a large Middle East (West Asia) war coming?\n\nThe brutal war that Israel is waging on Gaza is increasingly becoming a regional conflict.\nSince October, the United States and Israel have bombed not only Gaza, but also Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.\nNow, the U.S. government is even threatening Iran with war. President Joe Biden sent the Iranian government a private message while the U.S. military was bombing Yemen on January 13. He said threateningly, \u201cWe\u2019re confident, we\u2019re well prepared\u201d.\n\nWhile this is happening, South Africa has introduced a case in the International Court of Justice, the top United Nations judicial authority, which accuses Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinian people.\nSouth Africa\u2019s case has garnered support from dozens of countries across the Global South.\nThis case has frightened Israel and its sponsors in Washington. They are apparently seeking to expand the conflict into a regional war, to try to win more sympathy and to turn attention away from what South Africa and many countries have referred to as a genocide in Gaza.\nIn fact, top UN experts have been warning precisely this for months: that the Palestinian people face \u201cthe risk of genocide in Gaza\u201d, and that there has been a \u201cfailure of the international system to mobilise to prevent genocide\u201d.\nThe Financial Times reported in December that, in just two months of Israeli bombing, Gaza had become one of the most heavily bombed areas in human history.\nIsrael's genocidal war has made Gaza one of the most heavily bombed areas in human history.https://t.co/jd4D7e32tM\n\u2014 Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticaEcon) January 19, 2024\n\nNow that Israel faces formal charges of genocide at the Hague, many officials in Washington are concerned, because the U.S. is directly complicit in the war crimes that Israel is committing.\nThe Joe Biden administration has sent billions of dollars of weapons and military aid to Israel.\nIn fact, the US State Department has bypassed Congress two times, using emergency measures to send weapons to Israel. This is rather strange, because Congress is full of people who strongly support Israel, and would without a doubt have approved these arms shipments.\nThis appears to indicate that the US government does not even want a debate about these arms shipments. Washington is concerned about people focusing their attention on its complicity in arming Israel. So it is simply choosing to do so quietly, without Congress\u2019 approval.\nAnd the U.S. is involved in these conflicts in many other ways, not simply by arming Israel.\nIn fact, the U.S. military has 57,000 personnel stationed all across the so-called Middle East, or more accurately, West Asia.\nThese are just the U.S. military personnel that are publicly disclosed. It is likely that the U.S. also has covert special operations forces that are not accounted for among this 57,000.\nThe U.S. has more than 57,000 personnel in the Middle East.\nEastern Mediterranean: 12.500Jordan: 3.500Egypt: 500Syria: 900Iraq: 2.000Israel: 100Saudi Arabia: 2.500Kuwait: 10.000Bahrain: 4.500Qatar: 10.000UAE: 5.000Red Sea: 4.500\nSource: FT pic.twitter.com/4vpeVx9xzy\n\u2014 Clash Report (@clashreport) January 12, 2024\n\nIn just a few months, the U.S. has bombed Yemen, Iraq, and Syria.\nOn January 11, the United States launched airstrikes against dozens of targets in Yemen.\nThe New York Times referred to these as US attacks on the so-called \u201cHouthi militia\u201d in Yemen. But this is very misleading.\nThe \u201cHouthis\u201d, which are officially known as Ansarullah, represent the government for the majority of the Yemeni population.\nThis was acknowledged even by the mainstream Washington, DC-based think tank the Brookings Institution. It published an article in 2023 by a former CIA analyst, Bruce Riedel, who admitted that \u201cthe Houthis have created a functioning government\u201d, one that \u201cincludes representatives of other groups\u201d.\n\u201cSome 70 to 80% of Yemenis live under the Houthis\u2019 control\u201d, Riedel wrote.\nHe conceded that Ansarullah had its origins in the grassroots in Yemen, opposing the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Washington\u2019s subsequent wars and interventionist policies across West Asia.\nAt Brookings, the former CIA analyst likewise confessed that the United States had spent six years supporting a scorched-earth \u201cwar led by a neighbor most Yemenis hate\u201d, that is to say, Saudi Arabia. He added, \u201cAir strikes, blockades, and intentional mass starvation are the characteristics of a war the United States has supported\u201d.\nThe United Nations estimated that this U.S.-Saudi war killed at least 377,000 Yemenis from 2015 to the end of 2021.\nSo when the United States launched dozens of attacks inside Yemen this January, Washington was continuing a war that it has waged against the de facto Yemeni government for nearly nine years. The so-called \u201cHouthis\u201d are not just a \u201cmilitia\u201d; they are leading the government.\nAnd while it was previously Saudi Arabia that was relentlessly bombing civilian areas in Yemen (using U.S.-made planes and bombs, with intelligence and targeting assistance from the Pentagon), now it is the United States that is cutting out the middle man and attacking Yemen directly.\nMoreover, the New York Times acknowledged in its report on the Biden administration\u2019s airstrikes that Ansarullah has \u201cgreeted the prospect of war with the United States with open delight\u201d.\nOne of Ansarullah\u2019s most important leaders said in a televised speech, \u201cWe, the Yemeni people, are not among those who are afraid of America. We are comfortable with a direct confrontation with the Americans\u201d.\nAs if that weren\u2019t enough, after this prominent Yemeni leader said publicly that his country is prepared to fight against the United States, a day later, on January 12, the U.S. again launched airstrikes against Yemen.\nReporting on the second US attack, the New York Times commented, \u201cThe strikes come amid fears of a wider escalation of the conflict in the Middle East\u201d.\nThis description is quite euphemistic. In reality, the U.S. is creating a wider conflict in the region by expanding the war, and attacking not only Yemen, but also Iraq and Syria.\nOn January 4, the Biden administration carried out an act of war against Iraq.\nThe New York Times reported that the U.S. launched a drone strike in the capital Baghdad. An Iraqi government spokesman referred to this as a \u201cflagrant violation of the sovereignty and security of Iraq\u201d. He characterized the U.S. attack as \u201cno different from a terrorist act\u201d.\nThe U.S. targeted an Iraqi militia known as Harakat al-Nujaba. This organization is part of the Iraqi government, the New York Times conceded, writing that \u201cit remains part of Iraq\u2019s Popular Mobilization Forces, a security organization that is in turn part of the government\u2019s broader security forces\u201d.\nSo the U.S. was attacking Iraq\u2019s security forces.\nHowever, in 2019, the Donald Trump administration had declared this Iraqi state institution to be a so-called \u201cterrorist\u201d organization. And now the Biden administration is continuing Trump\u2019s policy of attacking the Iraqi government.\nIn response to Washington\u2019s assault on his country, Iraq\u2019s prime minister, Mohammed Shia al-Sudani, publicly called for the U.S.-led foreign troops in his country to leave.\nU.S. troops have consistently occupied Iraq since the illegal invasion of 2003. The U.S. war has gone through phases, but it has basically never ended.\nIt should be emphasized that al-Sudani is by no means an anti-U.S. leader. In Iraqi politics, there are many anti-U.S. figures; he is not one of them. But even he is now publicly stating that Washington needs to stop occupying and attacking his country, and that its troops need to leave.\nNevertheless, the website Breaking Defense, which is close to the Pentagon, responded to al-Sudani\u2019s comments reporting: \u201cDespite Iraqi PM\u2019s call, US troops won\u2019t likely leave Iraq anytime soon\u201d. It cited U.S. analysts with internal access.\nSo this is essentially acknowledgment that the U.S. maintains a neo-colonial occupation of Iraq.\nThis is not the first time that this has happened. Back in January 2020, Donald Trump ordered the assassination of the top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and the senior Iraqi security official Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis. The latter was a commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces, which are officially part of the Iraqi government, and which were absolutely instrumental in the war against ISIS.\nThese leaders, Soleimani and al-Muhandis, were two of the most important people in the fight to defeat ISIS. Trump assassinated both of them in a blatant act of war, not only against Iran, but also against Iraq.\nIn response to this U.S. act of war, Iraq\u2019s democratically elected parliament (which was ironically created by the United States) voted to expel the U.S. troops occupying the country.\nTrump say no, refusing to leave. The far-right U.S. president then threatened to impose sanctions on Iraq.\nDespite the U.S. government\u2019s flagrantly neo-colonial policies, the Western media\u2019s coverage of Iraq essentially portrays the situation as if Iran were secretly in control of the country.\nWhen the U.S. carries out acts of war against Iraq, killing Iraqi officials who are part of the Iraqi state\u2019s security apparatus, the Western media misleadingly describes these murdered Iraqi officials as \u201cpro-Iran military commanders\u201d.\nThis propagandistic rhetoric is reminiscent of how the Western media invariably refers to Yemen\u2019s so-called Houthis, Ansarullah, as \u201cIran- backed\u201d, trying to depict them as Iranian proxies. The same is true for Lebanon\u2019s indigenous resistance group Hezbollah.\nThis is part and parcel of a Western media propaganda narrative that seeks to justify U.S. acts of war and neo-colonial policies against sovereign governments across West Asia.\nAnother clear example of this is recent U.S. attacks in Syria.\nIn November, the U.S. military launched airstrikes in sovereign Syrian territory. The BBC reported on this illegal U.S. act of war writing, \u201cUS airstrikes target more Iran-backed bases in Syria\u201d.\nThe double standard is quite clear when one considers how these same Western media outlets would never dare to refer to attacks by Palestinian groups on Israeli military forces as strikes on \u201cpro-U.S. forces\u201d in \u201cU.S.-backed bases\u201d.\nIn fact, as Geopolitical Economy Report has documented, the U.S. is maintaining an illegal military occupation of Syria, and in particular of the nation\u2019s oil-rich territory, where much of its wheat is also produced.\nThe stated policy of U.S. officials is to starve the Syrian government of revenue that it needs to rebuild after a decade of war fueled by the United States devastated the country.\nIn December, there was a resolution introduced in the Senate calling to withdraw the U.S. troops occupying Syria\u2019s oil fields. It failed to pass in a vote of 13 to 84.\nThe US military has illegally occupied Syrian sovereign territory since 2014, preventing Damascus from accessing its own oil and wheat fields.\nThe Senate voted 13-84, rejecting a resolution to withdraw US troops.https://t.co/RC27DFnleC\n\u2014 Geopolitical Economy Report (@GeopoliticaEcon) January 5, 2024\n\nWhile the U.S. is bombing Yemen, Iraq, and Syria, Israel is also attacking multiple countries in the region.\nIn October, Israel repeatedly bombed airports in Syria, in both Aleppo and Damascus, killing Syrian troops.\nIn January, Israel launched many more attacks on Syria. And once again, the Western media misleadingly portrayed these Israeli acts of war as \u201cstrikes on Iran-linked targets in Syria\u201d.\nThe Western media seeks to make everything about Iran, implying that Tehran controls all of these governments, when in reality it is the U.S. and Israel that are at war with many sovereign states in the region.\nIsrael has also been repeatedly assaulting its neighbor, Lebanon.\nAmnesty International acknowledged that Israel has attacked southern Lebanon with white phosphorus, a horrific weapon that is banned by many countries.\nAmnesty International emphasized that Israel has been killing Lebanese civilians in illegal, \u201cindiscriminate\u201d attacks.\nBut Israel is not only attacking southern Lebanon; it has also carried out drone strikes inside Beirut, the capital of the country.\nLebanon\u2019s resistance group Hezbollah has long defended the country\u2019s sovereignty, expelling Israel in 2000 after the colonial regime carried out an illegal military occupation of Lebanon for 15 years.\nHezbollah has said Israel\u2019s attacks in the capital Beirut cross a red line and are risking a wider regional war.\nWhile the Western media warns that U.S. and Israeli attacks on countries in the region \u201craise the specter of a wider regional war\u201d, the reality is that Washington and Tel Aviv are already at war with Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.\nIt is obvious that the main target of U.S. and Israeli neo-colonial wars in West Asia is Iran.\nThis was confirmed by a former top U.S. military general and NATO commander, Wesley Clark, who revealed back in 2007 that, after the attacks on September 11, 2001, Washington made plans to overthrow the governments of seven countries in the region in five years.\nIn an interview with Democracy Now host Amy Goodman, Clark said that the U.S. had plans \u201cto take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran\u201d.\nIn late 2023 and early 2024, the U.S. government has made this link clearly in public statements. Washington publicly blamed Iran for Ansarullah in Yemen launching attacks on ships in the Red Sea that are traveling to Israel, that are providing support to Tel Aviv as it carries out war crimes and faces charges of genocide at the Hague.\nA top U.S. official claimed, \u201cIran is a primary, if not the primary enabler or supporter or sponsor of the Houthis\u201d, and the U.S. government claimed that Iran is \u201cinvolved in every phase\u201d of what Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called \u201cillegal, dangerous and destabilizing attacks against U.S. and international vessels and commercial vessels\u201d.\nWar hawks in Washington are using this as an opportunity to openly call for a U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.\nJohn Bolton, the neoconservative extremist who served as Donald Trump\u2019s national security adviser and was an architect of the Iraq War under former President George W Bush, published an article in the conservative British newspaper The Telegraph titled \u201cThe West may now have no option but to attack Iran\u201d.\nBolton released that call for war on Iran on December 28. He likely coordinated it with Israel\u2019s former prime minister, Naftali Bennett, who on the same day published an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal titled \u201cThe U.S. and Israel Need to Take Iran on Directly\u201d.\nIn his article, Bennett boasted that when he was prime minister, Israel carried out numerous attacks on Iranian soil. He also admitted that Tel Aviv assassinated Iranian officials.\nBennett called to \u201cempower domestic opposition [in Iran], ensure internet continuity during riots against the regime, strengthen its enemies, increase sanctions and economic pressures\u201d.\nIn his last paragraph, Naftali Bennett said in no uncertain terms, \u201cThe U.S. and Israel must set the clear goal of bringing down Iran\u2019s evil regime\u201d.\nUsing colonial language, the former Israeli prime minister declared that the so-called \u201ccivilized world\u201d must overthrow Iran\u2019s government.\nThis is clearly what all of this is heading toward: Some bellicose officials in the U.S. and Israeli governments want not only a wider regional war, but more specifically a full-out war against Iran.\nMany of these hard-line imperialists in Washington have salivated for many years at the idea of war with Tehran. Back in 2015, Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times straightforwardly titled \u201cTo Stop Iran\u2019s Bomb, Bomb Iran\u201d.\nIn fact, Michael Freund, a former spokesman for Israel\u2019s current far-right prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, published an op-ed this January in the Jerusalem Post titled \u201cIran is already at war with Israel and the US\u201d. In this piece, he insisted that \u201cIsrael and America must act now\u201d, calling for war with Tehran.\nFreund\u2019s bio conspicuously noted that he was previously \u201cdeputy communications director under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu\u201d. It is quite possible that he coordinated this article with Netanyahu himself.\nOn January 3, there was a terror attack on civilians in the Iranian city of Kerman. More than 90 Iranians were killed, at an event that was commemorating the anniversary of the Trump administration\u2019s assassination of Qasem Soleimani, the top Iranian general.\nWestern media outlets claimed that \u201cISIS\u201d carried out this attack. Iranian intelligence officials said one of the terrorists who planted the bombs that killed at least 94 civilians had Israeli nationality.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Debunked: Media falsely claims China is building spy base in Cuba. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Afghanistan, Bountygate, China, CIA, Cuba, Havana Syndrome, media, Russia", "output": "Media outlets claimed China is building a secret station in Cuba to spy on the US, citing anonymous intelligence officials. But the Pentagon admitted this story is false. It is part of an information warfare campaign against Beijing, and could sabotage attempts at diplomacy.\n\nAnonymous US intelligence officials used the media this June to spread a rumor claiming that the Chinese government is building a massive spy base in Cuba, 100 miles from Florida.\nThere was however a glaring problem with this story: The US Department of Defense said it is false.\nTop Pentagon officials came out publicly and clarified that the reports are \u201cnot accurate\u201d, that China is in fact not building a spy base in Cuba.\n\nThis is the latest example of a series of false stories that have been laundered through the mainstream corporate media by US spy agencies, particularly the CIA, which seek to advance US foreign policy interests and demonize adversaries like China, Cuba, and Russia.\nRecent disinformation campaigns of similar provenance have included Havana Syndrome \u2013 the debunked myth that Cuba, China, and/or Russia was supposedly attacking US spies and diplomats with pulsed microwave weapons \u2013 or \u201cBountygate\u201d \u2013 the false CIA claim that Russia was paying the Taliban bounties in order to kill US soldiers during the war in Afghanistan.\nThe CIA has perfected the art of using the media to manipulate public opinion, to push people in certain political directions and manufacture consent for war.\nOne of the co-founders of the CIA, Frank Wisner, famously said the spy agency has contacts all across the media and can play the press like a \u201cmighty Wurlitzer\u201d\u00a0\u2013 a kind of old musical instrument.\nThe latest disinformation operation started on June 8, when the Wall Street Journal published an article titled \u201cCuba to Host Secret Chinese Spy Base Focusing on U.S.\u201d.\nThe report relied entirely on the claims of anonymous \u201cU.S. officials familiar with highly classified intelligence\u201d.\nJust a few hours after this Wall Street Journal exclusive bombshell came out, Reuters quoted the Pentagon denying the claims.\nA US Defense Department spokesman, Brigadier General Patrick Ryder, stated, \u201cI can tell you based on the information that we have, that that is not accurate, that we are not aware of China and Cuba developing a new type of spy station\u2026 In terms of that particular report, no, it\u2019s not accurate\u201d.\nIn fact, after the article was published in the Wall Street Journal, the newspaper updated the story with a quote from the spokesman for the US National Security Council, John Kirby.\n\u201cThis report is not accurate\u201d, Kirby reiterated.\nKirby previously served as the Pentagon\u2019s press secretary. This shows how it is US spy agencies that are spreading this false story about China, whereas the US military recognizes that there is no evidence, and may be concerned of the political consequences.\nDespite the fact that the Pentagon publicly denied the story, many other major US media outlets echoed the rumor.\nThe New York Times, CNN, and Politico published their own versions of the debunked story, all citing anonymous US officials.\nCBS News warned with a paranoid, cold war-style tone, \u201cProspect of Chinese spy base in Cuba unsettles Washington\u201d.\nFor its part, Cuba forcefully condemned these reports, stating that they are false.\nCuba\u2019s Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernandez de Cossio said the accusation is \u201cuntrue and unfounded\u201d, arguing that the articles were \u201cpromoted with the malicious intention to justify the unprecedented reinforcement of the economic blockade, destabilization and the aggression against Cuba\u201d.\nCuba rejects any \u201cforeign military presence in Latin America and the Caribbean, including the numerous military bases and troops of the US, and especially the military base that illegally occupies a portion of our national territory in the province of Guant\u00e1namo\u201d, Fernandez de Cossio emphasized.\nA spokesperson for China\u2019s Foreign Ministry,\u00a0Wang Wenbin, pointed out, \u201cSpreading rumors and slander is a common tactic of the US\u201d.\n\u201cThe US has illegally occupied the Guantanamo Bay base in Cuba for a long time, engaged in ulterior activities, and imposed an embargo on Cuba for more than 60 years\u201d, Wang said.\nThe Chinese official argued that Washington \u201cshould reflect on itself, stop interfering in Cuba\u2019s internal affairs under the banner of freedom, democracy and human rights, and immediately cancel its commercial and financial blockade of Cuba\u201d.\nIt is not clear why exactly anonymous US spies would spread gray propaganda that even the Pentagon acknowledges is false. But it may have the effect of sabotaging any attempts at improving diplomatic relations between China and the United States.\nIn fact, just two days before this false story in the Wall Street Journal came out, there were reports that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was planning a visit to China within the upcoming weeks.\nThe paranoid media campaign put pressure on Blinken to cancel the trip.\nMSNBC strongly implied that the secretary of state should do so, in an interview with\u00a0the National Security Council spokesman, John Kirby.\nSomething very similar happened in February, when the press manufactured a scandal about a Chinese balloon that entered US airspace.\nUS officials later admitted that the floating object was likely a weather balloon that had been blown off course by unexpected weather.\nHowever, the US military spent millions of dollars shooting down the object, along with several other balloons \u2013 one of which was later reported to belong to a hobbyist club called the Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade and which probably cost around $12.\nThe February media scare successfully demonized China among the US public and had the impact of pressuring Secretary of State Blinken to cancel a trip that he had planned to Beijing.\nUS admits weather pushed Chinese balloon off course, US shot down hobbyists\u2019 $12 balloon in $2M missile attack\n\nThe Pentagon may also be motivated to slightly push back against the information war that US intelligence agencies are waging on China because the Defense Department is concerned that this hybrid war could escalate into a conventional armed conflict.\nPolitico reported this June, \u201cThe Pentagon Is Freaking Out About a Potential War With China (Because America might lose)\u201d.\nThe article disclosed that the US military has held numerous war games to scope out a potential crisis with Beijing, and Washington has faced disastrous consequences.\nThe former vice chair of the Pentagon\u2019s powerful Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Hyten, confessed that the Chinese military \u201cjust ran rings around us\u201d.\nPolitico wrote:\nDozens of versions of the above war-game scenario have been enacted over the last few years, most recently in April by the House Select Committee on competition with China. And while the ultimate outcome in these exercises is not always clear \u2014 the U.S. does better in some than others \u2014 the cost is. In every exercise the U.S. uses up all its long-range air-to-surface missiles in a few days, with a substantial portion of its planes destroyed on the ground. In every exercise the U.S. is not engaged in an abstract push-button war from 30,000 feet up like the ones Americans have come to expect since the end of the Cold War, but a horrifically bloody one.\nAnd that\u2019s assuming the U.S.-China war doesn\u2019t go nuclear.\n\u201cThe thing we see across all the wargames is that there are major losses on all sides. And the impact of that on our society is quite devastating,\u201d said Becca Wasser, who played the role of the Chinese leadership in the Select Committee\u2019s wargame and is head of the gaming lab at the Center for a New American Security. \u201cThe most common thread in these exercises is that the United States needs to take steps now in the Indo-Pacific to ensure the conflict doesn\u2019t happen in the future. We are hugely behind the curve. Ukraine is our wakeup call. This is our watershed moment.\u201d\nA similar disinformation operation occurred in 2020, when US spy agencies spread a false story known as \u201cBountygate\u201d.\nThe New York Times took the lead in this information warfare campaign, in a June 2020 report titled \u201cRussia Secretly Offered Afghan Militants Bounties to Kill U.S. Troops, Intelligence Says\u201c.\nThe newspaper quoted anonymous \u201cAmerican intelligence officials [who] have concluded that a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing Coalition forces in Afghanistan \u2013 including targeting American troops\u201d.\nThis story was lampooned from the beginning, because the US had been militarily occupying Afghanistan for 19 years as of 2020, and it was never explained why the Taliban would need to be bribed in order to attack the foreign soldiers occupying their homeland.\nBut the intention behind the gray propaganda became clear just a few days after this false story was plastered across the media.\nThe US House of Representatives Armed Service Committee cited the dubious rumor in order to justify voting on July 1 to block the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, thereby extending the war.\nMeanwhile, a mere two weeks after this report came out, the Pentagon publicly stated that it was probably not true.\nThen US Defense Secretary Mark Esper and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said they had found no evidence to substantiate the claims of \u201cBountygate\u201d.\n\u201cAll the defense intelligence agencies have been unable to corroborate that report\u201d, Esper said, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.\nA year later, in 2021, when the scandal had largely been forgotten, the Daily Beast released an article quietly acknowledging, \u201cU.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops\u201d.\nNBC News also reported: \u201cRemember those Russian bounties for dead U.S. troops? Biden admin says the CIA intel is not conclusive\u201d.\nThe media outlet added, \u201cThe Biden administration made clear [on April 15] that the CIA has only \u2018low to moderate confidence\u2019 in its intel on alleged Russian bounties for U.S. troops\u201d.\nThis story revealed that it was the CIA that had promoted the false \u201cBountygate\u201d myth in the first place.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Inside Operation Gladio: How NATO supported Nazis and terrorists. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Asa Winstanley, CIA, Europe, fascism, NATO, Nazis, Operation Gladio, podcast, Soviet Union", "output": "Journalists Benjamin Norton and Asa Winstanley discuss Operation Gladio, the NATO \u201cstay behind\u201d networks in which the CIA armed former Nazis and fascists to wage war on the left.\n\nMultipolarista host Benjamin Norton is joined by journalist Asa Winstanley to discuss Operation Gladio, the NATO \u201cstay behind\u201d networks in which the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies recruited, armed, and trained former Nazis, other fascists, and right-wing terrorists to wage a war on the left.\n\nYou can also watch the video at Rokfin or Rumble.\n\nYou can also download the podcast for free at Substack.\nFollow Asa on Twitter at @AsaWinstanley.\nSupport Asa\u2019s reporting at his Substack.\nRead Asa\u2019s reports:\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: CNN and NY Times help US gov\u2019t lie about spying on Americans. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Alejandro Mayorkas, CBP, censorship, CNN, Department of Homeland Security, DHS, Donald Trump, ICE, Joe Biden, media, New York Times, Nina Jankowicz", "output": "CNN and the New York Times echoed a blatant lie from the Department of Homeland Security, falsely claiming it does not monitor Americans. DHS has for years spied on US journalists and protesters.\n\nCNN and the New York Times let the head of the Department of Homeland Security lie about the institution\u2019s established record of spying on US citizens, echoing his false claims.\nThese top media outlets amplified this falsehood as part of an attempt to defend the US government\u2019s de facto Ministry of Truth, the new \u201cDisinformation Governance Board\u201d that the Department of Homeland (DHS) has created in order to censor supposed \u201cdisinformation\u201d that it deems a threat to US national security.\nDHS, which was created after the September 11, 2001 attacks to oversee the so-called War on Terror, is notorious for its brutal and authoritarian tactics.\nThe fact that DHS has surveilled American journalists, protesters, and even critical politicians is well documented. This is an undeniable matter of public record.\nBut CNN and the New York Times allowed the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, to lie about this objective fact, and did not push back in any way.\nCNN echoed a blatant lie from the Department of Homeland Security, falsely claiming it does not monitor Americans.\nThe New York Times later amplified this same lie.\nIn reality, DHS has for years spied on US journalists and protesters.\nRead more here: https://t.co/rtNxGrn3x1 pic.twitter.com/tTurbvgWsI\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) May 3, 2022\n\nCNN host Dana Bash sat down with Mayorkas on May 1, in an interview titled \u201cBash presses Mayorkas about \u20181984\u2019 comparisons to disinformation board.\u201d\nThe CNN segment amounted to a defense of DHS\u2019 Disinformation Governance Board, which Mayorkas minimized as a \u201csmall working group within the Department of Homeland Security,\u201d supposedly with limited power.\n\u201cWill American citizens be monitored?\u201d Bash asked, in regard to this disinformation board.\n\u201cNo,\u201d Mayorkas said firmly.\n\u201cGuarantee that?\u201d Bash responded.\n\u201cWe in the Department of Homeland Security don\u2019t monitor American citizens,\u201d he insisted.\nThis statement is blatantly false. DHS\u2019 monitoring of American citizens is very well documented, by dozens of mainstream media outlets and civil liberties organizations.\nBut instead of pushing back against this clear lie, the CNN host echoed the DHS secretary\u2019s totally false claim.\n\u201cYou don\u2019t,\u201d Bash replied in agreement. \u201cBut will this board change that?\u201d she added.\n\u201cNo, no, no,\u201d Mayorkas repeated.\nThis is all completely, categorically false.\nThe Intercept obtained documents through a Freedom of Information Act request showing how DHS has spied on activists protesting police brutality in the Black Lives Matter movement since at least 2014.\nNBC 7 obtained DHS documents in 2019 that showed that \u201cthe U.S. government created a secret database of activists, journalists, and social media influencers tied to the migrant caravan and in some cases, placed alerts on their passports.\u201d\nIn 2020, the New York Times itself reported that the \u201cDepartment of Homeland Security deployed helicopters, airplanes and drones over 15 cities where demonstrators gathered to protest the death of George Floyd.