Extensive US Meddling in Malaysia's General Election Revealed

May 18, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - After now 2 years of accusations and constant headlines regarding allegations of still unproven "Russian influence" in the 2016 US presidential election, it is difficult to imagine that real political meddling or election interference anywhere around the globe could go unnoticed.


This is especially true regarding the Western corporate media who has portrayed itself as deeply aware of the unethical and undemocratic nature of one nation interfering in the elections of another.

Yet during Malaysia's recent general election - hailed by the Western media as a "historic win" for an opposition the Western media clearly favored - not a single story was written by media organizations like Reuters, AFP, CNN, the BBC and many others covering foreign interference during the elections.

Despite the lack of Western attention regarding foreign election meddling, it is revealed that Malaysia's opposition is almost entirely comprised of US government-funded fronts - ranging from opposition leaders themselves, to political street fronts and organizers, to media organizations posing as "independent" Malaysian journalists, and "rights advocates" leveraging human rights advocacy to support the opposition and compromise Malaysia's Barisan Nasional (BN) party.

Malaysia - a former British colony - faces the incremental expansion of US and European "soft power" within its borders - transforming it from a sovereign nation into a subordinate, modern Western client state.  As the US is attempting to do all throughout Southeast Asia from Cambodia to Thailand and the Philippines to Myanmar - the final goal is surrounding China with nations hostile to it politically, economically, and even militarily.

US-Funding and Support Propped up Malaysia's Opposition 

Malaysia's victorious opposition party - Pakatan Harapan (Alliance of Hope) - is openly headed by "de facto leader" Anwar Ibrahim.

Anwar Ibrahim was Chairman of the Development Committee of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1998, held lecturing positions at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, was a consultant for the World Bank, and a panelist at the Neo-Conservative dominated and Wall Street-funded National Endowment for Democracy's (NED) "Democracy Award" and a panelist at a NED donation ceremony


His service to Western institutions and the corporate-financier interests that created them - including NED - explains the unanimous support he has received for years throughout the entirety of the Western corporate media.

Before his imprisonment in 2015, he led the Bersih street front, a movement Western media sources like the Guardian cited as being pivotal to unseating the ruling BN party.

In a 2012 Guardian's article titled, "Anwar Ibrahim's moment of truth looms," it reported that:
Elections are expected to be called any time in the next nine months, and even those who do not openly back Anwar often support what he stands for: relief from an autocratic and out-of-touch government they say has ruled Malaysia for too long. In April many tens of thousands of Malaysians took to the nation's streets to demand electoral reform at rallies organised by Bersih, an opposition-backed coalition of civil-society groups whose name means "clean" in Malay. 
In another 2012 Guardian article titled, "Malaysian police fire teargas at electoral reform protesters," it admitted Anwar Ibrahim's role in leading Bersih:
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who many hope will win the upcoming election, rallied the enthusiastic crowds as one of Bersih's leaders, Ambiga Sreenevasan, said: "We all want change today." 
The above mentioned Ambiga Sreenevasan - who has played a key role in this year's general elections in Malaysia - has received extensive US government funding for her activities, including US State Department money from NED subsidiary, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), provided for training and support for Bersih specifically.


The NDI on its own website would describe its funding:
In July 2005, NDI organized a national-level workshop for party leaders on election reform. NDI has since conducted workshops across Malaysia to promote electoral reform in collaboration with Research for Social Advancement (REFSA), the secretariat for BERSIH. In 2006, NDI conducted a workshop for BERSIH that focused on pimproving the action plancs of each participating organization or political party. In 2007, NDI and BERSIH conducted a series of workshops in the politically neglected provinces of Sabah and Sarawak to educate previously disenfranchised political aspirants. 
In other words, the US State Department worked with Malaysia's opposition to build up its support base in an obvious effort to influence elections in their favor.

US-funded NGOs and Media 

NED's official website often erases, deletes, and replaces financial disclosures regarding its political and election meddling around the globe. During the recent Malaysian elections, its disclosure for activities in Malaysia was coincidentally offline and instead, an ambiguous "search" page was offered.