\u201d\nHomeland Security officials used planes, helicopters and drones to record recent Black Lives Matter protests in 15 American cities. They logged at least 270 hours of surveillance \u2014 far more than previously known. https://t.co/lOH0jnYZ8V\n\u2014 The New York Times (@nytimes) June 20, 2020\n\nThat same year, the Washington Post revealed that the \u201cDepartment of Homeland Security has compiled \u2018intelligence reports\u2019 about the work of American journalists covering protests.\u201d\nThis led Oregon lawmakers to publicly demand \u201canswers from the Department of Homeland Security, following new reports that the department spied on Portland protesters\u2019 phones.\u201d\nThe American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has exhaustively documented the department\u2019s spying on Americans, noting five branches of DHS have intelligence missions.\nThe ACLU even sued the department for spying on journalists and violating their civil liberties.\nFor nearly 20\u00a0years, many of our warnings about DHS have become tragic realities.\nIt's past time to dismantle this rogue agency. https://t.co/bZHD0reU0O\n\u2014 ACLU (@ACLU) November 15, 2020\n\nSome current and former DHS officials have tried to put the blame for these authoritarian policies solely on Donald Trump, but the reality is this surveillance started long before Trump entered office in 2017 and has continued since he left in 2021.\nYahoo News obtained documents in 2022 showing that the \u201ccontroversial unit of Customs and Border Protection that trawled through the travel and financial records of journalists and lawmakers is still monitoring Americans.\u201d\nCustoms and Border Protection (CBP) is a branch of the Department of Homeland Security.\nCBP unit that spied on journalists and lawmakers is monitoring American protesters: https://t.co/tr9UpgoSsO\n\u2014 Freedom of the Press (@FreedomofPress) January 26, 2022\n\nInstead of acknowledging any of these facts, CNN and its host Dana Bash simply echoed the lies of the DHS secretary.\nAnd\u00a0CNN was not the only major media outlet that spread this US government disinformation.\nThe New York Times amplified the same lies from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.\nThe newspaper-of-recored published an article on May 2 titled \u201cPartisan Fight Breaks Out Over New Disinformation Board,\u201d which was really a long-winded defense of Washington\u2019s de facto Ministry of Truth.\nThe Times quoted Mayorkas\u2019 claim, \u201cWe in the Department of Homeland Security don\u2019t monitor American citizens.\u201d\nThe top media outlet did not push back against this US government disinformation, or point out that its own reporting had shown this claim to be false.\nThe New York Times echoes the false claim that DHS does not spy on American, without any pushback\nThe Times article was co-written by Steven Lee Myers and Zolan Kanno-Youngs.\nKanno-Youngs had in fact authored the June 2020 New York Times article revealing that the Department of Homeland Security deployed helicopters, airplanes, and drones to spy on Black Lives Matter protesters in 15 cities.\nYet less than two years after acknowledging this fact, Kanno-Youngs and his colleagues at the Times had returned to carrying water for DHS and amplifying its false claims.\nThe Times reprinted the comments Mayorkas\u2019 made on CNN insisting that the Disinformation Governance Board is needed to counter supposed \u201cdisinformation from Russia, China, Iran.\u201d\nMayorkas said the board will censor \u201cdisinformation that creates a threat to the security of the homeland.\u201d\nBoth the CNN and New York Times reports gave the false impression that only conservative Republicans are opposed to the Disinformation Governance Board.\u00a0In fact many journalists and activists on the left are deeply opposed to this de facto Ministry of Truth.\nBut these top media outlets deceptively portrayed the controversy as simply another battle in a US liberal-conservative culture war.\nThere was deep irony in the New York Times publishing blatant US government disinformation in an article warning about the \u201cthreat\u201d of disinformation supposedly spread by Russia, China, and Iran.\nIn his interview on CNN, Mayorkas claimed,\u00a0\u201cThe board does not have any operational authority or capability. What it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinformation from foreign state adversaries, from the cartels, and disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years.\u201d\nThis appeared to be the DHS director\u2019s roundabout way of saying that the board will pressure social media platforms and Big Tech corporations to censor what it calls \u201cdisinformation.\u201d\nDHS can thus claim that it is not directly censoring people, that it is instead private companies censoring them, while failing to mention that they are doing so under US government pressure.\nMayorkas also referred to the director of the Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz, as \u201ceminently qualified, a renowned expert in the field of disinformation.\u201d\nIn reality, Jankowicz is an avowed cold warrior who smears independent anti-war US media outlets as supposed \u201cRussian disinfo,\u201d and has called WikiLeaks \u201cscum.\u201d\nThe authoritarian Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that oversaw the War on Terror created a \u201cDisinformation Governance Board,\u201d led by information warrior Nina Jankowicz, who smears independent US media as \u201cRussian disinfo\u201d and called @WikiLeaks \"scum\"https://t.co/V7T9XnIlBI\n\u2014 Multipolarista (@Multipolarista) May 3, 2022\n\nMultipolarista documented how Jankowicz got her start professionally running regime-change operations targeting Russia for CIA front the National Democratic Institute (NDI), a branch of the US government\u2019s infamous National Endowment for Democracy (NED).\nIn its report defending the DHS disinformation board, the New York Times euphemistically claimed the NDI and NED \u201cpromote democratic governance abroad.\u201d\nIn reality, these US government bodies exist to fund opposition groups and destabilize foreign countries targeted by Washington for regime change. The NED\u2019s own co-founder admitted that the organization is a CIA cutout.\nIn 2016, Jankowicz described herself as \u201csomeone who has made a career in democracy assistance.\u201d She later rebranded as a \u201cdisinformation expert\u201d after the election of Donald Trump.\nJankowicz has gone out of her way to target independent American journalists who criticize US foreign policy, trying to link them to Russia to justify censoring them.\nDHS Secretary Mayorkas, for his part, concluded his interview with CNN emphasizing that the Joe Biden administration has continued the Trump administration\u2019s aggressive crackdown on immigration.\n\u201cOur border is not open,\u201d he stressed.\nWhen asked what his message was to migrants and refugees, Mayorkas emphasized, \u201cDo not come.\u201d\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Despite Biden\u2019s claims, Gaza health ministry death toll is accurate, scientific studies show. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Gaza, Israel, Palestine, The Lancet", "output": "US President Biden criticized Gaza\u2019s health ministry, but its statistics on Israel\u2019s killings of Palestinians are accurate, according to peer-reviewed articles in top medical journal The Lancet.\n\nThe death toll of Israel\u2019s war on Gaza reported by the Palestinian health ministry is accurate, according to two peer-reviewed studies by scientific experts published in top medical journal The Lancet.\nAs of December 18, Israel had killed 19,453 Palestinians in Gaza, the ministry reported. Two-thirds of the deaths were children (7,729) and women (5,153).\nUnited Nations bodies, human rights organizations, and major media outlets have often used these statistics, because they have a history of being accurate.\n\n\u201cInternational organizations including the United Nations usually rely on these same figures as they are seen as the best available\u201d, the Washington Post acknowledged.\n\u201cMany experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements\u201d, the prominent US newspaper wrote.\nIsrael has claimed, without any evidence, that Gaza\u2019s health ministry is untrustworthy, because it is supposedly run by the political party Hamas. (In reality, the Gaza health ministry is partially funded by and linked to Hamas\u2019 political rival, the Palestinian Authority, based in the Occupied West Bank.)\nThe US government has echoed Israel\u2019s disinformation. President Joe Biden said in an October 25 press conference, \u201cI have no notion that the Palestinians are telling the truth about how many people are killed\u2026 I have no confidence in the number that the Palestinians are using\u201d.\nDespite Biden\u2019s criticism, HuffPost revealed that the US State Department uses the Palestinian health ministry figures in its own reports on Gaza.\nIn one of such memos, a US official acknowledged that, if anything, \u201cThe numbers are likely much higher, according to the UN and NGOs reporting on the situation\u201d.\nThis was exactly the conclusion reached by scientific experts at Johns Hopkins University\u2019s Bloomberg School of Public Health.\nThe peer-reviewed article \u201cNo evidence of inflated mortality reporting from the Gaza Ministry of Health\u201d, published in leading medical journal The Lancet on December 6, noted that the Palestinian institution \u201chas historically reported accurate mortality data\u201d.\nIn past conflicts, discrepancies between Gaza Ministry of Health (MoH) data and independent United Nations figures were only between 1.5% and 3.8%.\nGaza MoH data were also quite similar to figures from Israel\u2019s own Foreign Ministry, with a difference of just around 8%.\nScholars Benjamin Q Huynh, Elizabeth T Chin, and Paul B Spiegel wrote that they \u201cfound no evidence of inflated rates\u201d.\nScientific experts from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine came to a similar conclusion in their own peer-reviewed article in The Lancet, published on November 26.\nFor this previous study, scholars Zeina Jamaluddine, Francesco Checchi, and Oona M R Campbell reviewed death statistics from October 7 to 26, analyzing the list of 7028 deaths compiled by the Gaza Ministry of Health.\nOut of the 7028 names, only one had a duplicated ID number, one had an implausible age, and just 281 lacked an ID number.\nThe experts concluded that the data were reasonable, writing, \u201cWe consider it implausible that these patterns would arise from data fabrication\u201d.\nThey also reviewed MoH figures from previous wars in Gaza, and found them to be reliable.\n\u201cAssessments of Palestinian MoH data validity in the 2014 conflict had shown them to be accurate, and we saw no obvious reason to doubt the validity of the data between Oct 7 and Oct 26, 2023\u201d, the scholars stated.\nIf anything, they concluded that the Gaza MoH figures may be rather conservative.\n\u201cThe death reporting system currently being used by the Palestinian MoH was assessed in 2021, 2 years before the current war, and was found to under-report mortality by 13%\u201d, they wrote, adding that \u201cit is plausible that the current Palestinian MoH source also under-reports mortality because of the direct effect of the war on data capture and reporting, for example by omitting people whose bodies could not be recovered or brought to morgues\u201d.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: FBI praises Martin Luther King \u2013 after blackmailing and threatening to \u2018neutralize\u2019 him. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Black liberation, civil rights, FBI, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr, MLK, NYPD, racism", "output": "While the FBI now praises Martin Luther King Jr. for PR, it previously plotted to \u201cneutralize\u201d him, blackmailing the civil rights leader, attacking MLK as a \u201cfilthy, abnormal animal.\u201d\n\nOn Marin Luther King Jr. day, this January 17, the FBI tweeted a statement honoring the memory of the late civil rights leader.\nWhile the police agency now praises MLK, it previously plotted to \u201cneutralize\u201d him, blackmailing King and calling him a \u201cfilthy, abnormal animal.\u201d\nDr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, \u201cLife\u2019s most persistent and urgent question is, \u2018What are you doing for others?\u2019\u201d This #MLKDay2022 and every day, the #FBI remains dedicated to service and committed to protecting our communities. pic.twitter.com/HDpq9iWXWP\n\u2014 FBI (@FBI) January 17, 2022\n\nThere are mountains of evidence from the Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) showing the FBI blackmailing and threatening MLK.\nThe FBI even wrote a letter to King revealing that it had spied on the civil right leader and threatened to expose his extra-marital affairs if he did not commit suicide.\nA jury in a civil suit brought by the family of Martin Luther King Jr. found US \u201cgovernmental agencies\u201d were part of a conspiracy to murder the civil rights leader, as the New York Times reported in 1999.\nAnd it was not just King.\nA former undercover police officer, named Raymond \u201cRay\u201d Wood, wrote a letter on his deathbed saying the FBI and NYPD helped to assassinate Black revolutionary Malcolm X.\n\u201cI participated in actions that in hindsight were deplorable and detrimental to the advancement of my own Black people. My actions on behalf of the New York City Police Department were done under duress and fear,\u201d Wood said.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Terror attacks on Cuba\u2019s embassy fueled by aggressive US policy. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Cuba, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, sanctions, terrorism", "output": "Cuba\u2019s embassy in Washington has been attacked two times in three years, and no one has been held accountable. This reflects the long history of US-backed terrorism against Cuba, and six decades of illegal economic warfare.\n\nCuba\u2019s embassy in Washington, DC was attacked with two Molotov cocktails on the night of September 24. This was the second terrorist attack against the embassy in the past three years.\nThe US Secret Service responded at around 8pm, but did not apprehend any perpetrators.\nThe explosives hit the front side of the embassy, which is already scarred with AK-47 bullet holes from a shooting attack in April 2020 \u2014 an emblem of the deadly risk it takes to be a Cuban diplomat in the United States, and of the long history of US-backed terrorism against the country.\nThe moment when the terrorist stands in front on the @EmbaCubaUS, lights up the Molotov cocktails & hurls them against the fa\u00e7ade of the mission.\nThis footage was handed over to US authorities.\nOriginal camera video of the Cuban diplomatic mission in Washington#NoAlTerrorismo pic.twitter.com/c9VWJsQ0xU\n\u2014 Bruno Rodr\u00edguez P (@BrunoRguezP) September 26, 2023\n\nThe Molotov cocktail attack occurred the same day that a Cuban delegation led by President Miguel D\u00edaz-Canel returned to Havana, after participating in the 78th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). It also came soon after Cuba chaired a historic summit of the G77+China.\nThe attack was clearly an act of violent intimidation against Cuban diplomats, and a reaction to the powerful show of solidarity by hundreds of people in the US throughout President D\u00edaz-Canel\u2019s visit to New York.\nAn emotional moment as Cuban President joined our rally to #LetCubaLive\n\u201cThank you for your solidarity, thank you for your support, and thank you for being here with us!\u201d \u2014@DiazCanelB\nCUBA S\u00cd, BLOQUE\u00d3 NO! pic.twitter.com/ttgWcEY0Bz\n\u2014 The People's Forum (@PeoplesForumNYC) September 22, 2023\n\nFollowing the second terror attack, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez announced that no embassy staff had been injured and an investigation was underway.\nInitially, the US government was eerily quiet about the attack on a foreign embassy just blocks from the White House.\nThe night of September 25, a day after the attack \u2013 and hours after about 100 DC locals rallied outside the embassy in support of Cuba\u00a0\u2013 US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan finally released a statement condemning the attack and agreeing to an investigation.\nSpeakers at the rally called not only for an investigation into the attacks, but also an end to the illegal, six-decade US blockade \u2013 which virtually every country on Earth votes against each year in the United Nations.\nThe UN General Assembly vote against the US blockade of Cuba, on November 3, 2022\nCuba is a victim of US-backed terrorism, yet the Joe Biden administration has continued Donald Trump\u2019s designation of Cuba as a \u201cstate sponsor of terrorism\u201d (SSOT), as part of an economic war against 11 million Cuban people.\nIn a statement, Cuba\u2019s Ministry of Foreign Affairs put blame for this latest attack directly on the US government\u2019s aggressive policy and hateful discourse:\nAnti-Cuban groups resort to terrorism due to the moral bankruptcy of their hatred against Cuba and the impunity they believe they enjoy. On a regular basis, in the official exchanges between the Embassy and the Department of State, it has been warned that the permissive behavior of United States law enforcement agencies in the face of violent actions can encourage the commission of acts of this nature.\nIt is the second violent attack against the diplomatic headquarters in Washington, since April 2020. On the night of that day, an individual of Cuban origin, standing in the middle of the street in the US capital and using an assault rifle, fired a burst of thirty cartridges against the building. Fortunately, there were no injuries to the personnel inside the building on that occasion, but there were considerable material damages.\nAfter three years, the perpetrator still awaits trial and the United States government has refused to classify the incident as a terrorist act.\n\u2026\nThe Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemns this terrorist action and hopes that the United States Government will act in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, in the interest of avoiding the repetition of these events.\n\u2026\nIt also warns against the double standards used by the US government\u2019s supposed commitment against terrorism.\nThe CIA and FBI have created, financed, and trained hundreds of anti-Cuba terrorist groups since the triumph of the revolution in 1959.\nAt least 3,478 Cubans have been killed and 2,099 have been disabled by US-sponsored terrorism since the revolution.\nThis includes 581 attacks against the country\u2019s diplomatic representations abroad, according to Cuba\u2019s Center for Historical Investigations of State Security (CIHSE).\nAt their peak violence, in 1974, Cuban exiles accounted for 45% of all terrorist bombings on the planet.\nThe most notorious of these terrorists, Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles, bombed a Cuban plane and numerous hotels. They were trained by the CIA and exonerated by the US government for their crimes. They died peacefully in Florida, celebrated as local heroes by the extreme anti-Castro community.\nAs Cuban Foreign Minister Rodriguez wrote after the latest attack, \u201cThe anti-Cuban groups resort to terrorism when feeling they enjoy impunity, something that Cuba has repeatedly warned the US authorities about.\u201d\nThe weak response to the April 2020 shooting on the embassy is exactly what enabled an attack to happen again, the Cubans say.\nThe perpetrator of that previous attack, 42-year-old Cuban immigrant Alexander Alazo Bar\u00f3, has yet to be convicted.\n\u201cThe author of that barbaric act that machine-gunned our diplomatic headquarters \u2026 is still awaiting sentencing,\u201d wrote leading Cuban diplomat Johana Tablada, deputy director general of the Foreign Ministry\u2019s US Division. \u201cCuba is awaiting condemnation from the US government, which did not even call this terrorist act by its name.\u201d\nCuban journalist El Necio reported, \u201cThe defendant is expected to face a mandatory sentence of no less than 10 years in prison, a fine of $250,000 and up to three years of supervised release \u2026 However, the defense seeks to prove a clinical picture of schizophrenia. There is still no sentence for this case, but the attacker is in preventive detention.\u201d\n(+ detalles) \u2934\ufe0f\n\u2013 Se produjeron da\u00f1os materiales en la fachada y los interiores: paredes, columnas, ventanas, escalera y l\u00e1mpara interior, el asta de la bandera, la reja y la estatua del H\u00e9roe Nacional de Cuba, Jos\u00e9 Mart\u00ed, frente a la sede (ver fotos)\n\u2013 El informe policial lo\u2026 pic.twitter.com/XIiV23Ih4p\n\u2014 El Necio (@ElNecio_Cuba) September 25, 2023\n\nAt 2:05am on April 30, 2020, Alazo Bar\u00f3 parked his truck 16th Street NW, in front of the Cuban embassy. He approached the fence, yelled and desecrated a Cuban flag, then proceeded to fire 32 shots from an AK-47 at the embassy.\nNone of the dozen staff inside were injured, but easily could have been. The outside and interior of the building are completely riddled with bullet holes. Now the embassy has bulletproof doors.\nUpon his arrest, Alazo Bar\u00f3 claimed he was motivated by his hatred of Cuba and fear of assassination by the Cuban government and alleged criminal groups. At his trial, said he \u201chated Cubans\u201d and would have shot the ambassador if he saw him, because he was the \u201cenemy.\u201d\nAfter weeks of silence from the United States following the 2020 attack, Cuban Foreign Minister Rodr\u00edguez publicly denounced Washington\u2019s lack of cooperation in the investigation, accusing the US of failing to \u201cfulfill its obligation to prevent this attack, of which it received sufficient signals.\u201d\nUS media and law enforcement dismissed Alazo Bar\u00f3 as a lone wolf, but he was a vocal Trump supporter linked to extremist anti-Cuba groups in Miami.\nAlazo Bar\u00f3 had left Cuba in 2003 to settle in Mexico on a religious visa. He then immigrated to the US, crossing the southern border in 2010. He lived first in Florida, then in Texas, and later in Pennsylvania.\nLike many Cubans permanently residing abroad, he maintained a normal relationship with Cuba, and visited eight times after leaving, last in 2015. He never exhibited any concerning behavior during his returns to Cuba or interactions with Cuban authorities.\nHowever, during his time in Miami, Alazo Bar\u00f3 associated with the Doral Jesus Worship Center, a religious center and hot spot of aggression and violence against Cuba.\nHe befriended Pastor Frank L\u00f3pez, a vocal extremist who has close relationships with anti-Cuba hawks like Florida Representative Mario D\u00edaz-Balart and Senator Marco Rubio.\nAccording to Facebook posts, Alazo Bar\u00f3 also befriended members of the congregation who advocated using drones to kill Ra\u00fal Castro and President Miguel D\u00edaz-Canel.\nIn February 2019, a year before the AK-47 terror attack on the embassy, Vice President Mike Pence spoke at the Doral Jesus Worship Center alongside Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Senators Rubio and Rick Scott, and Representative D\u00edaz-Balart.\nTheir remarks showed utter contempt for Cuba and Venezuela, which D\u00edaz-Balart said were suffering from \u201cthe same cancer.\u201d\nPresident Trump also spoke at the church in July 2020.\n#US President @realDonaldTrump will speak today at the Doral Jesus Worship Center, involved in instigation to violence and #terrorism against #Cuba, frequented by the attacker who shot  against our embassy in Washington with an assault rifle.\nWill he condemn that action? pic.twitter.com/71EkgG802k\n\u2014 Bruno Rodr\u00edguez P (@BrunoRguezP) July 10, 2020\n\nIn March 2020, a month before the attack, Alazo Bar\u00f3 was admitted to a psychiatric hospital, diagnosed with delusional disorder, and prescribed medication. He already had a license to carry and, after being medically discharged, he acquired the AK-47 rifle.\nTwo weeks before the attack, Alazo Bar\u00f3 visited the embassy to scope out the target.\nCuba\u2019s Foreign Affairs Ministry called for the US to investigate these links between the shooter and anti-Cuba leaders.\nCuba questions how Alazo Bar\u00f3 was able to purchase an assault rifle with such ease, and then travel around doing reconnaissance at the site of the attack.\nAfter the shooting, the embassy repaired the shattered glass and installed bulletproof doors, but Cuban officials decided to leave most of the bullet holes in place, marking them with plaques, so that this act of violence and intimidation can never be forgotten.\nMeanwhile, the US government and media remain disturbingly quiet about these acts of terrorism in the heart of the capital.\nCuba\u2019s Foreign Ministry argued the attacks on the embassy could not be seen as separate, but rather as a direct result \u201cof the permanent instigation of violence by American politicians and anti-Cuban extremist groups that have made this type of attacks their livelihood,\u201d in a hostile political climate which heightened during the Trump administration.\nClearly this hostility against Cuba did not end with Trump, but rather continues under Biden, as shown by the second attack.\nBiden has upheld nearly every one of the hundreds of additional sanctions Trump designed to strangle the Cuban economy, including by renewing the designation of Cuba as a so-called \u201cstate sponsor of terrorism.\u201d\nDespite US-Cuba cooperation on migration, drug-trafficking, and counter-terrorism, and despite Biden\u2019s campaign promises to return to Obama-era rapprochement with Cuba, his administration has carried on Trump\u2019s policy of \u201cmaximum pressure\u201d and continues to fund $20 million each year to groups that attack and destabilize the Cuban government.\nCuba has received messages of support from Mexico, Bolivia, Venezuela, and other allies.\nCuba also saw an outpouring of solidarity from the US people, following a week of actions against the blockade and in support of Cuba during the UNGA.\nOn September 23, the night before the attack, Cuban President D\u00edaz-Canel rallied with 900 people in New York City for the solidarity event \u201cVoices of Dignity: People vs Blockades\u201d.\nAs a leader of Cuban-America solidarity group Puentes de Amor, Carlos Lazo, wrote after the attack, \u201cIt is sad and disturbing that while the Cuban president advocated yesterday, in front of hundreds of Americans, for the construction of bridges of love between Cuba and the United States, today, in Washington D.C., a terrorist launched two explosives against the Cuban embassy.\u201d\nOn September 25, local supporters gathered outside the Cuban embassy to show solidarity with the country, calling for the US to investigate these attacks as acts of terrorism, and demanding an end to the US economic war against Cuba.\nAgainst the hateful attack of two Molotov cocktails thrown at our Embassy in #Washington, a wall of love, affection and support from loyal friends in solidarity with the Cuban people was erected. Hate will never defeat noble and genuine love. #CubaIsNotAlone pic.twitter.com/tD5wL7t0U6\n\u2014 Sandra Yisel Ram\u00edrez (@carantosan) September 26, 2023\n\n(Editor\u2019s note: This article was updated soon after it was published on September 25 to include the statement from the White House and the newly released video footage of the second attack.)\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Puerto Ricans rise up against US-imposed austerity, protest poverty wages. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "austerity, colonialism, neoliberalism, Puerto Rico", "output": "Puerto Rican public workers are protesting the neoliberal policies imposed by the US government\u2019s unelected Financial Oversight and Management Board. A professor speaks about their demands for higher wages and better social programs.\n\nThis February, Puerto Rican public workers have been holding large protests against the neoliberal policies imposed by the US government\u2019s unelected Financial Oversight and Management Board.\nMultipolarista spoke with \u00c1ngel Rodr\u00edguez Rivera, president of the Puerto Rican Association of University Professors. He described how teachers are rising up, after the minimum wage has not increased in 13 years.\nYou can watch or listen to the interview below:\n\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: UN experts: US sanctions violate Iranians\u2019 human rights. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Alena Douhan, Iran, sanctions, United Nations", "output": "Top United Nations experts wrote a letter to the United States government, emphasizing that its illegal unilateral sanctions on Iran violate the human rights of the Iranian people, calling for them to \u201cbe eased or lifted completely.\u201d\n\nTop United Nations experts have criticized US government sanctions for violating the human rights of Iranians.\nThey made it clear that the unilateral coercive measures that the United States has imposed on Iran violate international law.\n\nA group of UN special rapporteurs stressed that these sanctions have a \u201cnegative impact\u201d on \u201cthe enjoyment of the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment in the Islamic Republic of Iran and on the right to health and the right to life.\u201d\nViolating Iranians\u2019 right to life is a roundabout diplomatic way of saying that US sanctions are killing them.\nThe UN experts sent a formal letter to the United States condemning its sanctions and requesting that it investigate and remove them.\nThe special rapporteurs expressed their \u201cserious concerns about the U.S. sanctions as a significant contributing factor in Iran\u2019s environmental degradation, which negatively affects Iranian people\u2019s rights to a healthy and sustainable environment, to health, to life, and to an adequate standard of living.\u201d\nThey added that \u201cU.S. sanctions impede the enjoyment of the right to education\u201d in Iran.\n\nWashington constantly accuses Tehran of violating its people\u2019s rights. The US government also publicly claims to support the struggle against climate change and pollution, and on paper it recognizes that people have the right to a clean environment.\nBut Washington\u2019s \u201csanctions against Iran contradict what seems to be a clear US position on this matter,\u201d the UN experts said.\n\u201cIt is time for sanctions that impede Iran\u2019s ability to improve the environment and reduce the ill effects on health and life, to be eased or lifted completely so that Iranians can access their right to a clean environment, the right to health and to life, and other rights associated with favourable environmental conditions,\u201d they insisted.\n#US sanctions contribute to environmental harm and prevent all people in #Iran, including migrants and Afghan refugees, from fully enjoying their rights to health and life and a clean environment \u2013 UN experts ? https://t.co/OtChnuqRWW pic.twitter.com/WPSsSAdgGv\n\u2014 UN Special Procedures (@UN_SPExperts) December 20, 2022\n\nThe UN special rapporteurs noted:\nSince 1979, the United States of America has imposed a broad and complex network of stringent financial, economic, and trade sanctions against Iran, including a comprehensive trade ban, significant measures to isolate Iran from the international financial and commercial system, as well as secondary sanctions against non-U.S. parties that engage in dealings with Iran.\nSome (but not all) of these sanctions were removed or eased in 2015, when US President Barack Obama signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement with Iran that was also joined by the other permanent members of the UN Security Council (Britain, France, China, and Russia), Germany, and the European Union.\nIn 2018, US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, in violation of a UN Security Council resolution, and subsequently imposed more sanctions on Iran, in clear contravention of international law.\nThe UN experts noted that the Trump administration not only re-imposed \u201csanctions that had been lifted or eased under the JCPOA\u201d; it also \u201cintroduced additional measures. These sanctions targeted Iran\u2019s energy, shipbuilding, shipping and financial sectors, and included the listing of more than 700 individuals, entities, aircraft and vessels.\u201d\nUnilateral sanctions violate a broad scope of human rights including the right to favorable environment negatively affecting right to health and right to life of all people in the country https://t.co/WJK4toNXZy\n\u2014 Alena Douhan (@AlenaDouhan) December 20, 2022\n\nUS threats of secondary sanctions on foreign countries and firms that do business with Iran, as well as overcompliance, make the unilateral coercive measures even more punishing, the UN special rapporteurs wrote:\nThe full impact of the U.S. sanctions in Iran is magnified by considerable overcompliance on a global scale resulting from complex, time-consuming and/or costly compliance procedures; extraterritorial enforcement and fears of penalties for inadvertent breaches; and sanctions-related obstacles to financial transactions for goods and services that the sanctions do not prohibit.\nThe primary author of this letter, the top UN expert on sanctions, Alena Douhan, has previously released reports detailing the catastrophic impact that illegal US sanctions have had on civilians in Venezuela and Syria.\nShe said these \u201coutrageous\u201d US sanctions are \u201csuffocating\u201d millions of civilians and \u201cmay amount to crimes against humanity.\u201d\nThe UN's top expert said \u201coutrageous\u201d Western sanctions on Syria are \u201csuffocating\u201d millions of civilians, and \u201cmay amount to crimes against humanity.\u201d\nThe US-EU-Israel-Gulf proxy war on Syria made its economy shrink by 90%.\n90% of Syrians live in poverty https://t.co/XtHCuCHhYP\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 12, 2022\n\nThe letter concerning US sanctions on Iran was signed by the following UN human rights experts:\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: In COINTELPRO, FBI used anarchism to \u2018disrupt left\u2019, attack Vietnam & USSR. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "anarchism, COINTELPRO, FBI, police, Soviet Union, Vietnam, Vietnam War", "output": "In COINTELPRO, the FBI created an anarchist underground zine, boasting \u201cthe anarchist point of view is the most disruptive element in the New Left\u201d and could be used to attack Vietnam and the USSR\n\nUS police used anarchist talking points and ideology to \u201cdisrupt\u201d the left and demonize Vietnam, the Soviet Union, and other targets of imperialism, according to internal FBI documents released through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.\n\u201cThe anarchists point of view is the most disruptive element in the New Left and should be capitalized on in the most confusing ways,\u201d the FBI wrote.\nIn its Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which aimed to destabilize and destroy the socialist, anti-imperialist left in the United States, the FBI realized that anarchism and other ultra-left movements could be an effective weapon.\nThe FBI impersonated anarchists and even created its own underground newspaper or zine.\nThe FBI\u2019s anarchist publication was titled The Workshop. It proposed to base the newspaper in Washington, DC, with correspondents across the United States.\n\nIn internal documents, the FBI stressed that \u201cthe publisher and the writers should be strictly anarchist.\u201d Why? Because the cops recognized that \u201cthe anarchist position could take any direction, such as an attack on Vietnam policies as well as an attack on the Soviets in Czechoslovakia.\u201d\n\u201cThe anarchists point of view is the most disruptive element in the New Left and should be capitalized on in the most confusing ways,\u201d the feds added.\nThe FBI recognized that anarchist ideology could be used to de-politicize the leftist struggle, writing that the publication would \u201creach wider circulation if it were not so political as to be tied to dogma such as the line of MAO or CHE GUEVARA.\u201d\nIn the same vein of de-politicizing the struggle, the FBI also recognized it could weaponize culture against the left. It insisted that the anarchist paper should cover lurid topics, just as VICE magazine made its name.\nThe cops wrote that \u201cthe newsletter should also cover vigorously such aspects of the New Left as underground cinema, music, sex, dope, humor and so on,\u201d in order to \u201cincrease reader interest.\u201d\n\nThe FBI also planned to use the anarchist newspaper to attack leftist Black nationalist and pan-Africanist leaders, singling out Stokely Carmichael (Kwame Ture).\nThese internal FBI documents were disclosed by\u00a0Robert Skvarla. He also credited\u00a0researcher Dale M. Brumfield.\nThe first proposal, The Workshop, adopted the language of anarchists because their \"point of view [was] the most disruptive element in the New Left\" and could be used to target anyone. The FBI intended to attack figures like Stokely Carmichael. pic.twitter.com/lKNyIhCA1W\n\u2014 Robert Skvarla (@RobertSkvarla) October 15, 2021\n\nSkvarla showed that the FBI created another underground newspaper in 1968, titled Armageddon News. This was used to attack and destabilize the movement against the US war on Vietnam.\n\u201cWe students are concerned for the need for truth within our antiwar movement,\u201d the feds wrote, before going on to demonize communists.\nThat same year, in 1968, it produced a real fake underground paper: Armageddon News. The paper was ostensibly based out of the University of Indiana Bloomington, allowing the FBI to use it to astroturf attacks on left-wing activists on campus. pic.twitter.com/InEVdJG1OS\n\u2014 Robert Skvarla (@RobertSkvarla) October 15, 2021\n\nThe FBI office in San Antonio wrote in a memo to the bureau\u2019s director that \u201csteps can be taken to cause disruption within the ranks of the New Left.\u201d\nAnd a third paper, The Longhorn Tale, was distributed by the San Antonio field office at the University of Texas at Austin. The paper essentially doxed SDS activists deemed \"disruptive.\" pic.twitter.com/80bCEV7bD3\n\u2014 Robert Skvarla (@RobertSkvarla) October 15, 2021\n\nThe feds also created a Maoist, staunchly anti-Soviet newspaper called Chevara News. This later turned into a right-wing, Ayn Rand-adoring objectivist publication under the name The Rational Observer.\nAh fuck, forgot the funniest one. A Maoist, pro-Che paper initially called Chevara News somehow morphed into an objectivist rag called The Rational Observer. pic.twitter.com/8zrwuAfAvg\n\u2014 Robert Skvarla (@RobertSkvarla) October 15, 2021\n\nThis is just one piece of evidence showing how US cops and feds use anarchism and ultra-left ideology to disrupt the socialist movement and disguise imperialist talking points as \u201cleft-wing.\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Los bancos de EEUU se enriquecieron durante la pandemia de Covid-19, mientras millones murieron. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "bancos, Covid-19, econom\u00eda, pandemia, Wall Street", "output": "La pandemia de Covid-19 ha matado a m\u00e1s de 854.000 estadounidenses. El gobierno de EEUU abandon\u00f3 a su gente \u2013 pero asegur\u00f3 que la banca se enriqueci\u00f3. Los capitalistas ganaron $5 millones de millones.\n\nM\u00e1s de 5,55 millones de personas alrededor del mundo han muerto por el Covid-19. S\u00f3lo en Estados Unidos, por lo menos 854.000 habitantes han perdido sus vidas. Y la pandemia ha destruido el sustento de muchos m\u00e1s, llevando a la bancarrota a familias, devastando comunidades.\nMientras tanto, los milmillonarios se han enriquecido.\u00a0Los 10 capitalistas m\u00e1s ricos de la tierra duplicaron su riqueza durante la pandemia, al tiempo que\u00a0los ingresos del 99% de la humanidad bajaron.\nY la prensa financiera pr\u00e1cticamente se est\u00e1 jactando.\nEl medio de comunicaci\u00f3n Reuters public\u00f3 un informe chocantemente franco que admite que los grandes bancos de EEUU han ganado much\u00edsimo dinero durante esta crisis sanitaria mundial.\nCon el t\u00edtulo \u201cLos bancos de Wall Street ven \u2018nuevo normal\u2019 en ingresos del comercio\u201d, el reportaje fue re-publicado en la p\u00e1gina oficial de la bolsa Nasdaq.\nEl art\u00edculo se jacta de que \u201cuna inyecci\u00f3n masiva de efectivo en los mercados de capitales por parte de la Reserva Federal [de EEUU] condujo a una liquidez y una actividad comercial sin precedentes durante la pandemia, ya que los inversores buscaban oportunidades para sacar provecho\u201d.\nLuego, el informe dice alegremente, \u201cLos bancos con grandes mesas de negociaci\u00f3n como Goldman Sachs GS.N, JPMorgan JPM.N y Morgan Stanley MS.N han sido los mayores beneficiarios de la volatilidad del mercado,\u00a0lo que ha permitido a los negociantes disfrutar de su mejor per\u00edodo desde la crisis financiera de 2007-09\u201d.\nDiscut\u00ed esta \u201cinyecci\u00f3n masiva de efectivo en los mercados de capitales por parte de la Reserva Federal\u201d en una\u00a0entrevista (en ingl\u00e9s) con el economista Michael Hudson.\nLa Reserva Federal rescat\u00f3 discretamente a los grandes bancos en septiembre de 2019 con $4,5 millones de millones en pr\u00e9stamos de emergencia, que, seg\u00fan Hudson, parecen haber violado la ley. Y esto es adem\u00e1s de los\u00a0millones de millones de d\u00f3lares m\u00e1s que el Tesoro de EEUU invirti\u00f3 en el sector financiero.\nEl informe de Reuters contin\u00faa, citando al director ejecutivo del banco Goldman Sachs, David M. Solomon, quien dijo a los analistas, \u201cNinguno de nosotros podr\u00eda haber anticipado el entorno que hemos vivido durante los \u00faltimos dos a\u00f1os y particularmente el entorno de\u00a0este a\u00f1o, que obviamente fue un viento de cola significativo para nuestro negocio\u201d.\nOjo, el director ejecutivo de Goldman Sachs no estaba diciendo que el banco no podr\u00eda haber anticipado los millones de muertes; m\u00e1s bien, estaba diciendo que Wall Street no podr\u00eda haber anticipado disfrutar de sus mayores ganancias desde la crisis financiera de hace 14 a\u00f1os.\nSolomon no es el \u00fanico. El director financiero de JPMorgan Chase, Jeremy Barnum, se\u00f1al\u00f3 que\u00a02020 y 2021, la cima de la pandemia, fueron \u201ca\u00f1os r\u00e9cord\u201d.\nEl art\u00edculo de Reuters cit\u00f3 a un analista del banco de inversi\u00f3n JMP Securities, Devin Ryan, quien dijo, \u201cEl nivel del 2020 y 2021 es bastante alto\u201d.\nLas actitudes de estos banqueros lo dejan en claro: el capitalismo es un culto a la muerte.\nMientras millones de personas mor\u00edan en una pandemia global hist\u00f3rica, los oligarcas capitalistas orquestaron una transferencia ascendente de riqueza masiva.\n\u201cLos diez hombres m\u00e1s ricos del mundo han duplicado con creces su fortuna, que ha pasado de 700 000 millones de d\u00f3lares a 1,5 billones [millones de millones] de d\u00f3lares (a un ritmo de 15 000 d\u00f3lares por segundo, o lo que es lo mismo, 1300 millones de d\u00f3lares al d\u00eda)\u00a0durante los primeros dos a\u00f1os de una pandemia que habr\u00eda deteriorado los ingresos del 99 % de la humanidad y que ha empujado a la pobreza a m\u00e1s de 160 millones de personas m\u00e1s\u201d,\u00a0inform\u00f3 Oxfam.\nLos oligarcas capitalistas ganaron $5 millones de millones de d\u00f3lares durante la pandemia, el \u201cmayor incremento de la riqueza de los milmillonarios desde que se tienen registros\u201d, dijo Oxfam.\nLa organizaci\u00f3n humanitaria calcul\u00f3 que la desigualdad contribuye a la muerte de por lo menos 21.000 personas cada d\u00eda \u2014 una persona cada cuatro segundos.\nLa\u00a0derecha de las Am\u00e9ricas\u00a0ha advertido hist\u00e9ricamente sobre el \u201cautoritarismo del Covid\u201d y un inminente \u201cestado biom\u00e9dico\u201d, pero la realidad es que Estados Unidos, su gran modelo pol\u00edtico, ya es en gran medida la distop\u00eda libertaria con la que han so\u00f1ado los oligarcas capitalistas \u2014 han invertido una gran cantidad de dinero para crear este sistema ultra-neoliberal.\nLa ideolog\u00eda dominante de EEUU es cada hombre por si mismo, perro come perro. Esto se refleja claramente en la respuesta del gobierno estadounidense a la mayor crisis sanitaria en un siglo.\nEsta estrategia de\u00a0laissez-faire\u00a0ha sido bipartidista. Tanto con el ex presidente Donald Trump como con el mandatario actual Joe Biden, el gobierno federal de EEUU b\u00e1sicamente no ha hecho nada sustantivo, dejando que cada estado y cada ciudad del pa\u00eds decida su propio destino.\nLa Casa Blanca de Biden dej\u00f3 esto en claro,\u00a0dici\u00e9ndole a la gente que est\u00e1n solos. Y el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de EEUU les ha dicho a los hospitales que, a partir del 2 de febrero,\u00a0ya no tienen que informar las muertes diarias del Covid-19 al gobierno federal.\nBiden afirm\u00f3 que revertir\u00eda la inacci\u00f3n de Trump, pero su administraci\u00f3n s\u00f3lo est\u00e1 mirando, haciendo nada, mientras entre 2000 y 3000 norteamericanos mueren por d\u00eda por el Covid-19. S\u00f3lo en el d\u00eda del 18 de enero de 2022, 2990 personas en EEUU murieron del virus.\nLas desastrosas consecuencias de esta estrategia libertaria son obvias para todo el mundo: al menos 854.000 muertes del Covid-19 en Estados Unidos, seg\u00fan estad\u00edsticas oficiales.\nEste es un nivel asombroso de p\u00e9rdida humana, solo superado por el barbarismo del r\u00e9gimen de extrema derecha de Jair Bolsonaro en Brasil, que ha supervisado 622,000 muertes por Covid-19 en una poblaci\u00f3n de 213 millones. (Si Brasil hubiera implementado las mismas pol\u00edticas, o sea la falta de ellas, con la poblaci\u00f3n de EEUU, 335 millones, tendr\u00eda 978.000 muertes por Covid-19.)\nMientras tanto, en la Rep\u00fablica Popular China continental, con una poblaci\u00f3n de 1,400 millones, ha habido menos de 5.000 muertes. En 2021,\u00a0solo hubo dos muertes por el Covid-19\u00a0en China continental. Dos.\nSi Estados Unidos tuviera la misma poblaci\u00f3n que China, estar\u00edamos hablando de 3,6 millones de muertos por Covid-19.\nPero la diferencia es que la banca de China es propiedad del estado, y es el gobierno chino el que controla el sector financiero, no los bancos los que controlan el estado, como lo hacen en Estados Unidos. Por lo tanto, es dif\u00edcil para las \u00e9lites en China enriquecerse mientras sus compatriotas mueren, como lo hacen los banqueros en la gran \u201cdemocracia\u201d estadounidense.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: \u2018Western dominance has ended\u2019, EU foreign-policy chief admits, warning of \u2018West against the Rest\u2019 geopolitics. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "EU, European Union, Gaza, General Assembly, Global South, Josep Borrell, Sahel, Ukraine, United Nations", "output": "The European Union\u2019s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, admitted that the \u201cera of Western dominance has indeed definitively ended\u201d. He warned that the EU must not divide the world into \u201cthe West against the Rest\u201d, as \u201cmany in the \u2018Global South\u2019 accuse us of \u2018double standards\u2019\u201d.\n\nEurope\u2019s top diplomat has acknowledged that the \u201cera of Western dominance has indeed definitively ended\u201d.\nJosep Borrell, the European Union\u2019s high representative for foreign affairs, wrote this in a blog post on the official website of the EU\u2019s diplomatic service on February 25.\n\u201cIf the current global geopolitical tensions continue to evolve in the direction of \u2018the West against the Rest\u2019, Europe\u2019s future risks to be bleak\u201d, he warned.\n\nThe wars in Ukraine and Gaza, along with the anti-colonial uprisings in Africa\u2019s Sahel region, have \u201csignificantly increased this risk\u201d of Europe becoming geopolitically irrelevant, Borrell said, lamenting that \u201cRussia has managed to take advantage of the situation\u201d.\nThe European foreign-policy chief revealed that \u201cimproving our relations with the \u2018Global South'\u201d is one of \u201d the four main tasks on EU\u2019s geopolitical agenda\u201d.\n\u201cMany in the \u2018Global South\u2019 accuse us of \u2018double standards'\u201d, he confessed.\n\nBorrell is known for sporadically making frank comments, admitting inconvenient truths that most European diplomats leave unsaid.\nIn 2022, the EU foreign-policy chief confessed, \u201cOur prosperity was based on China and Russia \u2013 energy and market\u201d, with \u201ccheap energy coming from Russia\u201d and \u201caccess to the big China market\u201d as the cornerstone of the European economy.\nHowever, Borrell\u2019s insistence that Europe must not divide the world into the \u201cWest against the Rest\u201d was contradicted by his insistence in the same February 2024 article that the EU must expand its \u201ccooperation with key partners, and in particular the US\u201d.\nThe top European diplomat wrote that \u201crecent months have reminded us how important NATO remains to our collective defence\u201d, calling to strengthen the US-led military bloc.\nIn 2023, the influential think tank the European Council on Foreign Relations published a white paper titled \u201cThe art of vassalisation\u201d. It warned of \u201cEurope becoming an American vassal\u201d, noting how the war in Ukraine had \u201crevealed Europeans\u2019 profound dependence on the US\u201d.\nThe EU\u2019s foreign-policy chief does recognize that it would be an error to pit \u201cthe West against the Rest\u201d, yet he is simultaneously calling for deepening the trans-Atlantic alliance between the US and Europe, which only exacerbates that geopolitical division.\nOn the global stage, Europe frequently joins the United States in violating the will of the international community.\nAt the United Nations, the US and Europe often vote together, while the vast majority of member states, which are located in the Global South, vote against them.\nSource: Alastair Iain Johnston, \u201cChina in a World of Orders: Rethinking Compliance and Challenge in Beijing\u2019s International Relations\u201d, International Security (2019)\nThe US only voted with the majority of the world at the UN General Assembly 32.7% of the time from 1983 to 2012.\nIn 1988, just 15.4% of overall UNGA votes coincided with the US vote.\nEurope is the only region of the world that consistently votes with the US.\n\nIn November 2023, the West voted against the vast majority of the world in UN General Assembly resolutions concerning democracy, human rights, cultural diversity, mercenaries, and unilateral coercive measures (sanctions).\nIn April 2023, the West once again voted as a bloc against the other countries on the UN Human Rights Council, defending unilateral sanctions, which violate international law.\nIn December 2022, the West voted against the rest of the planet in UN General Assembly votes calling for a new international economic order.\nWest votes against democracy, human rights, cultural diversity at UN; promotes mercenaries, sanctions\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US invites authoritarian far-right regimes to \u2018Summit for Democracy\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Benjamin Netanyahu, China, Hungary, Imran Khan, India, Israel, Italy, Joe Biden, Narendra Modi, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, Taiwan, Venezuela", "output": "The Joe Biden administration invited numerous authoritarian far-right leaders to the US State Department\u2019s so-called \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d, including Israel\u2019s Benjamin Netanyahu, Poland\u2019s Andrzej Duda, India\u2019s Narendra Modi, Italy\u2019s Giorgia Meloni, and Pakistan\u2019s coup regime.\n\nThe US government organized a conference of its allies which it misleadingly called a \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d, but which actually featured numerous anti-democratic, far-right regimes.\nThe State Department\u00a0invited 120 global leaders to participate in the summit on March 29 and 30. They did so virtually, via video calls.\nSeveral of the heads of state who spoke represent governments that even Western officials, corporate media outlets, and mainstream human rights organizations have admitted are authoritarian, including Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Andrzej Duda of Poland, and Narendra Modi of India.\n\nThe Joe Biden administration also invited Pakistan\u2019s unelected coup regime, which came to power following a US-backed regime-change operation against democratically elected Prime Minister Imran Khan in April 2022. (Islamabad, however, decided not to attend, as it faces mass protests and instability at home.)\nItaly\u2019s far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni participated in the summit as well. Meloni is a defender of former fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. She started her political career as the leader of the youth wing of a fascist political party founded by war criminals from Mussolini\u2019s regime.\nMeloni\u2019s far-right political party Fratelli d\u2019Italia (Brothers of Italy) still uses the same symbols and colors of Mussolini\u2019s fascist movement. An important leader of her party has a bust of the late dictator in his house, and was investigated for doing Nazi salutes.\nThe Biden administration organized the first so-called \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d in 2021, in attempt to unify US allies in a bloc to wage a new cold war on China and Russia, which were not invited to either summit.\nThese intentions were made obvious when the US pressured all invitees to sign a joint statement denouncing Russia over the proxy war in Ukraine. The left-wing governments in Brazil and Mexico refused to support Washington\u2019s denunciation of Moscow.\nFor its part, China\u2019s Foreign Ministry condemned the summit as an attempt to \u201cdraw lines between countries in the world according to US criteria and interfere in their affairs based on US interests\u201d, in a way that \u201creflects how arrogant, intolerant, selfish and domineering the US has always been, and how it contravenes and tramples on democracy as part of the common values of humanity\u201d.\nThe US government exposed its cynical political designs by inviting Ukraine and Taiwan to participate in the summit, despite the fact that Taiwan island is not a country, but rather a province of the People\u2019s Republic of China.\nWhen the US government normalized relations with China in 1972, it signed the first of three communiqu\u00e9s, in which it legally recognized that Taiwan is part of China.\nViolating its formal diplomatic commitments, the Biden administration publicly illustrated Washington\u2019s support for separatists in China\u2019s Taiwan province by inviting them to both of the so-called \u201cSummits for Democracy\u201d.\n\nUkraine\u2019s leader Volodymy Zelensky spoke at the conference as well, in spite of his brutal attack on democracy at home. Zelensky\u2019s regime has banned all communist and socialist parties, while imposing some of the most aggressive anti-worker legislation in the world, suspending collective bargaining rights and essentially making it illegal to form a union.\nEven the New York Times reluctantly acknowledged that Ukraine has imposed authoritarian control over the media. While Zelensky\u2019s supporters maintain that this is necessary due to the ongoing war, his draconian crackdown began well before Russia invaded. In 2021, Zelensky\u2019s regime banned critical media outlets deemed to be \u201cpro-Russian\u201d, while arbitrarily persecuting and arresting opposition politicians.\nTwo NATO members were not invited to the so-called \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d:\u00a0T\u00fcrkiye (formerly known as Turkey) and Hungary. This was clearly a politically motivated sign of disapproval by the Biden administration, because the two countries have tried to balance the West against Russia, maintaining good relations with both sides.\nThe democratically elected socialist governments in Venezuela and Nicaragua were not invited either. Instead, Washington invited right-wing US-sponsored opposition activists from both Latin American countries, including Lesther Alem\u00e1n, who played a major role in a violent coup attempt in Nicaragua in 2018.\nAlso participating in the summit was the notorious CIA cutout the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which Washington has used to meddle in foreign countries all across the planet, organizing regime-change operations and funding \u201ccolor revolutions\u201d.\nAs a key foreign-policy strategy, the Biden administration has weaponized rhetoric about \u201cdemocracy\u201d to advance US geopolitical interests.\nIn his first State of the Union address in 2022, Biden claimed that Washington\u2019s new cold war on China and Russia was a \u201cbattle between democracy and autocracies\u201d.\nBut European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said otherwise in a speech in October, criticizing the deceptive \u201cdemocracies vs. authoritarians\u201d framing.\nTop EU foreign-policy official Josep Borrell admitted the West\u2019s new cold war on China & Russia is NOT a battle of \u201cdemocracies vs authoritarians\u201d\nHe conceded: \u201cOn our side, there are a lot of authoritarian regimes\u201d\nIt's an economic conflict\nFull video: https://t.co/Ev3qLA5i2S pic.twitter.com/yKbyLBNIVI\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) October 29, 2022\n\n\u201cOn our side, there are a lot of authoritarian regimes\u201d, Borrell admitted.\n\u201cWe cannot say we are the democracies, and the ones which follow us are also democracies. That is not true\u201d, added the top EU diplomat.\nIsrael\u2019s authoritarian far-right Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking at the US government\u2019s 2023 \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d\nOne of the first speakers at Biden\u2019s 2023 Summit for Democracy, as it opened on March 29, was the far-right leader of the Israeli apartheid regime, Benjamin Netanyahu.\nNetanyahu has served as prime minister for more than 15 of the 27 years since 1996. Today, his far-right coalition government includes members of literal fascist parties.\nAll major mainstream Western media outlets have acknowledged that Netanyahu\u2019s regime is authoritarian, including the BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, AP, Guardian, and Foreign Affairs.\nIn fact,\u00a0Netanyahu spoke at Biden\u2019s summit while mass protests were going on in Israel against his authoritarian regime.\nIsrael\u2019s most influential newspaper Haaretz \u2013 which is essentially the country\u2019s equivalent of the New York Times, promoting a centrist liberal perspective \u2013 published an article warning, \u201c\u2018Israel\u2019s Government Has neo-Nazi Ministers. It Really Does Recall Germany in 1933\u2032: Holocaust historian Daniel Blatman says he is astounded at how quickly Israel is hurtling toward fascism\u201d.\nPoland\u2019s authoritarian far-right President Andrzej Duda speaking at the US government\u2019s 2023 \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d\nBiden\u2019s \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d also featured the far-right president of Poland, Andrzej Duda.\nMany\u00a0Western mainstream media outlets have admitted that Poland is run by an authoritarian regime.\nEven former US President Barack Obama stated in an interview on CNN in 2021 that NATO and EU members Poland and Hungary \u201cnow essentially have become authoritarian\u201d.\nHowever, while Poland\u2019s far-right authoritarian regime was invited to Biden\u2019s \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d, Hungary was not. The reason why is clear: Poland is virulently anti-Russia, so it was welcomed; whereas Hungary has tried to balance good relations with both the West and Russia, so it was the only EU member that was not invited.\nMainstream NGOs that are routinely cited in the Western media to attack NATO\u2019s adversaries have admitted that far-right authoritarianism is growing closer to home.\nThe Civil Liberties Union for Europe \u2013 a major civil society organization that is similar to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in the United States \u2013 warned that Poland and Hungary are increasingly authoritarian. Both are \u201cseizing further control of the justice system, civil society and media, while cutting basic human rights and fuelling divisions by scapegoating migrants and other minority groups\u201d.\nThe Western government-funded International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) has warned that the Polish regime is violently cracking down on protesters and arbitrarily detaining anti-fascist activists, while allowing fascist extremists to use Nazi symbols.\nDuda\u2019s far-right Law and Justice (PiS) party reportedly tapped the phones of opposition politicians and journalists to illegally spy on them.\nIndia\u2019s authoritarian far-right Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaking at the US government\u2019s 2023 \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d\nJoining Netanyahu on the opening panel of Biden\u2019s 2023 Summit for Democracy was India\u2019s far-right Prime Minister Narendra Modi.\nModi is a longtime member of a fascist paramilitary group, the RSS, whose early leaders were inspired by Nazi Germany, praising Adolf Hitler\u2019s \u201cpurging the country of Semitic races\u201d as a \u201cgood lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by\u201d.\nBefore he became prime minister, Modi governed the state of Gujarat, where high school textbooks honored \u201cHitler, the Supremo\u201d\u00a0and the \u201cInternal Achievements of Nazism\u201d.\nAs governor of Gujarat in 2002, Modi oversaw a massive pogrom, in which hundreds of Muslims were killed. (As prime minister, Modi censored a documentary exposing his role in the massacre.)\nIndia\u2019s far-right ruling party, BJP, promotes an extreme Hindu-nationalist ideology that sees Muslims and other religious minorities as inferior, second- or third-class citizens, and heavily discriminates against them.\nSome of Modi\u2019s political allies have openly called for overturning India\u2019s secular constitution and turning the state into a \u201cHindu rashtra\u201d: a theocratic regime.\nIn fact, just a few days before Modi spoke at the so-called \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d, his government launched an authoritarian attack on the leader of India\u2019s political opposition, Rahul Gandhi.\nOn March 23, Gandhi was expelled from India\u2019s parliament and sentenced to two years in prison\u00a0over fraudulent charges of defamation, due to a comment Gandhi made in 2019 in which he referred to Prime Minister Modi and his wealthy oligarch allies as \u201cthieves\u201d.\nThe politically motivated charges seek to bar Gandhi from office, effectively paving the way for BJP and far-right Hindu nationalists to hand themselves victory in the upcoming 2024 election, without significant opposition.\nMany mainstream media outlets have acknowledged that Modi\u2019s regime is authoritarian, including the New York Times, the BBC, NBC News, Foreign Policy, the New Yorker, and The Diplomat.\nBut Modi was eagerly welcomed at Biden\u2019s \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d, because the United States is desperate to recruit India for its new cold war on China, and hopes to weaken New Delhi\u2019s positive relations with Russia.\nIndia is part of the BRICS system, but it is also a member of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad, an anti-China military alliance led by the United States, known commonly as the \u201cAsian NATO\u201d.\nIn fact, India joined BRICS\u00a0before Modi came to power, under the previous government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, of the Indian National Congress party.\nRemember BRICS? Well, thanks to @jairbolsonaro and @narendramodi the B and the I both get that the C and the R are threats to their people. pic.twitter.com/JwL8E0uJte\n\u2014 Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) January 19, 2021\n\nFormer CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo revealed that Washington had tried to use Modi in India and his far-right counterpart Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil to disrupt and divide the BRICS system.\nFormer diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar has cautioned that India is the weakest link in the BRICS system, because its government supports Washington\u2019s \u201cso-called \u2018rules-based order\u2019, which is a metaphor for the political ideology of the US as the dominant state and \u2018lone superpower\u2019 in the 1990s\u201d.\nBRICS faces a paradox that, while it grows, it also fails internal conflicts, \u201cand the main reason for this is India\u2019s unwillingness to work with China as leaders of economic growth\u201d, Bhadrakumar wrote.\nModi\u2019s \u201cIndia feels uneasy that the centre of gravity in BRICS is poised to shift further to the left of centre\u201d, he said, and, \u201cBeing an acolyte of the US-led \u2018rules-based order\u2019, India faces the spectre of isolation\u201d.\nThe United States sees these contradictions, and hopes to exploit them to its advantage. That explains why India was invited to the so-called \u201cSummit for Democracy\u201d, despite being overtly anti-democratic.\nThe presence of so many authoritarian, far-right leaders clearly demonstrated the cynical political goals behind Washington\u2019s Summit for Hypocrisy.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire with economist Michael Hudson. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, dollar, imperialism, Michael Hudson, Russia", "output": "Economist Michael Hudson discusses his book \u201cSuper Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire\u201d and the financial motivations behind the US new cold war on China and Russia.\n\nEconomist Michael Hudson discusses the update of his book \u201cSuper Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire\u201d and the financial motivations behind the US new cold war on China and Russia.\nHudson has published a new,\u00a0third edition of his book\u00a0Super Imperialism\u00a0that updates his analysis for the 21st century, discussing the new cold war on China and Russia and the ongoing transition from a US dollar-dominated financialized system to a \u201cmultipolar de-dollarized economy.\u201d\nHudson explains how the strategy of US economic hegemony has evolved since World War One.\n\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Hello, everyone, this is\u00a0Moderate Rebels\u00a0live. I\u2019m Ben Norton. As always, I\u2019m joined by my co-host, Max Blumenthal. And today we have back one of our most popular guests, one of our favorite guests, Professor Michael Hudson.\nPeople probably know who he is. He is a prominent economist, a very unique thinker. He has written several books not only on economics, but also on history and human society. He\u2019s an expert on balance of payments, and debt, and a lot of topics. And today we\u2019re going to talk about a new edition of his book that was just published.\nWe actually had Professor Hudson on over a year ago to talk about his legendary book\u00a0Super Imperialism. He actually just published a new edition of it. You can see here,\u00a0Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.\nAnd he just published the third edition. It just came out. So we wanted to have him on to talk about why Professor Hudson updated this book that he published back in the 1970s. This is now the third edition.\nThe second edition was published in 2002 or 2003, at the beginning of the so-called War on Terror. And I think it\u2019s pretty appropriate, Professor Hudson, we can begin with this \u2013 I think it\u2019s pretty appropriate that your first edition of\u00a0Super Imperialism\u00a0was published after Richard Nixon took the dollar off of gold in the early 1970s.\nAnd then the second edition was published after 9/11 and the beginning of the War on Terror, which represents a kind of new phase of imperialism. And then finally, your third edition here was just published, and your new edition encompasses the new cold war.\nThe final chapter talks about the increasing economic competition between the US on one side and China and Russia on the other side. And you talk about the move toward a \u201cde-dollarized multi-polar economy.\u201d So can you talk about the differences in the editions and how they reflect the changes in US super imperialism, the system that you described back in the 1970s?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the first edition was published in September of 1972, 13 months after President Nixon took the dollar off gold. And everybody was worried that, oh, without gold, how are we going to control the world? How are we going to control Europe? Because we\u2019re losing all the gold.\nBecause the entire balance-of-payments deficit in the 1950s and the \u201960s and early 70s came from military spending. And they thought that if you had to lose your gold stock, which was the source of world power, as a result of military spending, how can you control the world?\nWell, what I wrote was that there was a new means of controlling the world and going off gold had actually locked in America\u2019s control, because now that it had forced other central banks not to buy gold, what were they going to do? All they could do was recycle the dollar surpluses they were getting into U.S. Treasury bonds. Because that\u2019s what central banks bought; they would buy Treasury bonds.\nSo then what I said was that all this deficit coming from the military spending abroad is going to be recycled to the United States by central banks who have to recycle their money into dollars, otherwise their currencies are going to go way up, and that will price their exports out of the market, and it\u2019ll make their economies basically overvalued.\nSo to keep down the value, they buy U.S. dollar securities, and America would not let some by big companies; it wouldn\u2019t let them buy anything important, only U.S. Treasury bonds.\nSo the irony is that the larger the balance-of-payments deficit became, the more money was recycled into financing the U.S. budget deficit, which also was largely military.\nWell, I thought that this was going to be a warning to other countries. And indeed, there was a very quick Spanish translation and Japanese translation. But the main purchases, as we\u2019ve talked about a year ago, were the CIA and the Defense Department.\nImmediately Herman Kahn hired me to the Hudson Institute and gave a very large grant for me to explain to the government how imperialism was working. And the U.S. government used this as a how-to-do-it book.\nWell, it went out of print, and Pluto Press offered to make a new addition, but it had hundreds and hundreds of typographical errors, and I didn\u2019t like the reset. And I was going to live with that until I began to work in China, 10 or 15 years ago, and the Chinese government wanted me to do a new version to upgrade it as a key to how they can de-dollarize.\nAnd from their point of view, they want to see how they can decouple not only from the United States, but from the West. They don\u2019t look at there as being any competition between China and the United States, certainly not industrial competition.\nThe United States decided it was going to de-industrialize, because its corporations could essentially hire cheaper labor abroad than they could hire in the United States.\nThe United States has got so debt-oriented and so privatized. Since the Reagan Revolution, the American economy was Thatcher-ized, and that made it a high-cost economy.\nThe cost of housing has gone way up. The cost of medical insurance has gone way up. The debt burden has gone way up. And America has now priced itself out of the market.\nSo China and Russia look at America as an object lesson, as how do we avoid here having the dynamic that occurred in the United States. It doesn\u2019t have anything to do with capitalism versus socialism or other isms. It has to do with the basic dynamics of debt.\nAnd China realizes that, ok, we\u2019re going to do make our economy productive in the way that the United States and Germany did in the 19th century. It\u2019s a mixed economy. And as a mixed economy, we\u2019re going to have the government provide the basic utilities at a subsidized rate, instead of letting them be privatized, so that we can have a low-priced economy.\nAnd the most important public utility to China, as it was to Russia, is to keep money creation, banking, and credit in the public domain.\nSo right now, you\u2019ve seen the problems and the news about the Chinese company [Evergrande] getting into trouble. And in America, if the largest real estate corporation like BlackRock were to go under, that would bring down the banks; it would bring down everything. It doesn\u2019t doesn\u2019t have a ripple in China, because the the debts are owed to the government, and the government can simply write down the debt.\nIt can decide what to do, to protect the home buyers who put money into buying apartments low. It can tax away the land rent to prevent the housing from being essentially financialized. So China is trying to de-financialize its real estate, de-financialize its industry.\nIt\u2019s not a rivalry with the United States; it\u2019s a rejection of the whole neoliberal structure that the United States has put in place.\nAnd what I discuss and\u00a0Super Imperialism\u00a0is how the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were created as a means of imposing a neoliberal, anti-government structure on the world to prevent other countries from regulating their industry or from regulating their agriculture.\nThe function of the World Bank basically was to make Third World countries, the Global South, dependent on the United States for their food supply, by only funding export agriculture, export plantation crops, not growing their own food.\nThe function of the IMF was to use debt leverage to force other countries to impose austerity on their populations, and to essentially say we will control what government you have, because if your government does something that the United States officials don\u2019t like, we\u2019re just going to raid your currency, force of austerity on you, and you\u2019ll be voted out of power.\nSo essentially, the United States, what it calls the international organizations, as if this is a world organization, is actually a very nationalistic tool of the United States to distort the agriculture and industry and commercial development of other countries, to serve U.S. interests and specifically U.S. financial interests.\nAnd the mode of control, obviously, is not military anymore; it\u2019s financial. And\u00a0Super Imperialism\u00a0is about how America is different from European colonialism by controlling the world financially and covertly, politically, not by military force.\nAnd yet all of this requires an enormous subsidy of foreign countries that are now decoupling from the dollar and no longer giving America the free ride that it has been getting since 1971, when all governments could do with their balance-of-payments surpluses were to buy Treasury bonds.\nNow they\u2019re buying gold. They\u2019re buying each other\u2019s currencies. They\u2019re doing everything except holding dollars. And that\u2019s the big change in the world.\nSo when the Chinese ask me to rewrite this book for their audience \u2013 and I spend a lot of time with China \u2013 I thought, well, I\u2019m going to fix up\u00a0Super Imperialism; I\u2019m going to re-edit it; I\u2019m going to include some episodes that I didn\u2019t include before; and I\u2019m going to show how the framework of international relations has been transformed in a way that isn\u2019t being discussed in the press.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, you said something there that, not necessarily to push back, but to complement your analysis, you said that it\u2019s no longer about military domination, but financial. I would say it\u2019s both, and that they are kind of two sides of the same coin that reinforce each other.\nOne of the points that you make throughout the book is that the U.S. military occupies many parts of the world, including it has occupied Japan since 1945, Korea since the 1950s, the early 1950s; there are troops in Germany and many other countries.\nSo the US military presence clearly in Afghanistan and Syria right now and Iraq, it\u2019s still a huge part of it, but complementing that, you point out in your book, is that those U.S. military occupations are essentially paid for by the country that is being occupied by the U.S. military.\nCan you explain how that works? And how that that scheme \u2013 you keep calling it in your book, again and again, a free lunch, that the U.S. has a free lunch; it has accomplished an economic scheme that no other country was able to accomplish. Can you explain how that still operates today?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well it\u2019s not that the country that is hosting the troops is paying; it\u2019s the payment-surplus countries in general. It\u2019s Saudi Arabia; it\u2019s Germany; it\u2019s the prosperous countries that are paying.\nHere\u2019s what happens. And here\u2019s what happened during the Vietnam War. And here\u2019s what was not in the Vietnam Papers that McNamara asked for.\nWhen the United States spent money in Vietnam, or when it spends it now in the Near East or the 800 military bases it has, these dollars go into the domestic economy. And when you\u2019re in Japan and Korea, what do you do? You turn these dollars, you make an export, you get the spending \u2013 you turn it in for domestic currency to your central bank.\nThe central bank now ends up with these dollars that are thrown off by American military spending. And what is the central bank going to do with the dollars? Well, central banks \u2013 America told Japan already in the 1970s, when Japan was basically funding, 22 percent of the entire U.S. budget deficit was funded by Japan in 1986.\nAnd America said, look, we\u2019re not going to let you buy any major company. We\u2019re going to let other, former whisky sellers, the Seagram people buy DuPont, but we won\u2019t let you buy DuPont, because you\u2019re Japanese.\nWe\u2019re not going to let you buy a company. You can buy Rockefeller Center, and lose a billion dollars on it. You can buy a Pebble Beach golf course. But really, you\u2019re going to have to take the money that you\u2019re getting in Japan for the US exports, and you\u2019re going to have to invest it in Treasury bills. Otherwise, we\u2019re going to impose punitive tariffs against you and we\u2019re going to do something you don\u2019t like.\nBecause remember, you Japanese, you\u2019re the yakuza, you\u2019re the crooks that we put in power to fight the socialists to make sure Japan didn\u2019t go socialist. You\u2019re the gangs. You\u2019re going to do what we say.\nAnd Japan did exactly what the United States told them to do, recycled its auto export earnings and electronic exports to help finance the US balance-of-payments deficit and the US budget deficit simultaneously.\nSo it was Japan, Germany, France, other countries that ended up with all these dollars that are spent abroad.\nFor instance, the money America spent in Vietnam, because that was French Indo-China earlier, the money was all sent to French banks. And General de Gaulle would turn in the dollars being thrown off by the army in Vietnam to buy gold every month, much to their embarrassment. Germany did the same thing with this dollars.\nSo basically, America wants the ability to say we have one power, we can wreck your economy. If you don\u2019t do it, we say, we can make you look like Libya, we can make you look like Iraq, and we can tear you up. We can make you like Afghanistan.\nWe have one power. We don\u2019t have economic power. We don\u2019t have productivity. We don\u2019t have competitive power. But we can destroy you, and we\u2019re willing to destroy you, because otherwise we\u2019re going under.\nAnd we\u2019re not going to feel safe unless we have the power to destroy you and prevent you from having the power to fight back and protect yourself.\nSo it can only do this if it can control the financial system that recycles all of this military spending abroad in the United States, otherwise America would have to either print the money or tax its corporations and people, which would make it even more high cost.\nSo America essentially has painted itself into a corner as a result of its military spending. It has lost its industrial advantage. It has lost its international competitiveness. And the only thing that it has left to do is the power to destroy, if other countries don\u2019t essentially surrender their economies to control by the US, pretending to be objective and non-nationalistic by saying, we\u2019re not controlling you, the the World Bank is controlling you, the IMF is controlling you, the international organizations are controlling you.\nBut it\u2019s a double standard. And my book shows how this double standard has perverted these seemingly international organizations into nationalistic arms, basically, of the Defense Department and State Department.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Professor Hudson, you write in\u00a0Super Imperialism\u00a0about how the United States, coming out of World War Two, was facing a balance-of-payments problem. It had a surplus and it managed to resolve this problem through a cold war, in which it moved into deficit spending in order to promote foreign export markets and world currency stability.\nI wonder if you can expound on that and maybe take us into the new cold war and the economic rationale for a very different United States, arguably a declining empire that has agitated a new cold war.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well, in 1944 and 1945, it was apparent that the war was going to be over, and the United States had gained power since World War One, essentially by staying out of war and by building up its own industry.\nSo the United States essentially structured the post-war world so that it would increase its economic power. And indeed, from 1945 to 1951, the United States increased its balance, its gold supply, to three-quarters of the world\u2019s gold, monetary gold, all in the United States.\nWell, this was a problem for the US, because Europe and other countries said, well, wait a minute, we\u2019ve been on the gold standard now for a century, but we\u2019re not going to be impoverished if you can have all the gold, but we\u2019re going to go in a different standard.\nThis is what the discussion between John Maynard Keynes and the American Treasury was all about at the end of World War Two. Europe said if you\u2019re going to have all the gold and control the money, we\u2019re not going to operate without money, we\u2019re just going to go off gold. That\u2019s how we de-dollarize, by going off gold, and the dollar was as good as gold.\nSo the United States then decided to go to war in Korea, and the Korean War, from 1950 to 1951 onwards, every single year, the balance-of-payments deficit got worse and worse, and the entire balance-of-payments deficit was military.\nSo American military spending was actually welcomed by other countries because they said, oh, now we don\u2019t have to create a new monetary system and go it alone. Now we can still earn enough dollars that we can finance our own economic growth. And they were amenable to staying in the American economic orbit.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, sorry to cut you off really quickly, but I just want to underscore a point that you make in your book that I think is crucial to understand this transition you\u2019re talking about.\nYou say in the book that, before World War Two, and immediately after World War Two, around that time period, from the 1920s into the 1940s, the U.S. was a global creditor.\nBut then the point you make is that after the Korean War, when the Cold War began getting hot, and the U.S. began waging these these proxy wars against the Soviet Union and China and other socialist and communist forces, in Korea and Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia, your argument is that from the \u201950s on, the U.S. went from being the global creditor to the global debtor, so a major shift.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Yes. The difference is that the American debt to foreign countries is a debt that it never expects to pay, because how is it going to pay? The debt is owed by the U.S. government to other governments.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: In the form of treasuries, Treasury bonds.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Treasury bonds. Yeah, exactly. And this debt is basically created by military spending. So America has been able to control other countries by issuing its money.\nThe debt that America has is the money of other countries. The central bank reserves that they hold in dollars in Treasury bonds is counted as their monetary reserves for their own economy.\nSo just like the American dollars you have in your pocket are technically a debt of the U.S. Treasury, these dollar bills or five dollar bills or 50 dollar bills, nobody expects them to be repaid, because if they were repaid, they wouldn\u2019t be any more money.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: And no one can force the U.S. to repay them because of the U.S. military. So at the end of the day, the reason that the U.S. can have this global debtor status is because no one can invade it.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: That was the case until recently. Well, you know, it\u2019s true that the United States cannot repay its debt because it doesn\u2019t have enough gold to repay. And it\u2019s not going to repay in the way that Latin America or other countries repay, by selling its industry.\nIt\u2019s not going to pay its foreign debt by saying, ok, why don\u2019t you take that Amazon? Why don\u2019t you take General Motors? Why don\u2019t you take Boeing? You know, we\u2019ll pay by giving you the industry just like we\u2019ve made you countries give us your industry when you\u2019re in debt.\nAmerica simply isn\u2019t going to do that. But other countries don\u2019t have to ask to get repaid for their dollars. They can say, ok, we\u2019re not going to hold dollars. So China has decided we want to just minimize our holdings of dollars, except for what we need for trading on the foreign-exchange markets to keep the exchange rate stable.\nRussia is avoiding dollars. Iran is the avoiding values. Obviously, Venezuela is avoiding dollars, because anything that Venezuela holds, the U.S. can simply grab their accounts.\nSo other countries are afraid to have their gold in the United States. Even Germany has said send us back the gold that we have on deposit at the Federal Reserve. We don\u2019t trust you anymore. Give us our gold.\nEverybody is dumping the dollar, and nobody wants to be repaid. The dollar now is like a hot potato, and nobody wants to hold it except pliant satellite economies of the United States that don\u2019t want to upset the United States because of the power, bribery power if nothing else, that the United States has over European politicians, Asian politicians, all the overt support that the United States can wield.\nBut other economies are just dumping the dollar. And so all these dollars are being turned in to hard currency, each other\u2019s currencies, gold, each other\u2019s industry, real economic means of production.\nAnd so now we\u2019re winding down the whole free-lunch system of issuing dollars that will not be repaid.\nIt\u2019s as if you\u2019re going to the grocery store and you give them an IOU and then they ask, well, you know, you ran up a bill last month and you owe us 50 dollars. We have your IOU.\nAnd you say, well, you give this IOU to your dairy suppliers, or your vegetable suppliers, just use it as money, we\u2019ll pay someday. And somehow your IOU that you got something for just gets used as other people\u2019s money.\nWell, that\u2019s what the United States does on a global scale.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, another point that that you addressed recently, a few minutes ago, also in your book you call food imperialism, is the role of the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the World Bank in trying to make other countries dependent on U.S. food exports.\nIn the new chapter, in your updated\u00a0Super Imperialism\u00a0book, you refer to this as \u201cU.S. food imperialism versus a new international economic order.\u201d So can you explain your argument?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the World Bank ideally was supposed to make loans for other countries to earn dollars. In other words, so they could buy American exports of things. But the most central element of American diplomacy for the last 80 years has been to promote U.S. farm exports.\nSo the World Bank did not make any loans to Chile or Venezuela or Latin America to increase their own food supply. You have to buy your grain and your basic food from the United States.\nWe want to develop your agriculture, but we will only develop export crops because you are a tropical country that can be exported, that we can\u2019t grow in the United States, palm oil or whatever, coffee, bananas.\nWe\u2019re going to promote plantation crops, not food supply, so that countries have become more and more dependent on the U.S. for food. And that means that the United States can do to other countries what it tried to do to China after Mao\u2019s revolution.\nIt can say, well, you had a revolution, we don\u2019t like. We\u2019re going to put sanctions on you and we\u2019re not going to export any more food to you. Now, you can starve if you don\u2019t reject Mao\u2019s revolution and thank Chiang Kai-shek.\nWell, Canada broke that. Canada said, well, if America won\u2019t sell you the grain, we\u2019re going to sell you the grain. So that that broke it.\nOther countries are now realizing in order to be independent and prevent the U.S. from \u201cYour money, or your life\u201d threat, they\u2019re all growing their own food. They\u2019re all being independent.\nThe United States two years ago, more than two years ago, thought that it was going to really hurt Russia by putting sanctions on agricultural exports to Russia, and said, boy, now you\u2019re going to suffer.\nSo all of a sudden, the Baltic countries couldn\u2019t export cheese or other things to Russia. What Russia did was say this is the most wonderful thing that has happened. Now we can develop our own agriculture.\nRussia is now producing its own cheese, that it used to get from Lithuania. Russia is now the largest agricultural exporter in the world, and displaced the United States.\nSo the result of the United States trying to hurt Russia and make it a dependent has actually forced Russia to become independent in food and immune from the U.S. food threat.\nIt still has the food threat over Latin America. And that\u2019s why when Hillary went down to Honduras and the Honduran president [Manuel Zelaya] wanted to develop Honduran agriculture, immediately Hillary had a coup d\u2019etat, had the army take over in a coup d\u2019etat and establish a dictatorship that promised the United States not to grow its own food, but to remain dependent on the United States.\nSo the United States could feel secure, secure that it could starve Honduras to death if Honduras didn\u2019t do what it wanted, and was dependent on the U.S. for food.\nThat\u2019s the kind of food strangulation that the United States has sought through every country. And it has used the World Bank and the IMF and the international banking system to impose sanctions, and to only make loans for industries and agriculture and sectors that do not compete with the United States, but actually end up serving the U.S. economy as inputs.\nSo other countries are turned into economic and trade satellites of the United States. That\u2019s the aim of the U.S. control of the World Bank, the IMF.\nAnd that\u2019s why the United States will not join any organization in which it does not have veto power. It insists on being able to veto any policy of other countries acting in their own interests independently of the United States, or in ways that do not actually enable the United States to be the main beneficiaries of foreign countries\u2019 growth.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: That\u2019s what we call the \u201crules-based order.\u201d\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Right. That\u2019s exactly right.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: We make up the rules, and order everyone around. Mafia rule.\nAnd ironically, after Hillary\u2019s sort of instrumentalized coup in Honduras, her husband \u2013 or right before Hillary entered the State Department, her husband had apologized for destroying Haiti\u2019s indigenous food economy, basically its ability to produce rice, so that they would import rice from his home state of Arkansas.\nSo yeah there\u2019s a certain irony there. We also saw, in WikiLeaks cables, Hillary go down to Haiti and demand that they cancel a massive pay hike of sweatshop workers from something like 37 cents an hour to 45 cents an hour, which is consistent.\nWe\u2019ve also seen the release of Meng Wanzhou, I guess she is the CFO or COO of Huawei, a Chinese tech firm. And I think this is relevant to the conversation here.\nA key facet of the U.S. great power competition with China revolves around tech. And you write how, you describe how in the post-war period, the U.S. sought to foster dependency not only with food, but also with military wares and specifically technology.\nAnd now you have a situation where the U.S. is being outpaced by China in 5G and demanding that the U.K. ban 5G.\nSo what is happening here? How will the U.S. fare in a world where it can no longer foster dependency on its own technology? And what will it do to remedy the situation?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well when you say technology, what you really mean economically is economic rent, monopoly rent. And America cannot compete on the basis of cost for industry. It can\u2019t compete in a profit-making industry because there aren\u2019t profits.\nYou can\u2019t make a profit if your labor costs, and your economy, and your transport costs, and your health costs are so high. But you can make a monopoly rents.\nAnd the function of technology for the United States is to make other countries obliged to pay anything that the the large information technology and high tech companies can charge.\nSo the technology sector is really a monopoly sector, and it wants to keep it monopolized. The problem is that no country for the last 5000 years has been able to keep a monopoly.\nYou remember that maybe 3000 years, 2000 years ago, China had a monopoly in silk. And then Marco Polo and Catholic priests brought back silkworms to Italy and began the Italian silk. I guess that was 1000 years ago.\nSo you can try to get a temporary monopoly on technology, like from Google or from Apple, but ultimately, you can\u2019t really prevent other countries from doing it. So the United States essentially has not been doing much innovation.\nLet\u2019s take IBM as an example. IBM was really the first high-tech company that was made a monopoly, but it wasn\u2019t very imaginative. It had to be told by insurance companies to go and begin making computers in the late \u201930s and to develop it.\nBy the 1960s, IBM was using about $10 million a year to buy back its own shares. And Google and Amazon are spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year now to buy back their own shares, not to invest in new technology, in research and development, in developing new technology and 5G technology, and the other technology that China is developing.\nBut when China is a mixed economy, the public and private sector together, when it is trying to develop the technology sectors that are the mirror image of Google and other things, like TikTok replacing Facebook, they\u2019re doing it much better because they\u2019re not trying to make capital gains in stocks.\nThe purpose of technology, to China, isn\u2019t to increase the price of the stock in the companies that make it. They\u2019re trying to lower the cost of production and develop new technologies to develop their technology better.\nSo obviously, China is getting a lead. The United States has made a policy decision: We don\u2019t need a lead; all we need to do is establish a monopoly rent. And let China get way ahead of us. Let it be more efficient. Let it be more lower cost. Let it be more modern.\nAs long as we have enough satellites in Europe and Latin America, and in Asia, to promise only to buy U.S. goods, they\u2019ll buy high-cost, less efficient, American 3G or 4G technology, and let China and its Belt and Road Initiative countries develop 5G.\nSo we\u2019re really having a technological divergence in the world. America, living in the short term, wants to have high-priced, hit-and-run, very quick profits for Facebook and Google and the others, while China\u2019s trying to look at the long run and develop an actual technological economy that will create a new non-dollar trading and currency area, that will be independent of U.S. Threats.\nAnd America in 10 years can tell China, well, we are not going to let you use Facebook or Google anymore. China can say that\u2019s fine. We have our own systems. They work much better. We\u2019ll go our own way.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, there\u2019s another really interesting part of your book\u00a0Super Imperialism, well you talk about this throughout, but specifically one of the arguments you make is that one of the primary U.S. economic competitors after World War One, well, during and after World War One, and then leading to World War Two, leading to the end of the British Empire, was England, was Britain, the British economy.\nCan you talk about how essentially the U.S. helped to collapse the Sterling Area? And for people who don\u2019t know, explain what the Sterling Area is, how the U.S. helped to collapse that.\nAnd then also, the point you make in the book in the last chapter, is how the U.S. did something similar to another so-called ally, to Japan, how in the 1980s, the U.S. basically waged a kind of economic war against the Japanese economy, which permanently crippled it.\nJapan had had been one of the largest economies in the world, and it has never really, truly recovered from that. So can you talk about how the U.S. has waged economic war not only against its adversaries, but even so-called allies like Britain and Japan?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: The number one U.S. enemy has always been its closest friend, its closest rival. It fought against England, and then France.\nAnd they were getting a free lunch through the Sterling Area and the Franc Area in the following way: England\u2019s colonies had to do their banking in England. They had to keep the savings in England. The government had to keep all of its revenues in England.\nSo when World War One broke out, England simply told the government, give us a gift of all of your money. Mass famine in India, mass starvation, because England just grabbed the money that India had in sterling.\nWell, during World War Two, there wasn\u2019t much international trade, and so raw materials producers \u2013 India, Argentina, and other countries \u2013 had maintained close connections with England. And there weren\u2019t many consumer goods to buy. Countries had to be self-sufficient.\nBut India, Argentina, and the Sterling Area countries had to keep all of their money in sterling.\nThe United States insisted that, number one, that sterling balances that were held by India and other countries be allowed to be spent outside of sterling. You couldn\u2019t tie the sterling balances to say they have to be spent in England.\nAnd that was what the sterling balances were before. England says, ok, you\u2019ve got a lot of savings here in England in sterling; you have to spend that money on British goods and British companies. You have to keep within the English economy.\nNot only did the Americans say, first of all, no country can limit its spending to say you have to keep the money in your former colonial power.\nBut it insisted as a condition to lending England the British Loan \u2013 in 1944, England was desperate by the last year of the war. It needed food. It needed supplies. It needed industry.\nAnd America said, we\u2019re going to make you a loan, called the British Loan, but as a result, you\u2019re going to have to keep your own pound sterling at five dollars a sterling. You\u2019re going to have to keep it at a high price.\nYou\u2019re not going to be able to devalue it in order to compete with us. And England, as a result, from 1945 to about 1950, had to take this huge overvalued sterling, so that there was no way that English companies could compete with American companies.\nAnd America was able to undersell England and grab the Indian market, the Argentine market, the market for almost all the countries that had been within the Sterling Area, and undersell it.\nSo America had essentially gained control of Britain\u2019s domestic financial policy by insisting that this policy be set in Washington, not in London.\nSo it asked England to commit economic suicide, and England said, well, we don\u2019t have a choice, otherwise we\u2019re going to starve. And it threw its lot in with the United States, hoping the United States would protect it.\nAnd in the new edition of\u00a0Super Imperialism, I quote the debates that occurred in the House of Lords, when the House of Lords saw exactly what was going to happen.\nThey said, wait a minute, the United States is treating us as if we\u2019re Germany; it treated us as if we\u2019re the defeated party in World War Two. Are we really going to go along with this?\nAnd they saw just what was happening, and they said, well, we really don\u2019t have a choice. We surrender; we\u2019re going to let our policy be run by the United States.\nThe same thing in Japan. In 1985, when there was the famous Plaza Accord, you had Reagonomics going full blast. And Secretary of State James Baker said, what is Reaganomics? It means we want low interest rates; we want to cut taxes on the rich, and even though we\u2019re going to cut taxes, we\u2019re going to have a huge budget deficit.\nSomebody is going to have to fund this. And in the past, countries running a budget deficit, which Reagan and Bush quadrupled America\u2019s foreign debt from 1981 to 1992 \u2013 who is going to buy this debt? Because if we make Americans buy this debt, we\u2019re going to have to pay high interest.\nSo it told Japan, we want you to agree to buy a big chunk of our foreign debt. England and Europe said, ok, we\u2019re going to go along and we\u2019re going to buy a big chunk of it too.\nSo essentially, America forced Japan not only to buy the debt, but to revalue its currency. And its currency went from 240 yen per dollar to 200 yen, meaning a dollar would only buy 200 yen. And then finally, America would only buy 100 yen.\nAnd all of a sudden, car prices, electronic prices in Japan, export prices doubled; it lost the market. And essentially went broke.\nAnd that was what was called the bubble economy. The Reagan economy was a bubble economy in America, but the bubble was felt or absorbed by Japan, by England, and by Europe.\nThat was the the genius of Reaganomics, to make other countries bear the costs of the American tax cuts.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Professor Hudson, this is an article I have up here in The Wall Street Journal in 2018, titled \u201cThe Old U.S. Trade War with Japan Looms Over Today\u2019s Dispute with China.\u201d\nDo you think there are parallels? I mean, clearly Japan has been a key U.S. ally since World War Two, whereas China has become a serious adversary. So the political relationship between the U.S. and Japan and the U.S. and China is very different.\nBut do you see parallels between the U.S. policy, economically, toward Japan in the \u201980s and now with China?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: There was a lot of discussion recently in China about the Plaza Accord and the Louvre Accord. There\u2019s no parallel at all.\nThey\u2019re looking at this as an object lesson. They say, we saw what the United States did to Japan. We\u2019re not going to let the United States do it to us.\nWe\u2019re not going to inflate our economy and create a bubble here just so that we are as inflated as the US economy is. We\u2019re going to lower our prices. We\u2019re not going to make a financial boom and a real estate boom. We\u2019re going to do just the opposite.\nInstead of letting banks getting rich on real estate loans, like to Evergrande, we\u2019re going to let Evergrande go under. We\u2019re going to let the bondholders of Evergrande go under. We\u2019re going to let the stockholders of Evergrande go under.\nAnd we\u2019re going to create a basic tax system and public support system to minimize the cost of housing.\nSo that, while the American middle class and political parties think that they\u2019re getting rich, as their housing prices are going up, the Chinese people think they\u2019re going to get rich as housing prices go down, and they can afford more and more housing at a lower and lower price, while their wages go up.\nSo there is no rivalry at all there. They\u2019re looking at the United States and deciding we want to go in a different direction. We\u2019re looking at what\u2019s happening with Japan, and we\u2019re never going to be like it.\nAnd there are Japanese too \u2013 every company in Japan, as I was told when I visited Nippon Steel years ago, the heads of the companies are all very pro-U.S. And they have to work with the United States importers and corporations in order to succeed.\nBut the number two person or someone else is going to be an option number two, and option number two is we can make a step function, all of a sudden we can switch. Do we want to reorient our economy toward China instead of the United States?\nThis is the nightmare of the United States. What if Japan and Korea and other countries decide to throw in their lot with with China instead of with the United States?\nAnd now that America is putting the squeeze on Japan and other Asian countries to support its military spending and its trade deficit even more, these countries are saying, what do we get out of the U.S. relationship?\nWouldn\u2019t we be better if we can make a deal with China to say, ok, about the South China Sea, we\u2019re going to make a map that all of us get to share in the South China Sea oil and gas reserves? We\u2019re going to have peace, and that includes Taiwan.\nMost of the Taiwanese officials, including central bank officials that I used to meet with, all say, you know, ultimately we want to, we plan on rejoining China. We\u2019re going to try to take as much of a business position in mainland China as we can.\nBut ultimately, the economy is going to re-merge. It\u2019s just a question of when we can get a better deal from China than we get in the United States.\nAnd as the United States is in a state of rapid shrinkage of its economy right now, all of a sudden other countries are saying that very quickly, well, let\u2019s rethink our position and maybe we\u2019re going to do better off not following the neoliberal plan of the United States.\nLet\u2019s have a mixed economy where the government and industry and labor work together to develop the economy instead of a polarized, financialized, Reagan- and Thatcherized economy that you\u2019re having in the United States and England.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, maybe you can address the U.S. economy right now, which is in a state of catastrophe, but which might actually be kind of a controlled demolition, if you consider the discussions that began prior to the pandemic, in late 2019.\nBlackRock was calling for just massive printing of money from the Fed. And they\u2019ve just been doping the economy ever since, to stave off inflation. But now Biden\u2019s worst problem, the greatest problem Biden faces now, is inflation, high food prices; gas prices are going up.\nThe U.K. is seeing record gas prices, too. And global supply chains are what we would call verkakte.\nAnd I don\u2019t know if you want to address that, but the U.S. economy is just seeing massive, massive amounts of workers being financially disempowered, a downwardly mobile middle class, endless printing of money, and more wealth for this very \u2013 I mean, it\u2019s not even the 1 percent; it\u2019s like the 0.1 percent percent \u2013 and it\u2019s beginning to plague Biden through inflation.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well that is happening, but not in the way you described. The Federal Reserve has hardly spent any money into the economy at all.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Well in the banking sector.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: It\u2019s printing trillions and trillions of dollars, more money, more essential credit than ever before, but all of this credit has gone into the stock market and the bond market and the packaged loan market.\nIt\u2019s all gone for assets that the 1 percent of the economy hold. It has financed asset price inflation, not domestic inflation. The domestic inflation is something that comes not from an increase in the money supply, but from supply shortages.\nAnd this is a result of the neoliberal management philosophy that corporations have. In order to increase their reported profits, they have cut costs wherever they could. And one way they found of cutting costs is to minimize inventories.\n80 years ago, every company would have enough inventory on hand so that if there was an interruption in its imports, in its raw materials, in the supplies that it needs, it has enough to get by.\nBut the corporate managers said let\u2019s have something called just-in-time inventory. That is, if we need a part, we\u2019re not trying to order it six months in advance and hold it in a warehouse; we\u2019ll just pay for it that day and order it.\nAnd all of the companies together in the United States thought, the economy is going to shrink, we don\u2019t need any inventories, because everybody is going to be poor. They thought they were going to be poor, because they were making the economy poor, by predatory practices that they were following.\nThey were getting rich by impoverishing the economy. They thought the economy couldn\u2019t buy what they produce, so they didn\u2019t need any inventories. Well, all of a sudden, they ran out; they depleted all of the inventories.\nAnd there were huge, huge orders, in China, in Asia, in Japan, in Korea, for electronics exports, for chips, for everything else.\nAnd now you see, the price of shipping has multiplied tenfold. It costs 10 times as much to ship a container from China to New York today than it did a year ago.\nSo what is happening is a shortage from just the neoliberal, really socially incompetent management of American corporations.\nOther companies throughout the rest of the world have tried to, they keep inventories; they\u2019re not having this problem. This is unique only the United States is not. It\u2019s not people are richer and have so much more money; it\u2019s that there\u2019s a shortage.\nIn the case of housing, which has gone up \u2013 it\u2019s the most rapid increase, over 10 percent in the last year, that\u2019s essentially because BlackRock has said, the era of rising into the middle class by getting home ownership is over.\nOur ideal here at BlackRock is the 19th-century ideal; really, it\u2019s the 14th-century ideal. It\u2019s the landlords. We want to turn the American economy away from a home ownership economy into a renter\u2019s economy.\nAnd if we had BlackRock and our fellow landlords can monopolize the control of housing, and bid it all the way, we all of a sudden will have a monopoly in housing costs. We can raise it 10 percent this year, 10 percent next year.\nAnd the banks are going to lend to us to buy out all of this real estate at 1 percent or 2 percent, and they\u2019ll charge 3 or 4 or 5 percent to other people.\nAll of a sudden you\u2019re going to have a concentration of home ownership in the hands of large corporations. And the middle-class ideal of home ownership is going to be squeezed out.\nThe other major growth is in pharmaceuticals and medical care. It\u2019s way up, medical insurance, 10 or 15 percent.\nThe one thing that corporations in America are willing to fight to the death for is to prevent socialized medicine, to prevent public health. Because they realize if we can prevent public health in America, then workers, the American population is going to have only one way of getting health care and avoiding the threat of bankruptcy if they get sick.\nThey\u2019ll have to go to work for an employer. Because the health is going to, insurance is going to come from the employer. And if they don\u2019t go to work for the employer, they won\u2019t get health care, and they can go broke very easily.\nAnd if they go on strike, they lose their health insurance, and then they\u2019ll go broke. If they complain about the job, they\u2019ll get fired, they\u2019ll lose the health insurance.\nThe new way of controlling labor, the class war in the United States, is to privatize pharmaceuticals and health care and prevent people from having access to health care and pharmaceuticals, unless it\u2019s through their employer.\nAnd that\u2019s why wages have not gone up. Because this is what Alan Greenspan called the traumatized worker syndrome. They\u2019re powerless. They\u2019re afraid to complain against the job. They\u2019re completely dependent on the employer for everything they have.\nAnd in some cases, it may be like a Soviet Russia, they\u2019ll even become dependent on their employer for housing, as it was in Russia, because they can\u2019t afford houses of their own, which are now all corporately owned.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Well the difference, of course, was that in the Soviet Union, it was public housing and it was provided to everyone as part of the government, whereas now we\u2019re talking about feudalism, neo-feudalism, where your landlord is your boss and you\u2019re treated like a serf.\nBut you made an important point, Professor Hudson, about short-term versus long-term thinking. And this actually, I think, is related to the energy crisis we have seen in Europe.\nAnd it really reflects this idea you\u2019re talking about of this neoliberal mentality that, we can just get everything we want right here in the market in the short term.\nAnd that\u2019s this crisis now where the European Commission canceled all of these long-term contracts that it had with Russia for importing gas and also oil from Russia. So the EU had access to all of this Russian energy.\nAnd then as a political protest against Russia, as part of the new cold war, they canceled all of these long-term contracts, and instead, they were just buying Russian gas and oil on the spot market, in the short term.\nAnd then the price of gas and also oil just skyrocketed recently. And now there\u2019s a huge demand in Asia, and largely because countries in East Asia have for the most part recovered from the coronavirus pandemic.\nSo now Europe has a huge shortage of gas and oil, and they\u2019re of course blaming Russia, and they\u2019re doing all the typical things that they do.\nBut the irony is that it\u2019s the same kind of short-term neoliberal philosophy that you\u2019re talking about, where the bankers who run the European Commission said, we don\u2019t need contracts; we don\u2019t need long-term deals; we can just buy everything short term every single day by day or week, week by week in the spot market.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well, I think you\u2019re talking also about the Nord Stream Two pipeline that the Germans and the Europeans were blocking.\nSo when a European politician said we would rather all starve in the dark than have to buy from the Russians, what they mean is, we would rather take the bribes that we\u2019re getting into our bank accounts from the Americans.\nWe would rarely get the high prices and all of the support from the Americans, and let our 99 percent of the population starve, so that we can get rich off what the Americans are paying us to starve the Europeans of energy and freeze in the dark, just so that Russia won\u2019t get get the payment for this.\nSo obviously, Russia is thinking, well, it can now sell all the gas that it wants to China. At some point, it\u2019ll decide, if Europe doesn\u2019t want to buy our gas, if it\u2019s not going to open the Nord Stream Two pipeline.\nThe pipeline is all there. All they have to do is open the pipeline, and the price of gas will come down.\nAnd the Europeans are \u2013 what Putin recognized, and [Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov have been saying is, the European Commission does not represent Europe; Brussels works for Washington.\nBrussels is an arm of the U.S. State Department. It has nothing to do with the European population. Europe is not a democracy; it\u2019s an oligarchy. But it\u2019s also a militarized oligarchy controlled by the United States.\nAnd so Europe is acting, is willing to have its houses freeze, its pipes freeze over, floods in houses, just in order to please the Americans.\nHow long can this go on without there being a revolution?\nThe amazing thing is that protest is coming from the right, not from the left. You have the Alternative f\u00fcr Deutschland party on the right, and Die Linke, the Left Party, has fallen.\nThe socialists have not taken an anti-American stand because America has gained such has control, has made the European socialist parties, just like it has made the British Labor Party under Tony Blair.\nThe socialist parties and left-wing parties of Europe are all pro-American. And they\u2019re not talking about economics. They\u2019re not talking about welfare. I can\u2019t even summarize what they\u2019re saying, because it\u2019s a mush.\nBut the irony is that it\u2019s the right wing that is becoming the nationalistic power in Europe to break away from the United States, not the left.\nAnd I don\u2019t see Europe ending up as much more than a dead zone.\nAnd I think President Biden feels the same way. He is obviously pivoting towards Asia and has left Europe, and England, and Ukraine, and the Baltics just to go their own way.\nAnd no matter how bad things look in the United States, I think things look worse for Europe right now.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Well, you see the same dynamic at play with the protests in Italy and France against the green pass, and the construction of what, in my opinion, is a kind of digital authoritarianism, just exploiting the emergency atmosphere of the pandemic.\nThe right is gaining power. A nationalist right is gaining power.\nAnd there are workers and unionists involved in these protests. Trieste, the Italian port city, is seeing dock dockworkers rise up. But the left is, I mean, it seems to be largely absent.\nAnd the same in the US, with the protests against government mandates. Whatever you think about them, we need to make this objective observation and determine what it means for left-right dynamics when workers are being intimidated.\nThis all is being guided, this policy, is being guided in many ways through the World Economic Forum.\nAnd there is a vocabulary out there about a Great Reset, which is something that Klaus Schwab, the president of the World Economic Forum, has openly proposed in his latest book about the pandemic.\nBut it has been denounced as a conspiracy theory by Naomi Klein in The Intercept.\nAnd I think a lot of what we have been talking about is kind of consistent with how people understand the Great Reset, you know, pivoting towards a kind of feudalistic and authoritarian capitalism that is highly digitized, in order in order to manage an impoverished middle class.\nWhat are your thoughts on the Great Reset? Is it a conspiracy theory? Is it something real? And if so, what does it mean to you?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: It would love to be a conspiracy, but not all conspiracies are successful. They\u2019re hoping that they can bamboozle the world into believing rhetoric instead of reality.\nAnd they\u2019re hoping that people will think that the future is something that has never been in the world before. And what they\u2019re calling democracy is a country without government.\nThere are only two kinds of governments possible in the world. One is the usual kind that you have had ever since Sumer in Babylonia: a mixed economy, with the government providing basic services, and the public private sector doing the trade and the innovation.\nThe other is something that you had briefly in Rome before it collapsed, and you\u2019re now idealizing in the United States: it\u2019s an economy with no government at all. You get rid of all government power to regulate or tax business.\nYou want all of the planning \u2013 you want a centrally planned economy, much more centrally planned than you have in China and even in Russia. But the central planner is going to be Wall Street, and the city of London, and the Paris Bourse.\nYou\u2019re going to have financial planners take over the planning, and they\u2019re going to do it with the corporations as a means basically of subduing, of squeezing out more and more of a surplus out of the people who produce it, labor, basically, and other countries that produce raw materials.\nAnd that is the dream. Can they convince, can Klaus [Schwab] and the attendees who go to these [World Economic Forum] meetings really convince people that you can get along without government and let the neoliberals do to the world economy what Margaret Thatcher did for England, and somehow think that you\u2019re getting richer?\nBecause the cost of your housing is going up, and your salary is going up, but even more than it goes up, you have to pay it for medical care, for housing, for your debt service, and for just the cost of living.\nHow do we convince the world that they\u2019re getting better and better when actually they\u2019re getting poorer and poorer, and we\u2019re concentrating more and more of the wealth in our own hands?\nNow you can call that a conspiracy. I think it\u2019s sort of a pipe dream if they think they can get the rest of the world to go along with it.\nAnd I guess it\u2019s the Abraham Lincoln statement, you can fool some of the people some of the time, some of them all, but you can\u2019t fool China and Russia, and Iran, and India, and North Korea, and South Korea all the time.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah, I mean, it could be a conspiracy, but that\u2019s in many ways how history is dictated.\nI\u2019d refer to Michael Parenti\u2019s lecture on capitalism and conspiracy and class power from 1993, where he makes the case that history is really not an accident. And now more than ever, it\u2019s being decided in Davos.\nSo I think that on that point \u2013 well I guess I\u2019ll just pitch to Ben here. I know Ben as a question.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah, this is this is a good question from [a viewer]. This is for Professor Hudson.\nWhat do you think of Richard Werner and Henry George, and about Jeff Snider\u2019s assertion that demand for U.S. debt is due to its value as collateral in the eurodollar system as opposed to the petrodollar?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Richard Werner has been a friend of mine and a colleague for many years. I think what he\u2019s writing on money creation is wonderful.\nWe\u2019re good colleagues. We\u2019ve had some of the same students. I thoroughly applaud and support him.\nI loathe Henry George, because he essentially was an anti-socialist and a right-winger of the late-19th century, and he spent his life fighting against socialism. He wanted to basically get rid of government.\nAnd his followers, essentially, George spent his time going, and George\u2019s followers, for 20 years before World War One, going around the country debating with socialists over, is the future of the economy going to be socialist, or is it going to be the Ayn Rand-type economy that Henry George wondered.\nWell once the Russian Revolution occurred, the Georgists turned into anti-Bolsheviks. And the followers of George in the United States basically became an anti-Semitic group, very friendly to the Nazis, to the Nazi Party.\nAnd in Germany, the Georgists were among the first to join the Nazi Party.\nSo I\u2019m all for land taxation. That is a socialist policy. That\u2019s the policy of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, the whole 19th-century political economy aimed at getting rid of the landlord class and getting rid of economic rent as unearned income.\nHenry George did not have a theory of value and price, and without that you don\u2019t have a concept of economic rent.\nSo the Georgists today around the right wing of the political spectrum. I had some contact with them at one point, and I was just appalled that they were the feeders, one of the feeder organizations into the Ayn Rand movement.\nSo I can\u2019t think of anyone more opposite from Richard Werner than the Henry George people.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: And the other part of his question was about the eurodollar system as opposed to the petrodollar.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Oh, they\u2019re both the same system, the petrodollars, the deal was \u2013 and this was what was done in the aftermath of my publication of\u00a0Super Imperialism.\nI went down to the White House and met with the Treasury officials and the State Department officials, and they said, we have told Saudi Arabia \u2013 this is when the price of grain was quadrupled, and Saudi Arabia quadrupled the price of oil in response.\nSo the Treasury told Saudi Arabia, you can keep charging whatever you want for the oil, but all the export proceeds you have, you have to invest back in the United States.\nYou can invest it in the stock market. You can\u2019t buy American companies. You can buy stocks and bonds, and especially government treasury bonds to finance things.\nSo petrodollars were a means of recycling oil export proceeds into the American banking system and into the U.S. government budget.\nThe eurodollars were the same thing, but slightly different.\nRussia really created the eurodollar market, because it was afraid to hold dollars in the United States in the 1950s, because the United States could simply grab the money, like it did with Venezuela. And so it held them in England.\nAnd so what happened was Citibank and Chase Manhattan Bank found that they could then borrow these dollars from their London branches. And Chase\u2019s largest depositor, when I was working for it, as their balance-of-payments economist in the 1960s, was the eurodollars from the London branch.\nSo all of these dollars that other countries would accumulate and be afraid to invest in the United States were put into British banks, that sent this money to the head offices back in the United States to essentially liquefy the American economy.\nAnd there were no reserve requirements on eurodollars. So if Chase or Citibank would get a regular deposit from somebody, and make a loan against it, they\u2019d have to keep reserves against it. But you didn\u2019t have to have any reserve requirements for the eurodollar deposit.\nSo the eurodollar system was a free lunch for the commercial banking system in the United States in the 1950s and \u201960s.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: I wanted to go back to some comments you made earlier about the U.S. and Japan and how the U.S.\u2019s best allies are often it often get treated as its worst enemies.\nThis kind of reminded me of the AUKUS deal and France. The former French ambassador to Washington, I think his name is Gerard Araud, commented that after this deal, where France was basically stabbed in the back \u2013 it had what, like I don\u2019t know the dollar sum,\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Over $60 billion.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Over $60 billion in diesel subs to Australia. And the deal was canceled after it was inked, apparently because the U.S. just stepped in with more advanced nuclear subs.\nAnd Araud said we need to return to a de Gaullist policy; we need a neo-de Gaullist policy.\nI wanted you, professor, to weigh in. Just give us your thoughts on AUKUS, on the deal, what it signals for the new cold war, but also for U.S.-French relations and the U.S. treatment of Europe.\nAnd maybe you could remind us what happened when de Gaulle tried to collect on what he was owed.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the English language is an enormous language, and it\u2019s always expanding the words. And one of the new terms that is come into the English language about two years ago, a year or two ago, was a translation from the Russian: non-agreement capable.\nIn other words, just like a Trump wrote the bestseller The Art of Breaking the Deal, that\u2019s become the American policy: we can break any deal we want, because we can make our own reality.\nThat\u2019s what the neocons said: We make the deal, but we can make our own reality.\nSo the United States, and Australia \u2013 U.S. satellites would have a deal with France to say we\u2019re going to buy a submarine. But the Americans could say, wait a minute, buy our submarines, because we need our companies would rather make profits in dollars than have you order something from France that will make profits for French companies.\nSo without telling France at all, it told Australia, just break the deal. And Australia essentially \u2013 it is not well known, but the prime minister actually lives in a basement of the Pentagon in Washington.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: I thought they just kept his brain there in a jar.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well it is in a jar.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: What exists of it, anyway.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: At any rate, Australia has never been known to do anything that America or London didn\u2019t want.\nWell, once Australia actually elected a socialist prime minister, and all of a sudden the British representatives said, no, you\u2019re not allowed to elect anyone the queen of England doesn\u2019t recognize; you have to cancel the election.\nAnd they did. They didn\u2019t say we want to be free of England. They said, oh, ok, who should we elect? And America told England to tell Australia to elect.\nSo Australia is hopeless.\nBut at any rate, this led France to say, we have been double crossed again. We want to look at, just like Germany, we want to look at making better deals with Russia.\nWe can see that one part of the world is growing: China, Russia, the mixed economies, not the oligarchy, the financialized economies. So they\u2019re shifting.\nAnd when you say what happened to de Gaulle \u2013 well, in May, I guess, was it [1968] \u2013 de Gaulle had been cashing in the dollars he was getting from America\u2019s spending in Southeast Asia, he was cashing them in for gold.\nSo America, the CIA, bragged that it had organized the big May riots in Paris. And the riots led to de Gaulle being replaced by a more left-wing party that was thoroughly under the control of the United States.\nSo obviously, the French are worrying, ok, if we try to follow a policy of turning east, of turning towards Russia, China, and the mixed economies, with active governments instead of banks, America is going to try to do to us what it did not only to de Gaulle, but it did to Italy after World War Two, getting rid of the communists; Greece after World War Two, assassinating the communist leadership; essentially just coming and in every country, trying to interfere and meddle in elections.\nSo they\u2019re trying to prevent the United States from using the Green Party in Germany\u2019s turn, following the U.S., with a very nationalistic anti-Russian, pro-American position.\nSo Europe is realizing, breaking away from dependence on the United States, breaking away from letting the United States have all of the European surplus, and telling us to freeze in the dark and to impoverish ourselves, just so that U.S. neocons can create a world \u2013 breaking away is not going to be a pretty sight.\nThey\u2019re going to do to us what Hillary did the Honduras, and what and what Obama did to Libya. And we have got to be prepared for that.\nBut at a certain point, we we just get tired of surrendering. At a certain point, we just can\u2019t live this way anymore.\nAnd that\u2019s the point at which Europe is maybe five years away from realizing.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Well, that\u2019s a good image, and I think it\u2019s important to stress that point, that these policies that Washington carry out abroad always come back home, they always come back home.\nAnd just wrapping up here in the last few minutes. But that this actually reminded me, Professor Hudson, have you heard of this book by this French executive, Frederic Pierucci, who wrote this interesting book called The American Trap: My Battle to Expose America\u2019s Secret Economic War Against the Rest of the World?\nIt\u2019s a very interesting book. This guy Frederic Pierucci, he was previously was an executive at the French transport company Alstom. And the U.S. government accused him of so-called corruption. And he was kind of the first case of like a Meng Wanzhou, before Meng Wanzhou, a few years before her.\nHe was arrested actually in the United States, and he was held as what he claimed to be an \u201ceconomic hostage.\u201d And this is the beginning of this campaign we now see against Alex Saab from Venezuela, Meng Wanzhou from China, and also there\u2019s a North Korean businessman whom the U.S. is trying to imprison.\nAnd what\u2019s interesting is the Washington Post did a story about this book. Here\u2019s the Washington Post article; it\u2019s titled \u201cAn unlikely winner in the U.S. trade war: A French businessman\u2019s book about his battle with the DOJ.\u201d And here\u2019s the translation of The American Trap.\nSo I haven\u2019t read this book; I want to get a copy of it. But essentially, from the summaries that I\u2019ve read about this book, The American Trap, he argues that the U.S. has been carrying out a kind of economic war against French companies, in the same way it carried out those policies you explained against Japanese companies in the 1980s.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: That\u2019s probably true. I have not heard of the book; nobody sent me a copy. I don\u2019t know about it.\nBut it seems that that\u2019s the American modus operandi. It tries to prevent any real competition.\nPeople talk about the Thucydides problem as if there\u2019s a competition. The United States wants to prevent any competition. And the real competition isn\u2019t among countries; it\u2019s economic systems.\nAnd the economic system, as I said, is one of finance-centered oligarchy, as opposed to a government promoting rising living standards and technology, and increasing our productivity.\nAnd I think America has joined the wrong side of history. And it\u2019s a result of the combination of neoliberalism and the neocon military plan that somehow thinks that military force\ncan force other countries to submit to what you called neo- feudalism, which indeed it is.\nAnd the question is \u2013 that has never worked over time. It\u2019s very short term. But then these people think, well, they\u2019re probably in their 50s or 60s now; they only have 20 years to live.\nAll they care about is getting rich for the next 20 years. They don\u2019t care if they leave a bankrupt America in their place. That\u2019s their business plan.\nThe business plan is to load the country down with debt, shrink the economy \u2013 but they\u2019ll take their money and run.\nAnd the question is, where are they going to run to? If the rest of the world is going its own way, that they\u2019re driving the world to grow its own way. That\u2019s the dynamic that is at work.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Ben, maybe we can put Professor Hudson\u2019s book on screen now and tell everyone where they can find it, the new edition.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: I guess it\u2019s easier to buy books on Amazon now than it is in the bookstores. So it\u2019s up there now.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: And do you know if there\u2019s going to be an e-book version? Because I\u2019ve only seen physical copies.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: I don\u2019t know how to make e-books. I just don\u2019t know if there will.\nThe paperback will be out on, I think, [October 18 or 19].\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Oh, great, there\u2019s going to be a paperback out?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah, but I don\u2019t know about e-books.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Excellent, well, I would highly recommend checking out this book. Fortunately, he sent Max and me a copy.\nIt\u2019s incredible reading. As someone, I\u2019m certainly not an economics expert, this book for me is just really eye-opening.\nI had a copy of the second edition that I would go back to regularly. I use it kind of like a textbook, because there\u2019s just so much good information in there. There\u2019s a lot of history.\nIn fact, something that Professor Hudson talks about in his book is that one of the main differences, well, one of the several differences \u2013 there are many differences between the way he teaches economics and other mainstream economists \u2013 is that he actually talks about economic history.\nAnd in your book, Professor Hudson, you say that very few economists these days teach economic history because \u2013 at least in U.S. economics departments \u2013 because if you actually studied economic history, you would see how different it is from all of the neoliberal textbooks.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: That\u2019s right. There\u2019s been a rewriting. America got rich by being a mixed economy, where the government took an active role in subsidizing basic infrastructure.\nAnd all this changed in the 1980s. And the neoliberalism has sort of pretended that Adam Smith was an advocate of basically the neoliberalism of Ayn Rand, instead of being anti-landlord, anti-monopoly, and not really thinking very much of the ethics of businessmen.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: And then there\u2019s one final question here, Professor Hudson: Are you thinking of doing an audiobook version?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: No, I don\u2019t know anybody who does audio books.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Well, maybe we can talk about it.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Who should we get to read it? Is James Earl Jones still around?\nI always have actors read my books, and I don\u2019t know who they are. And I always ask the publisher, can I please just, once, read the book? And they won\u2019t let me in. Then they bring these D-list actors in.\nAnd it\u2019s just so bizarre to listen to it. They read it so concisely. And I hate it.\nSo don\u2019t. Sometimes you want to avoid an audio book. Don\u2019t wish for it, because you just might get it.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: You\u2019ve got to read, Because sometimes you want to look at the previous page. I\u2019m really old fashioned.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: No really, with this book, you really do want to read it. It\u2019s the kind of book you want to read several times.\nAs Ben said, it\u2019s sort of like a textbook that has a rich narrative arc that courses through every page. And then you might want to check the citations as well.\nI mean, every historical episode could demand its own book. So I\u2019m really benefiting from it.\nI have benefited a lot from, I guess this is our third conversation, so I really hope he can make these kind of a running series.\nI\u2019m actually at the tail end of three hours of livestreaming because I just did my own live stream. So I\u2019m sort of hallucinating. I really have nothing else to say.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: And yeah, well, we\u2019ll end on that. Do you have anything to add, Professor Hudson, before we leave?\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Yeah. It is a textbook in China. And as I said, they asked me to update it.\nSo if you want to see what China\u2019s strategy is vis-a-vis the United States, this explains what is on their mind.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Great, well, on that note, I would say anyone who wants to check out Professor Hudson\u2019s work, they can go to Michael-Hudson.com. He has a lot of good resources.\nI read his columns regularly, because I\u2019m not an economics expert, so his columns are very digestible. And he talks about current affairs and the new cold war.\nSo it\u2019s always a pleasure to have you, Professor Hudson, thanks for joining us again.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Thanks a lot for the discussion.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US makes up c 40% of global military spending, 10x Russia, 3x China. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, military-industrial complex, Pentagon, Russia", "output": "The United States spent $877 billion on its military in 2022, nearly 40% of the global total, 10 times more than Russia ($86.4 billion), and three times more than China ($292 billion). The US military budget is larger than the next 10 biggest spenders combined.\n\n(Se puede leer esta nota en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nThe United States was responsible for nearly 40% of global military spending in 2022.\nThe US military spent $877 billion, 10 times more than Russia ($86.4 billion), and three times more than China ($292 billion).\n\nUS military expenditure in 2022 was bigger than the next 10 largest spenders combined.\nThis means the Pentagon spent more than China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, and Ukraine combined.\nUS military spending was higher than the next 10 countries combined in 2022. Five years ago, it was higher than only the next nine. How much safer do y\u2019all feelhttps://t.co/VIq8pwChRI pic.twitter.com/FX47O8Uego\n\u2014 Stephen Semler (@stephensemler) April 29, 2023\n\nThis is according to data published this April by the Sweden-based Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).\nSIPRI calculated that the planet\u2019s total military expenditure was $2.24 trillion in 2022.\nThe United States, at $877 billion, thus made up 39.2% of total global military spending.\n\nThe US-led NATO alliance spent a total of $1.23 trillion, meaning it was responsible for just over half (55%) of global military spending.\nSIPRI reported that real military spending in Europe, adjusted for inflation, is at the highest levels since 1989, toward the end of the first cold war.\nEurope is the region with the fastest growing military spending, the study found.\n\nBusiness Insider noted that the US federal government only dedicated $76.4 billion in discretionary spending for education in 2022, meaning it spent over 10 times as much on the military.\nThe Joe Biden administration has requested a mere $90 billion for education in 2024, compared to $842 billion for the military, Business Insider pointed out.\nMoreover, all of these figures could be very conservative, given the US Department of Defense is notoriously opaque in its accounting.\nBloomberg reported that the Pentagon made $35 trillion in \u201caccounting adjustments\u201d in 2019, as well as $30.7 trillion in adjustments in 2018.\nThese irregularities in the Pentagon\u2019s accounting are larger than the entire US economy.\nThe US Department of Defense has failed every audit it has ever tried.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Putin debunks Tucker Carlson\u2019s warmongering anti-China propaganda, mocks his CIA ties. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, Donald Trump, Fox News, Marine Le Pen, Russia, Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Vladimir Putin", "output": "Russia\u2019s President Vladimir Putin condemned the \u201cboogeyman\u201d anti-China propaganda that Trump ally Tucker Carlson spewed in his interview in Moscow, while mocking the ex Fox News host for applying to join the CIA.\n\nThe US TV host Tucker Carlson set off a political scandal by traveling to Moscow this February to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin.\nThis provoked a debate in the media, which \u2013 as is so often the case in partisan US politics \u2013 completely missed the forest for the trees.\nLiberal war hawks like Hillary Clinton portrayed Tucker Carlson as a traitor and \u201cuseful idiot\u201d of Putin.\nDemocrats have been blinded by their obsessive hatred of Russia, and are utterly incapable of seeing what is happening geopolitically.\n\nIn reality, Carlson and other Donald Trump allies in the Republican Party have tried for years to drive a wedge in between Russia and China, while maniacally pushing for war on Beijing.\nTrump\u2019s former top advisor Steve Bannon, who ran the far-right leader\u2019s 2016 presidential campaign, stated openly in 2018: \u201cWe\u2019re at war with China\u201d.\nBannon called to \u201cunite the West against the rise of a totalitarian China\u201d. And he considers Russia to be part of the \u201cWest\u201d.\n\nThis strategy was also adopted by France\u2019s far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who stated in 2022 that she wanted to improve relations with Russia in order to prevent it from allying with China.\nThe Trumpist Republicans and their far-right counterparts in Europe see Russia as white, European, Christian, and capitalist, and a potential ally against China, which they demonize as a non-white, Asiatic, atheistic, and communist threat to so-called \u201cJudeo-Christian Western civilization\u201d.\nCarlson has played a key role in this warmongering campaign against China.\nWhen he had his prime-time show on Fox News, Carlson declared, \u201cRussia is not America\u2019s main enemy. Obviously, no sane person thinks it is. Our main enemy, of course, is China. And the United States ought to be in a relationship with Russia, aligned against China\u201d.\nAnyone claiming Tucker Carlson is \"anti-war\" is a useful idiot. He's just a neocon 2.0\nThe only reason he criticizes NATO's war on Russia is because he wants war on China instead\nTucker lamented, \"If Russia ever joined forces with China, American global hegemony would end\" pic.twitter.com/P42zHVIS3A\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 24, 2023\n\nThe narrative that Carlson is \u201canti-war\u201d is totally false. The reason that he opposes the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine is simply because he wants all resources focused on war with China.\nCarlson insisted on his Fox program, \u201cThe biggest threat to this country is not Vladimir Putin; that\u2019s ludicrous. The biggest threat, obviously, is China\u201d.\nThe far-right TV host is afraid that a China-Russia alliance would end US hegemony over the planet, which the close Trump ally wants to preserve.\n\u201cIf Russia ever joins forces with China, American global hegemony, its power, would end instantly\u201d, Carlson lamented. \u201cIf Russia and China ever got together, it would be a brand new world, and the United States would be greatly diminished. Most Americans agree that would be bad\u201d.\nAnother clip of warmonger Tucker Carlson: \"The biggest threat to this country is not Vladimir Putin; that's ludicrous. The biggest threat obviously is China\"\nHe fearmongers about Chinese spying and its \"growing military\", blames it for fentanyl deaths, brings on a neocon guest pic.twitter.com/B7XpqpdymY\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 26, 2023\n\nSince he was fired from Fox News in 2023, Carlson has continued pushing this same warmongering narrative: that the US should ally with Russia against China.\nIn his February interview with Putin, however, the Russian leader could clearly see that Carlson is a political operative acting on behalf of the Republican Party and Trump, and that they hope to encourage division between Moscow and its most important ally.\nPutin pushed back against Carlson\u2019s hysterical anti-China narratives, which he referred to as mere \u201cboogeyman stories\u201d.\nThe Russian president emphasized that China wants peaceful cooperation, and that \u201cChina\u2019s foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive\u201d.\nThe following is a transcript of the February 6 exchange:\nTUCKER CARLSON: The question is what comes next? And maybe you trade one colonial power for another, much less sentimental and forgiving colonial power. I mean, is the BRICS, for example, in danger of being completely dominated by the Chinese, the Chinese economy, in a way that\u2019s not good for their sovereignty? Do you worry about that?\nVLADIMIR PUTIN: We have heard those boogeyman stories before. It is a boogeyman story.\nWe\u2019re neighbors with China. You cannot choose neighbors, just as you cannot choose close relatives. We share a border of a thousand kilometers with them. This is number one.\nSecond, we have a centuries long history of coexistence. We\u2019re used to it.\nThird, China\u2019s foreign policy philosophy is not aggressive. Its idea is to always look for a compromise. And we can see that.\nThe next point is as follows. We\u2019re always told the same boogeyman story, and here it goes again, through a euphemistic form, but it is still the same boogeyman story.\nThe cooperation with China keeps increasing. The pace at which China\u2019s cooperation with Europe is growing. It\u2019s higher and greater than that of the growth of Chinese-Russian cooperation.\nAsk Europeans. Are they afraid? They might be. I don\u2019t know. But they are still trying to access China\u2019s market at all costs. Especially now that they are facing economic problems.\nChinese businesses are also exploring the European market.\nDo Chinese businesses have small presence in the United States? Yes.\nThe political decisions are such that they are trying to limit the cooperation with China.\nIt is to your own detriment, Mr. Tucker, that you are limiting cooperation with China. You are hurting yourself.\nAs Putin made clear, the Republicans have failed to isolate China from Russia and divide BRICS.\nThe irony is that the Democratic Party\u2019s hysteria over the Russiagate conspiracy, combined with the war in Ukraine, prevented the Trumpist elements from realizing this strategy.\n(Washington\u2019s failure to divide Russia from China has only further incentivized the United States to focus heavily on allying with India\u2019s far-right government, seeking to provoke conflict between New Delhi and Beijing. Both Trump and Joe Biden have sought to woo India.)\nCarlson\u2019s bellicose anti-China rhetoric was not mere red meat for his typical Fox News conservative audience. Since he was fired, Carlson has continued churning out this cartoonish propaganda as an independent broadcaster.\nOn February 2, just four days before he interviewed Putin, Carlson published a video claiming that China is \u201cfueling the invasion of America\u201d. The implication was that war would on Beijing would be justified in response to a supposed Chinese communist-backed \u201cinvasion\u201d.\nIn November 2023, Carlson released an interview with Trump, in which both fearmongered about Beijing.\n\u201cWhy is China allowed to conduct imperialism in our hemisphere?\u201d Carlson asked.\nTrump replied, \u201cYeah, and it\u2019s far beyond Cuba; it\u2019s all over South America\u201d. The former US president then claimed, without a shred of evidence, that \u201cChina is building military installations in Cuba\u201d.\nCarlson is a personal friend of Trump, and acts as a propagandist for the former president and his faction of the Republican Party.\nBut their relationship goes deeper than friendship. In fact, Trump has publicly said that he has considered Carlson to run with him to be vice president of the United States.\nThis is especially relevant considering that Trump may very well win this year\u2019s presidential election. Most polls show that he is leading over Biden, including in critical swing states.\nAs he campaigns for president, Trump has pledged to implement extremely aggressive anti-China policies. The Washington Post reported, citing his advisors, that \u201cTrump is preparing for a massive new trade war with China\u201d, and wants to impose 60% tariffs on all imports of Chinese goods into the US.\nWhen asked about this on Fox News, Trump floated tariffs even higher than 60%, stating, \u201cI would say maybe it\u2019s going to be more than that\u201d.\nHistorically, economic wars of this magnitude often lead to military conflict. So Trump\u2019s hawkish anti-China policies could escalate into a conventional war.\nIn addition to being a close ally of Trump, Carlson has used his large post-Fox personal media platform to promote the Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Together, they demonized China and fearmongered about war over Taiwan.\nRamaswamy has campaigned on a Trumpist and Carlsonian foreign policy platform, arguing that the US should ally with Russia in order to try to isolate China.\nIronically, this strategy advocated by Trump, Bannon, Ramaswamy, and Carlson was also previously promoted by Henry Kissinger.\nBack in the Richard Nixon administration in the 1970s, Kissinger used \u201ctriangular diplomacy\u201d to play China against the Soviet Union. Washington\u2019s alliance then with Beijing was a significant factor that led to the destabilization and eventually overthrow of the USSR.\nIn 2018, Kissinger called for returning to this triangular diplomacy, but in the opposite direction. The Daily Beast reported, \u201cHenry Kissinger suggested to President Donald Trump that the United States should work with Russia to contain a rising China\u201d.\nWith the rise of Donald Trump and his far-right movement, Tucker Carlson tried to rebrand himself as a so-called populist.\nBut Carlson was always blue-blooded media royalty. His middle name is Swanson, and his stepmother was the heiress of the eponymous food corporation.\nThe scion of a powerful, wealthy, politically connected family, Carlson started his media career as a neoconservative hawk, churning out diehard pro-war articles for the notorious neocon bible the Weekly Standard.\nCarlson was soon kicked upstairs, in the 2000s, to host shows at CNN and MSNBC, before later moving to Fox News.\nIn the Trump era, Carlson has marketed himself as a paleoconservative, condemning neoconservatives to try to score points with \u201cpopulists\u201d. But back during the George W. Bush administration, Carlson was a card-carrying neocon.\nCarlson eagerly supported the illegal US invasion of Iraq, using crude, neocolonial, racist talking points.\nAs The Daily Beast wrote (emphasis added):\nTucker Carlson described Iraqis as \u201csemiliterate primitive monkeys\u201d in past comments made on the Bubba The Love Sponge radio show, according to new audio recordings uncovered by Media Matters. The Fox News host also claimed Iraqis don\u2019t \u201cbehave like human beings\u201d and said he had \u201czero sympathy\u201d for Iraqis or their culture during a May 2006 discussion of the Iraq War on the popular radio show. \u201cA culture where people just don\u2019t use toilet paper or forks,\u201d Carlson said\u2014adding that Iraqis should \u201c just shut the fuck up and obey\u201d the U.S. because \u201cthey can\u2019t govern themselves.\u201d In a Sept. 2009 episode, Carlson also proclaimed that Afghanistan would never be a \u201ccivilized country because the people aren\u2019t civilized.\u201d\nIn fact, Carlson was such a dedicated Reaganite and cold warrior that, back when he was in college, he applied to join the CIA.\nJournalist Alan Macleod showed how, in the 1980s, Carlson traveled to Nicaragua to support the CIA\u2019s far-right death squads, the Contras, in their terror war against the revolutionary Sandinista government.\nTucker\u2019s father, Richard \u201cDick\u201d Carlson, was the director of Voice of America, a US government propaganda outlet that is closely linked to the CIA and other spy agencies.\n\nRussian intelligence clearly knew about Carlson\u2019s CIA ties. So when he interviewed Putin in February, the Russian leader mocked Carlson for having applied to join the notorious US spy agency, which Putin emphasized had organized many coups d\u2019etat and meddled in the internal affairs of countless foreign countries.\nThe following is a transcript of the exchange:\nTUCKER CARLSON: With the backing of whom?\nVLADIMIR PUTIN: With the backing of CIA, of course. The organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand.\nWe should thank God they didn\u2019t let you in. Although it is a serious organization, I understand.\nMy former vis-\u00e0-vis, in the sense that I served in the first main directorate, the Soviet Union\u2019s intelligence service.\nThey have always been our opponents. A job is a job.\nAlthough he criticizes neocons today, Carlson\u2019s foreign policy regarding Latin America is decidedly neoconservative, and neocolonial.\nCarlson routinely treats Latin America as the US \u201cbackyard\u201d, and frequently complains that China is supposedly trying to \u201ctake over\u201d and even colonize \u201cour hemisphere\u201d.\nIn 2022, when he was still at Fox News, Carlson traveled to Brazil to produce a propaganda documentary for far-right leader Jair Bolsonaro, who was staunchly pro-US and anti-China.\nIn effect, Carlson was meddling in Brazil\u2019s election, seeking to prevent the return to power of leftist Lula da Silva (who went on to win the 2022 vote).\nIn the promotional video that Carlson made for Bolsonaro, he invoked the 200-year-old, explicitly colonial Monroe Doctrine, in order to fearmonger about China\u2019s bilateral, consensual relations with Latin American nations \u2013 and to justify increasingly aggressive US interventionism in the region.\nThe Fox News host declared (emphasis added):\nIn 1823, President James Monroe announced a policy that has been the center of American foreign policy for the last 200 years. Called the Monroe Doctrine, it has a very simple thesis: Great powers would not be allowed to control nations in the Western hemisphere. That would be a direct threat to the interests of the United States. And for 200 years, we haven\u2019t allowed it.\nUnder the Biden administration, the Monroe Doctrine is no longer enforced.\nConstrained by its ideological concerns, consumed with petty political grievances and above all, distracted by a faraway war in Eastern Europe [ie, against Russia in Ukraine], the Biden administration has abdicated its responsibility.\nAnd into the void left by the United States moves a new superpower.\nWe\u2019ve come to Brazil to see for ourselves the rise of China, and how the government of China is replacing the United States as the dominant power in our hemisphere.\nThis anti-China, pro-colonial diatribe was a stark reminder that Carlson is in fact an ardent advocate for US imperialism.\nCarlson is not opposed to war on principle. He only criticizes the US proxy war against Russia because he wants to focus the entire attention of the US empire for war on China.\nCarlson is co-opting many well-intentioned people who don\u2019t want war on Russia, and brainwashing them to want war on China.\nHowever, US liberals\u2019 hysteria over the Russiagate conspiracy has blinded them to this reality.\nOf course, in Washington there is bipartisan opposition to China. But the Democrats are more fixated on Russia now, in the short time, while referring to China as a \u201clong-term threat\u201d.\nRepublicans, led by Trump and Carlson, want to put aside differences with Russia and dedicate all of the US empire\u2019s resources into containing, weakening, and ultimately overthrowing the Communist Party of China.\nBoth dominant US political parties are thoroughly imperialist. Their fight is not about whether the US should be an empire; rather, their debate is about what is the best strategy to preserve the US empire.\nCarlson and Trump share much in common politically with neocons and liberal-interventionist hawks, whom they sometimes criticize for \u201cpopulist\u201d credit.\nWhat unites them all is their desire to strengthen the US empire and maintain Washington\u2019s unipolar hegemony over the planet.\nThis is precisely why Tucker Carlson warned with terror, back on his Fox News show, \u201cIf Russia ever joins forces with China, American global hegemony, its power, would end instantly\u201d.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Colin Powell: \u2018Human rights\u2019 NGOs are \u2018force multipliers\u2019 for US military, part of \u2018combat team\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Colin Powell, George W Bush, human rights industry, Iraq, Iraq War, NGOs, non-governmental organizations, nonprofit-industrial complex, State Department", "output": "Iraq War architect Colin Powell said human rights NGOS are a \u201cforce multiplier\u201d for the US military, and \u201can important part of our combat team\u201d\n\nSo-called \u201chuman rights\u201d groups and \u201cnon-governmental organizations\u201d (NGOs) frequently claim to be independent, while in reality serving as instruments of US foreign policy. But rarely is their status as an arm of Washington\u2019s soft power openly acknowledged.\nThat is what makes the following remarks from one of modern history\u2019s most notorious war criminals so explosive.\nOn October 26, 2001, top US military general Colin Powell, who was then serving as secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, gave a speech at the \u201cNational Foreign Policy Conference for Leaders of Nongovernmental Organizations,\u201d held in the State Department.\nThis was well over a month after the 9/11 attacks, and the United States was already several weeks into its war on Afghanistan. The Bush administration was also setting the stage for its subsequent invasion of Iraq.\nPowell gathered leaders of prominent NGOs in Washington to butter them up and emphasize the crucial supplementary role that they would be playing in the US government\u2019s war efforts.\nPowell heaped praise on NGOs that \u201cshed light on human rights.\u201d He noted that they were a key part of US military efforts, a \u201cforce multiplier\u201d in Washington\u2019s wars, and \u201csuch an important part of our combat team.\u201d\nThe secretary of state dispelled any pretense that American NGOs do work around the world in the interest of vague notions like \u201chuman rights.\u201d Rather, Powell gloated, these NGOs serve the United States\u2019 imperial interests, and it is in fact the illusion of their ostensible \u201cindependence\u201d from the US government that is precisely what \u201cmakes [them] so valuable.\u201d\nThe following is the full quote from Powell (emphasis added), taken directly from the official transcript published at the US State Department website:\nIf we at the State Department and in other branches of government and other departments of government are truly serious about outreach and about cooperation, outreach and cooperation and working with you has to happen every day at every single level in all of our bureaus and all of the pieces and parts of our Department here, and at our embassies overseas.\nAnd I want you to know that I have made it clear to my staff here and to all of our ambassadors around the world that\u00a0I am serious about making sure we have the best relationship with the NGOs who are such a force multiplier for us, such an important part of our combat team.\nI have also made it clear to the members of the diplomatic community who work for American interests around the world that they will not be doing their jobs \u2014\u00a0they will not be doing their jobs for the American people if they do not keep abreast of the work and the ideas that NGOs\u00a0operating in their areas of responsibility in the countries to which they are accredited. And I have made a point of instructing all of our ambassadors, especially the new ones going to posts for the first time,\u00a0I have instructed them to make every effort to work with NGOs, international and especially indigenous, and to factor the contributions that NGOs make into their planning and into their programs.\nNeedless to say, cooperation between governments and NGOs is not the same as co-opting you. Always, we must respect your independence. After all,\u00a0it is the very fact of your being independent and not an arm of government that makes you so valuable, that permits you to do your essential work, and that gives you the flexibility that you need to do it.\nAdmissions like this help clarify why billionaire-funded NGOs like\u00a0Human Rights Watch, which have a revolving door with the US government, also just so happen to vigorously lobby for murderous American and European sanctions on socialist governments in Latin America.\nPowell is not just some Joe Schmoe; he sits at the heights of US military royalty. Powell served as national security advisor for Ronald Reagan, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff (the highest-ranking US military position) for George H. W. Bush, and secretary of state for George W. Bush.\nAlthough he might be most well remembered for his infamous speech lying to the United Nations Security Council about non-existent \u201cWeapons of Mass Destruction\u201d in Iraq, Powell presided over even more atrocities:\nWhen Powell says purported \u201chuman rights\u201d groups and other NGOs serve as \u201cforce multipliers\u201d and \u201can important part of our combat team,\u201d he means they help the US empire more effectively carry out blood-curdling war crimes like these.\nAll of this is only further confirmation that NGOs\u2019 supposed support for \u201chuman rights\u201d is just an imperial fig leaf to cover for Uncle Sam\u2019s subjugation and exploitation of the planet.\nCredit to scholar\u00a0Philip Cunliffe, who\u00a0cites this Powell quote\u00a0in his book \u201cCosmopolitan dystopia: International intervention and the failure of the West\u201d\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Biden says Latin America is US \u2018front yard,\u2019 Trump says \u2018backyard\u2019 \u2013 Pick your flavor of neocolonialism. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Alex Saab, colonialism, Donald Trump, Iran, Iraq, Joe Biden, Latin America, Monroe Doctrine, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen", "output": "What is the difference between Republicans and Democrats? Trump says backyard and Biden says front yard. Otherwise they share 95% of the same warmongering, capitalist, imperialist policies.\n\n(Puedes leer este art\u00edculo en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nPeople in Latin America often ask me what is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. For those outside of the United States, the two hegemonic parties seem so similar that they\u2019re difficult to tell apart.\nThe reality, of course, is that the Republican and Democratic Parties are indeed nearly identical. When we look past all of the superficial Culture War battles they wage to distract the US public, we can clearly see that the two ruling-class parties share 95% of the same policies \u2014 and are funded by the same billionaire capitalist oligarchs and exploitative mega-corporations to obediently serve their economic interests.\nThe Joe Biden administration has made this undeniable. The Democratic president campaigned on promises to reverse Trump\u2019s disastrous policies, only to continue the vast majority of them.\nAt a press conference on January 19, the current president accidentally revealed what the real difference between him and former head-of-state is: Trump thinks that Latin America is the US empire\u2019s backyard, while Biden insists it is Washington\u2019s \u201cfront yard.\u201d\nYou can see Biden\u2019s comments in the\u00a0official transcript published at the White House:\n\u201cWe used to talk about, when I was a kid in college, about \u2018America\u2019s backyard,\u2019\u201d he said in the presser. \u201cIt\u2019s not America\u2019s backyard.\u00a0Everything south of the Mexican border is America\u2019s front yard.\u201d\nU.S. maintains its Monroe Doctrine as Biden assures that Latin America is \"America's front yard\" pic.twitter.com/VhNxIVdV4Z\n\u2014 Kawsachun News (@KawsachunNews) January 20, 2022\n\nSo now, when people in Latin America ask me to describe the differences between Republicans and Democrats, I have the perfect answer: Republicans think you are their backyard, whereas Democrats think you are their front yard.\nPick your favorite flavor of neocolonialism.\nBiden has been in power for exactly one year as of today, January 20. And he has failed to accomplish anything significant. (His long overdue withdrawal from Afghanistan does deserve an honorable mention, but it is greatly overshadowed by Biden\u2019s hawkish policies against the rest of the world \u2014 not to mention the devastating sanctions his administration has imposed on Afghanistan, which are\u00a0starving millions of civilians.)\nFar from breaking with Trump, Biden has doubled down on the far-right former president\u2019s worst policies:\nMeanwhile, inside the United States, Biden\u2019s own party has blocked all attempts at passing significant legislation.\nThe US government is so thoroughly undemocratic, so entirely beholden to capital, it has become a dysfunctional basket case. Its \u201cdemocratic\u201d window dressing has melted away, and all that is left is a stone-cold authoritarian regime controlled by billionaire oligarchs, a textbook dictatorship of the capitalist class.\nThe only thing the US empire can do anymore is do what is has always done: escalate its imperial aggression abroad, endlessly pour money into the gaping maw of the Military-Industrial Complex, try to tame the voracious appetite of the death cult of capitalism \u2014 use war abroad to distract from the\u00a0mass death, skyrocketing inequality, growing poverty, dire homelessness, police brutality, and mass incarceration at home.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US threatens war on China over Taiwan \u2013 with nuclear implications. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, Nancy Pelosi, nuclear weapons, Taiwan", "output": "The US government has prepared for years for war with China over Taiwan. Nancy Pelosi\u2019s trip was only the latest provocation, including Pentagon war plans, CIA threats, tens of billions in weapons sales, and US military forces on the ground.\n\nThe US government has been preparing for war with China over Taiwan. The extremely provocative trip by top official Nancy Pelosi was only the latest US escalation.\nThe Pentagon has made plans for war with China, top CIA officials openly call for fighting Beijing, and US troops are on the ground in Taipei.\nWashington has sold Taiwan tens of billions of dollars worth of military equipment, and influential DC think tanks are even calling to send it nuclear weapons.\n\n\nOur visit reiterates that America stands with Taiwan: a robust, vibrant democracy and our important partner in the Indo-Pacific. pic.twitter.com/2sSRJXN6ST\n\u2014 Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) August 2, 2022\n\n\u201cU.S. Navy deploys four warships east of Taiwan as Pelosi heads to Taipei,\u201d Reuters, August 2, 2022\n\u201cNavy transits Taiwan Strait as Esper in Taipei calls for end to \u2018One China\u2019 policy,\u201d Stars and Stripes, July 20, 2022\n\u201cUS military considered using nuclear weapons against China in 1958 Taiwan Strait crisis, leaked documents show,\u201d CNN, May 24, 2021\n\u201cWould a nuclear-armed Taiwan deter China?,\u201d Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), December 24, 2020\n\u201cYes, Taiwan Needs Nuclear Weapons to Deter China,\u201d American Enterprise Institute (AEI), November 5, 2021\n\u201cTo avoid Ukraine\u2019s fate, Taiwan needs nuclear missiles \u2014 now,\u201d Boston Globe, March 2, 2022\nUS Army Veterans Network: United States Taiwan Defense Command (USTDC)\n\u201cReestablish the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group-Taiwan,\u201d War on the Rocks, January 7, 2022\n\n\u201cUS Nearly Doubled Military Personnel Stationed in Taiwan This Year,\u201d Voice of America (VOA), December 2, 2021\n\u201cWar with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable,\u201d RAND Corporation, 2016\n\u201cAmerica must prepare for war with China over Taiwan,\u201d The Hill, November 24, 2021\n\u201cTimeline: U.S. arms sales to Taiwan in 2020 total $5 billion amid China tensions,\u201d Reuters, December 7, 2020\n\u201cU.S. Set to Sell Taiwan $7 Billion in Arms,\u201d Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2020\n\u201cUS makes 3rd arms sale to Taiwan under Biden admin,\u201d Anadolu Agency, April 6, 2022\nYou won't see this in the Western media:\nPeople in Taiwan are protesting the dangerous provocation by Nancy Pelosi and the US government\nCondemning local politicians as US \"puppets and traitors\"\nChanting \"We don't need America to treat us as a pawn!\" pic.twitter.com/PrawgxZVts\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) August 2, 2022\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US President Bush praised dictator Fujimori as \u2018Peru\u2019s hope for the future\u2019. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "Alberto Fujimori, CIA, genocide, George H W Bush, Indigenous peoples, Keiko Fujimori, Peru, racism, USAID, Vladimiro Montesinos", "output": "US President George H. W. Bush welcomed far-right Peruvian dictator Alberto Fujimori to the White House in 1991, heroizing him as \u201cPeru\u2019s hope for the future\u201d and praising his neoliberal economic policies.\n\n(Se puede leer esta nota en espa\u00f1ol aqu\u00ed.)\nUS President George H. W. Bush welcomed far-right Peruvian dictator Alberto Fujimori to the White House in September 1991, heroizing him as \u201cPeru\u2019s hope for the future\u201d.\nWith US backing,\u00a0Fujimori committed genocide, sterilizing roughly 300,000 Indigenous people while killing, terrorizing, and torturing thousands of leftist dissidents.\nThe former Peruvian dictator was later sentenced to 25 years in prison on charges of crimes against humanity, murder, kidnapping, and corruption. He was convicted of ordering a military death squad to massacre poor people in rural areas.\nBut back in 1991, former CIA Director turned US President Bush praised Fujimori for the neoliberal economic reforms he imposed in Peru.\nUS President George H. W. Bush welcomed far-right Peruvian dictator Alberto Fujimori to the White House in 1991.\nBush heroized Fujimori as \u201cPeru\u2019s hope for the future\u201d, and praised his neoliberal economic policies.\nMore information here: https://t.co/ikikPheeE0 pic.twitter.com/HrddVHeVmK\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 24, 2023\n\nBush told Fujimori at the White House with pride,\u00a0\u201cMr. President, since taking office, you have cut government spending, eliminated price controls, knocked down barriers to trade and investment \u2013 and those reforms have begun paying off; they\u2019ve begun paying dividends\u201d.\n\u201cWe want to be a full partner in your efforts to restore Peru\u2019s economy\u201d, Bush declared.\n\u201cWe have spoken openly, discussing the tough challenges Peru faces, from economic hardship to renegade insurgencies, from the war against drugs to the battle to preserve human rights. And much has been done on all these fronts. But much more waits to be achieved\u201d, the US president added.\n\u201cMy administration wants to send $94 million in economic and military assistance\u201d, Bush noted. But \u201cunfortunately the Congress has placed a hold on disbursement of these funds, chiefly because of stated human rights concerns. We share these concerns and so do you, Mr. President\u201d.\n\u201cBut you have made progress on human rights, and let\u2019s also then see progress on releasing these funds\u201d, he continued.\nJust a few months after this meeting, in April 1992, Fujimori carried out a \u201cself-coup\u201d or \u201cauto-coup\u201d, destroying Peru\u2019s democratic state institutions and establishing a brutal dictatorship.\nThe Bush administration later superficially criticized Fujimori in public, but continued to support him.\nUS assistance continued when President Bill Clinton took power in 1993.\nThe US Agency for International Development (USAID) provided funding for Fujimori\u2019s \u201cfamily planning\u201d program, which he used as cover to commit genocide against Peru\u2019s Indigenous nations, sterilizing nearly 300,000 people between 1996 and 2000.\nPeru's far-right US-backed dictator Alberto Fujimori carried out genocide against Indigenous communities, sterilizing nearly 300,000 people.\nHis sterilization of Indigenous women received funding from the US Agency for International Development @USAID.https://t.co/63yXrqNBGg pic.twitter.com/NpQRkVZbt4\n\u2014 Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) July 24, 2022\n\nAs the New Republic put it in 2018: \u201cUnder former President Fujimori, over 200,000 women were violated\u2014one of the largest such projects since Nazi Germany. His party is still in power\u201d.\nUSAID boasted in a report\u00a0(emphasis added):\nAfter the [United Nations] International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in 1994 and with political support from the president, the Peruvian Ministry of Health instituted a policy in 1995 mandating free contraceptives for all Peruvians through government facilities. As a result of this policy change, modern contraceptive use increased, particularly among rural and poor inhabitants.\nUSAID and other donors provided 100 percent of the contraceptives to the government while also providing technical assistance for training, supervision, education, information, and communication. Annual investments in family planning doubled from $12.9 million in 1994 to $28 million in 1998.\nFujimori committed many of his crimes with the help of his far-right intelligence chief, Vladimiro Montesinos, who was also imprisoned on dozens of charges, such as murder, drug trafficking, and bribery.\nMontesinos was a longtime CIA asset who started his career by spying on Peru\u2019s left-wing government and giving the United States confidential intelligence about Lima\u2019s relations with the Soviet Union and Cuba.\nToday, the far-right followers of the former dictator, known as Fujimoristas, still have significant influence in Peru\u2019s political system.\nFujimori\u2019s daughter Keiko was the right wing\u2019s leading presidential candidate in 2021, running against leftist Pedro Castillo.\nCastillo won the election, but was subsequently overthrown in a US-backed parliamentary coup in December 2022.\nA 2021 debate between Peru\u2019s presidential candidates Keiko Fujimori and Pedro Castillo\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Doctor explains CIA\u2019s \u2018Havana Syndrome\u2019 conspiracy is mass hysteria \u2013 not Russian ray gun attacks. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "China, CIA, Cuba, Havana Syndrome, hysteria, Robert Bartholomew, Russia", "output": "Medical expert Robert Bartholomew explains how he knew CIA claims of \u201cHavana Syndrome\u201d was actually mass hysteria, not attacks with Russian, Chinese, or Cuban microwave weapons\n\nFor years corporate media outlets accused Cuba, China, Russia, and other US adversaries of attacking spies and diplomats with hi-tech \u201cpulsed microwave weapons\u201d or \u201cdirected-energy weapons.\u201d\nBut now the CIA has admitted that \u201cHavana Syndrome\u201d is not caused by attacks by a foreign hostile power, but rather stress or natural causes.\nDoctor Robert Bartholomew, a medical sociologist and leading expert on mass hysteria and social panics, explains how he predicted this in his 2020 book \u201cHavana Syndrome: Mass Psychogenic Illness and the Real Story Behind the Embassy Mystery and Hysteria.\u201d\n\n\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: Western media goes white nationalist, calls Ukraine more \u2018civilized\u2019 than Iraq, whitewashes US wars. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "corporate media, Israel, media, Russia, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen", "output": "Media outlets are calling Ukraine \u201ccivilized,\u201d emphasizing that its people are white European Christians, while ignoring or whitewashing the US military occupations of Syria and Iraq, Western-backed Saudi bombing of Yemen, and constant Israeli attacks on Syrians and Palestinians.\n\nWestern corporate media outlets that published demonstrable lies to try to justify the 2003 US invasion of Iraq have done a 180 and suddenly become staunch anti-war voices condemning Russia\u2019s military intervention in Ukraine, which began on February 24.\nMainstream North American and Western European journalists have adopted what is essentially a white-nationalist narrative that has been widely denounced as racist, depicting Ukraine as a \u201ccivilized\u201d European Christian country that is more worthy of sympathy than formerly colonized countries in the Global South, where the United States and its allies are killing civilians every day.\nThe US has roughly 800 foreign bases around the planet, with a military presence in the majority of the countries on Earth. The US is illegally militarily occupying both Iraq and Syria\u2019s oil-rich territory, while helping Saudi Arabia bomb civilian areas in Yemen, in a nearly seven-year Western-backed war that has killed at least 377,000 Yemenis.\nIn fact, within hours of the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the United States bombed Somalia, Western-sponsored Saudi forces bombed Yemen, and Israel bombed Syria, just after Israeli occupation soldiers killed a teenage Palestinian.\nThe Times of Israel newspaper, without a hint of irony, even published an article on February 25 titled \u201cUkraine fighting reportedly not expected to keep Israel from bombing Syria.\u201d\n\nMeanwhile, Western media networks have bent over backward to portray Ukrainians as more \u201cworthy victims,\u201d emphasizing their whiteness, European culture, and Christianity, while these same outlets dehumanize or simply ignore dark-skinned people and Muslims in the Global South who are \u201cunworthy victims\u201d of Western wars.\nThis double standard was made blindingly obvious in comments by CBS News foreign correspondent Charlie D\u2019Agata.\nIn a broadcast on February 25, titled \u201cRussia closes in on Kyiv with more explosions reported across Ukraine overnight,\u201d D\u2019Agata insisted that the war in Ukraine is unique because the country is \u201ccivilized,\u201d unlike nations invaded by the United States.\n\u201cThis isn\u2019t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European \u2014 I have to choose those words carefully, too \u2014 city, where you wouldn\u2019t expect that or hope that it\u2019s going to happen,\u201d the CBS News foreign correspondent declared.\nWestern corporate media coverage of Ukraine has gone full-on white nationalist, calling Ukrainians \u201ccivilized\u201d white European Christians while whitewashing the US war on Iraq, bombing of Yemen, and Israeli attacks on Syrians & Palestinians\nRead more here: https://t.co/YZCBzv4wXy pic.twitter.com/f4HZPOcaLz\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 28, 2022\n\nThe US war on Iraq killed more than 1 million people, and its two-decade war on Afghanistan killed hundreds of thousands more.\nBut the \u201cunworthy victims\u201d of US wars are dehumanized as \u201cuncivilized,\u201d whereas the \u201cworthy victims\u201d of Washington\u2019s adversary Russia are portrayed as \u201ccivilized\u201d white Christians.\nD\u2019Agata later apologized for his remarks, but he was by no means alone.\nNBC News correspondent Kelly Cobiella stated openly, \u201cJust to put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria. These are refugees from neighboring Ukraine. I mean, that, quite frankly, is part of it. These are Christians. They\u2019re whites. They\u2019re very similar to people who live in Poland.\u201d\n\"Just to put it bluntly, these are not refugees from Syria. These are refugees from neighbouring Ukraine. I mean, that, quite frankly, is part of it. These are Christians. They're Whites. They're very similar to people who live in Poland.\"pic.twitter.com/T90tA101H9\n\u2014 Zeeshan Khan (@IbnKhayyam) February 27, 2022\n\nIn the same vein, Ukraine\u2019s deputy chief prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, emphasized in an interview on the BBC that Ukrainians are unique victims because many have blond hair and blue eyes.\n\u201cIt\u2019s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blond hair being killed, children being killed every day, with Putin\u2019s missiles, and his helicopters, and his rockets,\u201d Sakvarelidze said.\nWestern media outlets deny that Ukraine has a massive Nazi problem (it does), while they spread Nazi-esque propaganda: \"It's very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blond hair being killed with Putin's missiles\" ? https://t.co/gCbnsm5EB4\n\u2014 Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) February 27, 2022\n\nSakvarelidze was formerly a member of parliament in Georgia, from the right-wing, pro-Western party of former President Mikheil Saakashvili, one of Washington\u2019s most loyal allies in the region.\nYet Sakvarelidze was given Ukrainian citizenship and appointed deputy general prosecutor in 2015, soon after the US-sponsored 2014 coup overthrew Ukraine\u2019s democratically elected president and installed a pro-Western puppet regime.\nSakvarelidze\u2019s Eurocentric rhetoric was echoed on Britain\u2019s ITV News, by its correspondent Lucy Watson.\nRecalling seeing Ukrainian children in strollers (or \u201cbuggies,\u201d in British English), Watson said in exasperation, \u201cEvery single one of those buggies is a young child who was at nursery school, who was being looked after by their parents. Their parents were going to work, eating, drinking in cafes, doing the things that you and I were doing two, three days ago.\u201d\n\u201cNow the unthinkable has happened to them. And this is not a developing, third world nation; this is Europe,\u201d she added.\n'Now the unthinkable has happened to them, and this is not a developing, third world nation, this is Europe.' pic.twitter.com/BFYvql7iie\n\u2014 black lives matter (@jrc1921) February 27, 2022\n\nBritish Conservative politician Daniel Hannan exemplified the imperial hypocrisy in an article in the right-wing Telegraph newspaper on February 26, titled \u201cVladimir Putin\u2019s monstrous invasion is an attack on civilisation itself.\u201d\n\u201cThey seem so like us. That is what makes it so shocking. Ukraine is a European country. Its people watch Netflix and have Instagram accounts, vote in free elections and read uncensored newspapers,\u201d Hannan wrote. \u201cWar is no longer something visited upon impoverished and remote populations. It can happen to anyone.\u201d\nIronically, many people in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and other countries attacked by the United States do indeed have Instagram accounts, and Netflix is available in some of these nations as well.\nBut the obvious implication of this media narrative is that Global South countries invaded, bombed, and militarily occupied by the United States and its Western allies are not civilized, and therefore that Washington\u2019s and Brussels\u2019 wars are justified.\nThis flagrant differentiation in treatment is a textbook example of the concept of \u201cunworthy victims,\u201d articulated by scholars Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in their classic 1988 book \u201cManufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.\u201d\n\u201cWorthy victims\u201d are those who are killed or abused by the US government\u2019s Official Enemies \u2013 such as Russia, China, Iran, or Venezuela.\n\u201cUnworthy victims\u201d are the people killed and abused by the US government and its allies \u2013 in Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Nicaragua, Somalia, Panama, Congo, and beyond.\nHerman and Chomsky wrote:\nOur hypothesis is that worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, that they will be humanized, and that their victimization will receive the detail and context in story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotion.\nIn contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage.\nWestern media coverage of Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine makes this imperial hypocrisy as clear as day.\n"}
{"instruction": "Write an article about: US covid \u2018bailout\u2019 is $6 trillion giveaway to Wall Street: Economist Michael Hudson explains. Use the themes and topics represented by the tags provided as guidance for the content. It's not necessary to include the exact tag words in the article, but the article should reflect the essence and context of these tags.", "input": "CARES Act, Covid-19, Donald Trump, economics, Michael Hudson, Steven Mnuchin, Treasury", "output": "Economist Michael Hudson says the US Congress\u2019 CARES Act is not a Covid-19 pandemic bailout for the people, but a $6 trillion giveaway to Wall Street, banks, and stockholders.\n\nFacing the Covid-19 pandemic, the US Congress rammed through the CARES Act \u2014 which economist Michael Hudson explains is not a \u201cbailout\u201d but a massive, $6 trillion giveaway to Wall Street, banks, large corporations, and stockholders.\nHudson discusses the enormous financial scam, and reveals how the economy actually works, with the Federal Reserve printing money so rich elites don\u2019t lose their investments.\n(Interview recorded on April 13, 2020)\nPart 2: \u201cHow USA makes countries pay for its wars: Economics of American imperialism with Michael Hudson\u201d\n\n\n(Teaser \u2013 0:03)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Just think of when, in the debates with Bernie, Sanders during the spring, you had Biden, and Klobuchar keep saying, \u2018What we\u2019re paying for Medicare-for-All will be $1 trillion over 10 years.\u2019 Well here the Fed can create $1.5 trillion in one week just to buy stocks.\nWhy is it okay for the Fed to create $1.5 trillion to buy stocks to prevent rich people from losing on their stocks, when it\u2019s not okay to print only $1 trillion to pay for free Medicare for the entire population? This is crazy!\nThe idea that only the rich should be allowed to print money for themselves, but the government should not be allowed to print money for any public purpose, any social purpose \u2014 not for medicine, not for schools, not for personal budgets, not for full employment \u2014 but only to give to the 1 percent. People hesitate to think that.\nThey think, \u2018It can\u2019t possibly be this bad.\u2019 But those of us who have worked on Wall Street, for 50, 60 years in my case, that\u2019s what the numbers show.\nAnd that\u2019s why you don\u2019t have the media talking about actual numbers. They talk about, you know, just words, and they use euphemisms, and it\u2019s the kind of Orwellian vocabulary, describing an inside-out world that they\u2019re talking about.\n(Intro \u2013 1:58)\nBENJAMIN NORTON: The world is suffering right now from one of the worst economic crises in modern history. Definitely the worst crisis since the 2008 financial crash. And many economics experts are saying that we\u2019re living through the worst recession actually since the Great Depression of 1929.\nWell joining us to discuss this today, we have one of the best contemporary economists, who is really well prepared to explain what has been going on in this global recession during the coronavirus pandemic. And specifically today we\u2019re gonna talk about the $6 trillion bailout package that the US Congress has passed.\nThe Trump administration is basically taking Obama\u2019s corporate bailout on steroids, and injecting trillions of dollars into the corporate sector. And today to discuss what exactly the coronavirus bailout means, we are joined by the economist Michael Hudson.\nHe is the author of many books. And in the second part of this episode we\u2019re gonna talk about his book \u201cSuper Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.\u201d So that\u2019ll be much more in the vein of kind of traditional Moderate Rebels episodes, where we talk about imperialism, US foreign policy, and all of that.\nMichael Hudson is also a former Wall Street financial analyst, so he\u2019s very well prepared to talk about just the financial thievery that goes on on Wall Street. And he is a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.\nSo Michael, let\u2019s just get started here. Can you respond to this global depression that we\u2019re living through right now amid the Covid-19 pandemic? And what do you think about this new bailout that was passed?\n(3:50)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well the word bailout, as you just pointed out, really was used by Obama, and the bailout only applies to the banks. The word coronavirus is just put in as an advertising slogan.\nBanks and corporations, airlines, have a whole sort of wish list that they have their lawyers and lobbyists prepare for just such an opportunity. And when the opportunity comes up \u2014 whether it\u2019s 9/11, with the Patriot Act, or whether it\u2019s today\u2019s coronavirus \u2014 they just passed a coronavirus onto an act which is shouldn\u2019t be called giveaway to the big bank banking sectors.\nLet\u2019s talk about who\u2019s not bailed out. Who\u2019s not bailed out are the small business owners, the restaurants, the companies that you walk down the street in New York or other cities, and they\u2019re all shuttered with closed signs. Their rent is accumulating, month after month.\nRestaurants, and gyms, and stores are small markup businesses and small margin businesses, where, once you have no sales for maybe three months, and rent accruing for three months, they\u2019re not going to have enough money to earn the profits to pay the rents that have mounted up for the last three months.\nThe other people that are not being bailed out are the people, the workers \u2014 especially the people they call the prime necessary workers, which is their euphemism for minimum-wage workers, without any job security. There have been huge layoffs of minimum-wage labor, manual labor, all sorts of labor.\nThey\u2019re not getting income, but their rents are accruing. And their utility bills are accruing. Their student loans are accruing. And their credit card debts are mounting up at interest and penalty rates, which are even larger than the interest rates. So all of these debts are accruing.\nAnd the real explosion is going to come in three months, when all of a sudden, this money falls due. The governor of New York has said, \u201cWell we have a moratorium on actually evicting people for three months.\u201d So there are restaurants and other people, individuals, wage-earners, who are going to be able to live in their apartments and not be evicted.\nBut at the end of three months, that\u2019s when the eviction notices are going to come. And people are going to decide, is it worth it?\nWell especially restaurants are going to decide. And they\u2019re going to say, well there is no way that we can make the money to pay, because we haven\u2019t had the income to pay. And they\u2019re just going to go out of business. They\u2019re not going to be helped.\nThe similar type of giveaway occurred after 9/11. I had a house for 20 years in Tribeca, one block from the World Trade Center. And the money was given by the government to the landlords but not to the small businesses that rented there \u2014 the Xerox shops and the other things.\nThe landlords took all of the ostensible rent loss for themselves, and still tried to charge rent out to the xerox shops, and the food shops, and ended up collecting twice, and driving them out.\nSo you\u2019re having the pretense of a bailout, but the bailout really is an Obama-style bailout. It goes to the banks; it goes to those companies that have drawn up wish lists by their lobbyists, such as the airlines, Boeing, the large banks.\nThe banks and the real estate interests are going to be the biggest gainers. They have changed the real estate law so that the real estate owners, for a generation, will be income tax free. They are allowed to charge depreciation, and have other fast write-offs, to pretend that their real estate is losing value, regardless of whether it\u2019s going up and up in value.\nDonald Trump says that he loves that depreciation, because he pretends that he\u2019s losing money, and gets it is a tax write-off, even while his property prices go up.\nSo there\u2019s a lot of small prints. And the devil is all in the small print of the giveaway. And then President Trump has his own half-a-trillion-dollar slush fund that he says he doesn\u2019t have to inform a Congress or be subject to any Freedom of Information Law, that he gets to go to his backers in the Republican States.\nAnd even for the money that is going out to states and municipalities, they\u2019re left broke.\nImagine New York City and other states. Most states in the United States, and cities, have balanced budget constitutional restrictions. That means they\u2019re not allowed to run a deficit.\nNow if these states and cities have to pay unemployment insurance, have to pay carrying charges on the schools and public services, and are not getting the sales taxes, not getting the income taxes, from the restaurants and all the businesses that are closed, or from the workers that are laid off, they\u2019re going to be left with a huge deficit.\nNothing is done about that. There has been no attempt to save them.\nSo three months from now, you\u2019re going to have broke states, broke municipalities, labor that cannot, whose savings was wiped out.\nAs I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve reported on your show, the Federal Reserve says that half of Americans do not have $400 for emergency saving. Well now they\u2019re going to be running up thousands of dollars of rent and monthly bills.\nSo the disaster is about to hit. They will not be bailed out. But no investment, investor, really will lose.\nAnd you\u2019ve seen last week, the stock market made the largest jump since the depression \u2014 the largest jump in in 90 years. And that\u2019s because Trump says, \u201cThe economy is the stock market, and the stock market is the 1 percent.\u201d\nSo from the very beginning, his point of reference for the market and for the economy is the 1 percent. The 99 percent are simply overhead. Industry is an overhead. Agriculture is an overhead. And labor is an overhead, to what really is a financialized economy that is writing the whole bailout.\nIt\u2019s not a bailout \u2014 it\u2019s a huge giveaway that makes them richer than they ever were before.\n(10:48)\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah and Michael, related to that \u2014 you mentioned that fine print is important. But I also have a kind of bigger question. And I don\u2019t really know where exactly these numbers come from.\nOfficially the bailout is $2 trillion. Many media outlets reported it as effectively $4 trillion. But actually, according to Larry Kudlow \u2014 who is the director of the US National Economic Council, he\u2019s the Trump administration\u2019s kind of chief economist \u2014 Larry Kudlow is now saying that it\u2019s actually $6 trillion in total, which is a quarter of all of US GDP.\nAnd that includes $4 trillion in lending power for the Federal Reserve, as well as $2 trillion in the aid package.\nSo there is discussion of this aid package, but actually the aid package of $2 trillion is actually half the size of the $4 trillion that is given to the Federal Reserve.\nWhat exactly is that $4 trillion that the Federal Reserve has? Is this some kind of slush fund, or how does it work?\n(11:52)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: No, the Federal Reserve was given special powers to create 10 times as many loans or swaps as others. So the Federal Reserve says we\u2019re in \u2014 the Federal Reserve represents the\ncommercial banks and the commercial investors.\nNow here\u2019s the problem: a lot of companies were issuing junk bonds. They were going way down in price, especially junk bonds for the fracking industry. The Federal Reserve says, \u201cWe\u2019re going to be backed up by the Treasury. We can just create \u2014 as you know, Modern Monetary Theory \u2014 we can just create money on a computer, and swap. So we will, say, \u2018Give us your poor.\u2019 It\u2019s like the Statue of Liberty: \u2018Give us your poor, your oppressed,\u2019 or Aladdin\u2019s old lamps for new: Give us all your junk bonds, and we will give you a bona fide Federal Reserve deposit.\u201d\nSo the Federal Reserve has been pumping trillions and trillions of dollars into the stock market. That\u2019s what\u2019s been pushing up the stock market, the Federal Reserve. The bailout has gone to the stock market. As if the stock market got coronavirus! Stocks don\u2019t get coronavirus! They don\u2019t get sick on the virus! And yet it\u2019s the stock market that\u2019s going up through the Federal Reserve.\nThere\u2019s also another $2 trillion dollars, $2 to $4 trillion that the US government has, over and above the $2 trillion that\u2019s going to the people. So most of the calculations that have been published cite it as a $10 trillion bailout. Of which the newspapers, to avoid embarrassing Mr. Trump, only refer to the money given to the the wage earners. And they\u2019re sort of embarrassed that the vast majority are given to the financial sector that doesn\u2019t need a bailout, but that doesn\u2019t want to lose a single penny from the virus.\nSo when you see the stock market recovered almost to what it was before the virus, while the economy is going down, you realize, wait a minute they\u2019re saving the 1 percent, or the 10 percent of the population that own 85 percent of the stocks and bonds. They\u2019re saving the banks. They\u2019re not saving the people, and they\u2019re not saving the economy; they\u2019re not saving industry; and they\u2019re not saving small businesses.\nSo it\u2019s an amazing hypocrisy that the mainstream press is not discussing, which is why your show is so important.\n(14:29)\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Yeah and here in Washington, DC, we got I think $500 million from the, I guess what you accurately describe as the stock market bailout. And that\u2019s a lot less than a number of red states that are less populous than Washington, DC got. So there\u2019s a massive shafting here.\nAnd then the city has only been able to provide for certain parts of the economy. Undocumented immigrants, who do a lot of work here, got nothing from the city. Vendors, which are a big part of the informal economy in DC, even though they have to be regulated, got nothing.\nAnd then you mention all of these sectors of the economy \u2014 young people, college-educated young people who are deep in debt, and therefore less inclined to spend \u2014 are getting shafted here.\nSo you have called for a solution \u2014 well I guess, knowing so many of those people, they contribute so little to the economy because they can\u2019t; they\u2019re just putting all their money into debt. So you have called for a debt jubilee.\nYou say that debts that can\u2019t be paid won\u2019t be, and this is the best way out.\nMaybe you can explain to our viewers and listeners what that is and why it would be the best remedy?\n(15:42)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well here\u2019s what happens if you don\u2019t write down the debts that are just going to accrue in the next three months: If you don\u2019t say, \u201cThe rents will not have to be paid, and workers will not have to pay the debts that mount up,\u201d if you leave those debts on the books, and you make the workers liable to keep paying the student debts, and the other debts, and the mortgage debts, and the rents, then they\u2019re not going to have any money left to buy goods and services.\nWhen it\u2019s all over, they\u2019re going to get their paychecks, and off the top is going to be the wage withholding, and the tax withholding, and the Medicare, and if they don\u2019t want to get kicked out of their houses, they\u2019re going to have to pay all of this money that\u2019s accrued while they\u2019re not making an income.\nSo you\u2019re going to have a shrinkage of the economy, a vast shrinkage. How can they afford to buy anything but the most basic necessities, the cheapest food, the necessary transport? Obviously they\u2019re not going to buy the kinds of goods and services that are supposed to be part of the circular flow.\nThe whole of economics textbook say employers pay the workers so the workers can have enough money to buy what they produce. But the workers don\u2019t spend their income only on what they produce. They spend most of their income on rent, on debt service, on taxes, on finance, insurance, and real estate. And this is the only part of the economy that is being enabled to survive.\nSo how can you have the superstructure of rents and debts, of insurance charges, on an economy that doesn\u2019t have the income to buy goods and services? And if they can\u2019t buy goods and services, you\u2019re going to have the stores closing down, because people can\u2019t afford to buy what the stores are selling.\nYou\u2019re going to have a whole wave of closures. And you\u2019re going to go down the streets, and certainly in cities like New York, or where I live in Queens, just outside of Manhattan, where block after block, they\u2019re going to be \u201cFor rent\u201d signs. It\u2019s going to be empty.\nAnd the only way to avoid that is for a debt write-down.\nNow you\u2019ve had this occurring for 5,000 years. I\u2019ll give you an example that may be easy to understand.\nIn Babylonia, we have the Laws of Hammurabi, in 1800 BC. One of the laws says that, if \u2014 in Babylonia you only had, when you would buy beer or other things, they would write it on a tab in the bar, in the ale house, and all the debts were owed when the harvest was in. You\u2019d pay the debt seasonally.\nWell Hammurabi said, if there\u2019s a drought, or if there\u2019s a flood, then you don\u2019t have to pay the debts. Most debts were owed to the palace, and others.\nAnd he said, \u201cThe reason we\u2019re doing this is, if we don\u2019t do that, then you\u2019re going to have these debtors become debt servants, bond servants to the creditors; they\u2019re going to owe their labor to the creditors; they\u2019re going to lose their land to the creditors; and they won\u2019t be able to work on public infrastructure projects; they won\u2019t work for Babylonia; they won\u2019t serve in the army, and we can be invaded; and they won\u2019t be able to use their crops as taxes, because they\u2019ll owe the crops as debts. So we\u2019re going to write it down.\u201d\nSo the whole idea for thousands of years, of every Near Eastern ruler starting his reign by writing down the debts, was to begin everything in balance.\nBecause they realized, just mathematically, debts grow at compound interest. You\u2019ve seen the coronavirus increase at an exponential rate. That\u2019s how debts accumulate interest, at an exponential rate.\nBut the economy grows in an s-curve, and then it tapers off. The American economy, the GDP since the Obama bailouts of 2008, the entire growth of the GDP has only accrued to 5 percent of the population. 95 percent of the GDP, the population for 95 percent, the industry, agriculture, that\u2019s actually gone down.\nSo we\u2019re already in a 12-year depression, the Obama depression, that they like to call a recession, because most of the media are Democratic Party people.\nBut you\u2019re going to have this recession turn into a genuine depression, and it will continue until the public debt, that is state local debts, written down; the mortgage debts written down; and the personal debts written down, starting with the student loans, the most obviously unpayable debt.\nAnd the choices, do you want to depression, or do you want the banks to be able to collect all the economic surplus for themselves? Well Donald Trump, supported unanimously by the Democratic Congress, says, \u201cWe want to protect the banks, not the population, not the economy. Let the economy shrink, as long as our constituents, the donor class, are able to avoid making a loss. Let\u2019s make the loss borne by the 99 percent, not our donor class.\u201d\n(21:17)\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah, and Michael, you mentioned something, getting back to the Federal Reserve and understanding how this whole system works. I mean frankly it seems to me to kind of be a house of cards.\nBut you mentioned this idea of Modern Monetary Theory and just kind of creating money out of nothing. Can you talk more about that? You know this is a term that\u2019s become more prominent, especially on the left: MMT, modern monetary theory.\nThere are socialists who argue in support of MMT and then there are others who are kind of skeptical of the whole notion that you can just print all this money to fund these social programs that you want to create, and that it won\u2019t create inflation.\nBut at the same time, you and other people point out that that\u2019s exactly how the economy already works. Where for instance, you want to fund a war, there\u2019s never \u2014 you know frequently when someone on the left asks for universal health care or free public education, members not only of the Republican Party but many neoliberal Democrats often say, \u201cWell yeah, where are you gonna get the money from?\u201d And the response of some of the MMT supporters is, \u201cWell we just fund the program, and we just create the money because we control the creation of the dollar.\u201d\nAnd we see that same attitude used actually by the Federal Reserve right now, but to bail out Wall Street. \u201cYeah we\u2019re just gonna print\u201d \u2014 they printed $1.5 trillion, and then just gave it, they just injected it right into Wall Street.\nSo does that not create inflation, or what exactly is happening economically there?\nI mean to me, it seems like a scam; it seems like totally a scam.\n(22:59)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Since 2008, you have had the greatest inflation of money in history. And you have also had the greatest inflation in history, but it\u2019s entirely asset price inflation.\nYou\u2019re absolutely right: the money has gone into the stock market and the bond market, to hold down bond prices, meaning you\u2019ve had the biggest bond boom in history. You\u2019ve had a huge stock market boom. But consumer prices have gone down. So here you have an enormous amount of money creation, and consumer prices and real wages have been drifting down.\nSo they are really two economies. The question is, are you going to create money for public purposes by spending it into the economy, on industry, agriculture, and the goods and service production and consumption economy, or are you going to put it into the financial economy?\nWell if you put a bank loan \u2014 the whole way of our banking system is that banks create credit. If you go into a bank and you take out a loan, you say, I\u2019m gonna borrow $5,000 for something. The banker doesn\u2019t go and say, let me see if we have any money to loan you; he says, okay I will write a loan on my computer. I will credit your deposit with $5,000, and you will sign this IOU, and we have an asset. And the asset is $5000, on which we\u2019re going to charge interest on what we pay you.\nSo it\u2019s just done by computer, on a balance sheet. And as long as money is created on a computer, the only cost is the electricity used to make that debt record.\nNow the banks, when they make a loan, they very rarely make loans just against \u2014 here\u2019s just free money. They say, okay if we\u2019re going to make a loan, well 80 percent of their loans are against real estate. So they say, in case you can\u2019t pay, you\u2019re pledging your real estate, the home you\u2019re buying, or the commercial building you\u2019re buying as collateral. So we\u2019ll lend you up to 80 percent, maybe 100 percent, of the value of what you\u2019re buying, and that\u2019s the collateral we have.\nSo we lend against collateral. Well if you lend the money against collateral to buy a building, or to buy stocks and bonds, which are the other collateral, then obviously this money you\u2019re creating to buy houses, or commercial real estate, or stocks and bonds are going to bid the price up.\nBanks don\u2019t give loans for people who say, I want to go shopping and buy more goods because I need the money. That may be a little bit, that\u2019s what credit cards are for, but that\u2019s a small portion of the overall money supply. So banks don\u2019t make loans to buy goods and services; they make loans to buy assets that obviously inflate the price of assets.\nAnd the more money that you pay for houses that are rising in price, or medical insurance, or stocks and bonds, to make a retirement income for your pension fund; the more money you pay for houses that are inflating in price because of bank credit, the less money you have to buy goods and services.\nSo actually the more money they create, the more consumer prices for goods and services fall. It\u2019s the exact opposite of the usual theory.\nI have on my website I have many articles about that, and I have something today in Counterpunch on that, it\u2019s on sort of how the economy works the opposite of the way the textbook says.\nNow unfortunately the left-wing doesn\u2019t really study finance and money much. The whole discussion of finance and money has been monopolized by the right-wing, so left-wingers think, they don\u2019t realize that they\u2019re picking up a kind of junk theory of monetary relations and debt relations that\u2019s all picked up from the right-wing of the political spectrum.\nIt\u2019s a kind of parallel universe. That\u2019s not how the economy really works, but in a way that sort of is easy to understand. And it\u2019s very easy to make an erroneous, oversimplified view of the world easy to understand.\nAnd when it\u2019s repeated again and again and again, in the media, the New York Times and MSNBC, people really think that, well, maybe that\u2019s how the world works \u2014 more money is going to push up prices, so we better not push for it, we better go along with trickle-down theory.\nAnd most of the left believes in trickle-down theory. The Democratic Party leadership is absolutely convinced, if you just give enough money to the top 1 percent, or 5 percent, or Wall Street, it\u2019ll all trickle down.\n(27:49)\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Well of course the Democratic Party is not the left.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: That\u2019s right, but it pretends to be. And it has crowded out the left. It has \u2014 you can see in the recent election primaries that its job is to protect the Republican Party from any critique by the left, interjecting itself in between the Republican Party and any possible reform movement.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Exactly.\n(28:20)\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Well they stood up really strongly against the bailout \u2014 I mean what was it, 96 to nothing? And in the voice vote, I was listening to the voice vote last night in the House; I didn\u2019t hear AOC\u2019s voice against it.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: They did a voice so that nobody \u2014 everybody could say, \u201cOh it wasn\u2019t me!\u201d\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: No, no! So you mentioned that foreclosure king Steve Mnnuchin gets like a $500 billion slush fund. I haven\u2019t heard much discussion about that. What will he do with this sort of opaque slush fund, and how will this \u2014 I mean it\u2019s a leading question, but how will this kind of reinforce or consolidate inequality for the next generation?\n(29:10)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well gee, I hope he gives some of it to Kamala Harris, who was the attorney general who let him do all of this, and who thoroughly backed him and led the foreclosure, was the iron fist behind his foreclosure program. So I\u2019m sure he\u2019ll press for Kamala to be the vice president on the ticket.\nThe Democrats have a problem. How can they guarantee that they have their candidate win? Their candidate is Donald Trump. How can they make sure that they have such a weak candidate that he\u2019s sure to lose to Donald Trump? And the choice is, we\u2019ll get a vice president that\u2019s so unpopular that they\u2019re sure to lose.\nNow it\u2019s a race between Kamala Harris and the Minnesota lady.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Klobuchar? The one who throws staplers at her staff. She seems very charming.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Uh, I don\u2019t know about that. But my wife can\u2019t even look at her on television. But I think that the pretense is that she\u2019ll help get Minnesota, as if Minnesotans, where I\u2019m from, are so dumb just to vote for somebody from there. But by getting Minnesota, they\u2019ll lose the whole rest of the country.\nSo I think she\u2019ll be the vice president, because that guarantees a Trump victory. And that will enable the Democrats to say, here \u2014 they\u2019ll have the president they want, that is for their donor class, but they can say, \u201cThat\u2019s not us; that\u2019s the Republicans.\u201d So that\u2019s the Democratic strategy.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Right, then they can raise loads of money for the \u201cResistance,\u201d and all of the outside think tanks. And that was the old Republican, William F. Buckley strategy, is we\u2019re better throwing rocks out side the building and raising a ton of money for the National Review than actually having to govern. And that seems like the Democratic strategy.\nBut I guess I was asking about how you see the economy transforming, because the Obama bailout sort of transformed it or consolidated the gig economy, where everyone has to work three to five jobs, and what was supposed to be a highly educated middle class is deeply in debt.\nWhere do you see it after this next tranche of stock market bailouts?\n(31:29)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Ok, let\u2019s look at three months from now. Smaller companies are going to be squeezed, because all of their expenses are going to go up. Small companies have had to run up debts, and they have all sorts of other problems, and their earnings, their prospective profits, are not going to look that good. Because there\u2019s not going to be a market for the things that they sell, because of the debt deflation that I talked about.\nSo what\u2019s going to happen? You\u2019re going to have a bonanza for private equity capital. The liquid, the 1 percent that have access to bank credit, and I have their own equity capital, are going to come in and pick up a lot of real estate that\u2019s going to be defaulted on \u2014 just like they did after Obama evicted his constituency, the mob with pitchforks, and evicted them.\nThey\u2019re going to pick up, Blackstone will pick up more real estate. Big companies are going to pick up small companies. So you\u2019re going to emerge with a highly monopolized economy, much more centralized.\nThe important thing to realize about free-market economics and libertarianism, is libertarians advocate central planning; the Chicago School of monetarists advocate central planning; the free marketers want central planning. The banks are the planners, not the government. They want to exclude the government from planning, except to the extent that they can take over the government, as Trump has done, and plan all of the income to be transferred to themselves from the rest of the economy.\nSo we\u2019re going to have a much more centrally planned by a coalition of monopolies and the government. In the 1930s, that was called fascism.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: It\u2019s what we call a \u201cpublic-private partnership\u201d or something.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Right.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Just really quickly, and maybe we can kind of transition after this, but you mentioned Blackstone. I think this is one of the key components of the bailout. They own so much stake in so many of the companies getting bailed out. Can you just describe their role and what they are?\n(33:38)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: It\u2019s appropriate that they were put in charge of bailout. So if they\u2019re the largest company buying up defaulted real estate and buying, picking up the weak \u2014 it\u2019s called moving assets from the weak hands to the strong \u2014 then they might as well be put in charge, because they\u2019re going to be the company doing all the grabbing. So of course they\u2019re in charge of it.\nIt\u2019s called grabitization. That was their word for privatization in the 1990s. So grabitization is I think a better word than public-private partnership. It\u2019s not really a partner; it\u2019s sort of a one-way partnership; there\u2019s one subsidiary partner. It\u2019s really financialization and grabitization.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Right, just the looting of state assets.\nBENJAMIN NORTON: Going back one step here, Michael, you were talking about the way that people should think about how the economy actually works. And I mentioned MMT. Can you kind of just walk through that again? Because you were talking about how actually, when the Fed creates \u2014 I mean really to me, as someone, I\u2019m definitely not an economics expert, I just don\u2019t understand really how this whole process works, because to me it just seems simply like, they\u2019re literally just creating money and just giving it to banks, and corporate elites, and rich people.\nI mean maybe that\u2019s what it is. But I don\u2019t understand, this is like the biggest scheme I can imagine, where the Federal Reserve is creating all of this money, printing \u2014 they\u2019re physically printing money is my understanding. And then they\u2019re just giving it to these banks, to bondholders. And then, but you said that what does is, instead of actually creating inflation, all that does is, if I understood correctly, it boosts the value of assets like real estate, while at the same time deflating wages and commodity prices.\nSo if that\u2019s the case, then how should people who are advocating for socialized programs like Medicare for All, free public education, and maternity leave, and childcare, and all of these programs that the Bernie Sanders campaign and movement have been advocating for, how should we talk about the way to pay for all of those programs, if the reality of the economy is that the Fed is printing trillions of dollars, and then just giving that cash to banks?\n(36:11)\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Well I think the reason you\u2019re having trouble understanding MMT is because what you described is what\u2019s happening, but you think, \u201cBut that\u2019s unfair!\u201d And there\u2019s a tendency to think, if it\u2019s unfair \u2014\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: It\u2019s not just unfair. It\u2019s the biggest scheme I can imagine. There\u2019s no other word other than just a con scheme.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, and the brain recoils from thinking, \u201cCan the government really be doing that to us?\u201d Well, yes it can.\nAnd just think of when, in the debates with Bernie, Sanders during the spring, you had Biden, and Klobuchar keep saying, \u2018What we\u2019re paying for Medicare-for-All will be $1 trillion over 10 years.\u2019 Well here the Fed can create $1.5 trillion in one week just to buy stocks.\nWhy is it okay for the Fed to create $1.5 trillion to buy stocks to prevent rich people from losing on their stocks, when it\u2019s not okay to print only $1 trillion to pay for free Medicare for the entire population? This is crazy!\nThe idea that only the rich should be allowed to print money for themselves, but the government should not be allowed to print money for any public purpose, any social purpose \u2014 not for medicine, not for schools, not for personal budgets, not for full employment \u2014 but only to give to the 1 percent. People hesitate to think that.\nThey think, \u2018It can\u2019t possibly be this bad.\u2019 But those of us who have worked on Wall Street, for 50, 60 years in my case, that\u2019s what the numbers show.\nAnd that\u2019s why you don\u2019t have the media talking about actual numbers. They talk about, you know, just words, and they use euphemisms, and it\u2019s the kind of Orwellian vocabulary, describing an inside-out world that they\u2019re talking about.\nThey will buy stock; they\u2019ll say we\u2019re going to buy a million shares of Boeing; they\u2019ll just write a check, and the check will be Federal Reserve, and people will get the money, and the Federal Reserve \u2014 you can create a deposit, just like a banker will write you a loan when you go in and borrow, and there will be a computer, the Fed can do the same thing.\nStephanie Kelton, my department chairman for many years at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, describes this. The University of Missouri\u2019s website, New Economic Perspectives has a description of it. So if people want to google either her, UMKC, or what I\u2019ve written, or Randall Wray at the Levy Institute, you\u2019ll get, it\u2019ll walk you through.\nAnd it\u2019s something that you have to \u2014 if you\u2019re not already thinking in terms of balance sheets, which most people don\u2019t, you have to sort of just do it again, read it again and again and again, and then all of a sudden, \u201cAh, now I get. It\u2019s a ripoff! It\u2019s created out of nothing. Now I get it.\u201d\nBENJAMIN NORTON: It\u2019s just a house of cards. To me it proves the kind \u2014 there used to be this kind of very blunt orthodox Marxist view that the economy strictly follows politics, and it seems to me this is a case where the economy is just created by politics.\nMICHAEL HUDSON: That\u2019s true, and that\u2019s not an un-Marxist position. Marx did distinguish between oligarchies and democracies, and finance capitalist economies and industrial capitalist economies.\nMAX BLUMENTHAL: Right. And the $17 billion for \u201curgent national security measures\u201d was straight into the pockets of Boeing, which had its 737 maxes falling out of the sky, and had been clamoring for this bailout for a long time.\nI mean you saw 3M, the maker of these masks which are suddenly unavailable, gained a total exemption from lawsuits, if the masks that it mass-produced now somehow failed.\nSo all of these things stuffed into the bailout were what industry and finance had been clamoring for for years. And they finally had the opportunity to do it.\n(Outro \u2013 40:38)\nBENJAMIN NORTON: All right, we\u2019re gonna take a pause there. That was the end of part one of our interview here with the economist Michael Hudson. He is a Wall Street financial analyst, a distinguished research professor of economics at the University of Missouri Kansas City, and of course the author of many books on economics.\nYou can find some of his work at\u00a0michael-hudson.com. We will link to that in the show notes. He has interviews with transcripts and articles.\nYou can also find some of his economics work and the work of some of his like-minded colleagues at the economics department at the University of Missouri Kansas City website. I will link to that as well in the show notes. You can find the show notes at\u00a0moderaterebels.com.\nIn part two of this episode, we\u2019re going to continue our discussion of the house of cards that is the international\nfinancial system, the economic system. And in the second part we\u2019re going to talk about his book \u201cSuper Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire.\u201d\nThis is an incredible book. You know here at Moderate Rebels, Max and I frequently talk about the political and military side of imperialism. Michael Hudson just spells out, in easy-to-understand terms, how imperialism works at an economic level, how the US government and the Treasury, through the backing of military force, force countries around the world to buy US bonds, Treasury bonds, and how there\u2019s basically just a con scheme where countries pay for their own US military occupation through buying US Treasury bonds.\nMichael Hudson explains that all in really simple terms. And we also talk about the rise of China, and how China does pose a so-called threat, in scare quotes, to not the American people but rather to the hegemony of the US financial system \u2014 and the main financial instruments, the weapons that the US uses to maintain that hegemony, the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, and the World Bank.\nAnd Hudson describes how, in his terms, the IMF, and the World Bank, specifically, are some of the most evil institutions that are really maintaining the American dictatorial, authoritarian chokehold on the global financial system.\nIf you want to support this program, Moderate Rebels, and the kind of independent interviews we do like this, giving a platform to some of these voices who you\u2019re never going to hear in mainstream corporate media, you can go to\u00a0Patreon.com. Please consider supporting us. And definitely join us in part. See you soon.\n"}