However, NED's activities in Malaysia are extensive - ranging from direct support for opposition parties as illustrated through its support of Bersih, to the funding of pro-opposition media fronts, legal firms dedicated to protecting opposition members and targeting BN politicians, and fronts posing as "human rights" advocates.



Israel Baits the Hook. Will Syria Bite?

May 12, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Israel has repeatedly struck Syria with missiles and rockets - the most recent exchange taking place after Israel claims "Iranian rockets" struck positions the Israeli military is illegally occupying in Syria's Golan Heights.


Headlines like the UK's Independent's, "Israel and Iran on brink of war after unprecedented Syria bombardment in response to alleged Golan Heights attack," attempt to portray the Israeli aggression as self-defense. The Independent, however, failed to produce any evidence confirming Israeli claims.

At face value, for Iran to inexplicably launch missiles at Israel, unprovoked and achieving no conceivable tactical, strategic, or political gain strains the credibility of Israel's narrative even further.

But it is perhaps published US policy designating Israel as a hostile provocateur tasked with expanding Washington's proxy war against Damascus that fully reveals the deadly and deceptive game Israel and the Western media are now playing.

For years, US policymakers admitted in their papers that the US desired regime change in Iran and sought to provoke a war to achieve it.

Israel Baits the Hook 

The corporate-funded Brookings Institution - whose sponsors include weapon manufacturers, oil corporations, banks, and defense contractors - published a 2009 paper titled, "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran," and would not only spell out the US desire for regime change in Iran but devise a number of options to achieve it.

These included sponsoring street protests in tandem with known terrorist organizations to wage a proxy war against Iran as was done to Libya and Syria. It also included provoking Iran to war - a war Brookings policymakers repeatedly admitted Iran seeks to avoid.

In regards to provoking a war with Iran based on a number of contrived cases, the paper would admit (emphasis added):
The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make. For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
The Brookings paper even admits that Iran may not retaliate even to the most overt provocations, including US or Israeli air raids and missiles attacks. The papers notes:
...because many Iranian leaders would likely be looking to emerge from the fighting in as advantageous a strategic position as possible, and because they would likely calculate that playing the victim would be their best route to that goal, they might well refrain from such retaliatory missiles attacks.
Brookings also admits that even massive airstrikes on Iran would not achieve US objectives, including regime change and that airstrikes would have to be part of a wider strategy including either a proxy war or a full-scale war led by the US.

More recent Brookings papers, like the 2012 "Assessing Options for Regime Change, Brookings Institution," would admit that Israel's role - particularly from its occupation of the Golan Heights - is to provide constant pressure on Syria to aid in regime change there. 

The paper notes (emphasis added): 
Israel’s intelligence services have a strong knowledge of Syria, as well as assets within the Syrian regime that could be used to subvert the regime’s power base and press for Asad’s removal. Israel could posture forces on or near the Golan Heights and, in so doing, might divert regime forces from suppressing the opposition. This posture may conjure fears in the Asad regime of a multi-front war, particularly if Turkey is willing to do the same on its border and if the Syrian opposition is being fed a steady diet of arms and training. Such a mobilization could perhaps persuade Syria’s military leadership to oust Asad in order to preserve itself. Advocates argue this additional pressure could tip the balance against Asad inside Syria, if other forces were aligned properly.
We can assume that the 2012 objective of taking pressure off "the opposition" has failed - since US-NATO-Gulf sponsored terrorists have been all but defeated everywhere inside Syria, save for border regions and territory occupied by US forces to the east. 

Instead, Israel's role now has switched - both from pressuring Syria, and from attempting to provoke Iran with attacks on Iranian territory - to provoking a wider war with Syria and its allies - including Iran - by launching provocations against Syria as described in the 2009 Brookings paper, "Which Path to Persia?" 

Despite Israel's serial provocations going unanswered for years by Syria, each attack is depicted by the Western media as defensive in nature. At the beginning of May when Syrian forces finally did retaliate, the Western media attempted to depict it as an unprovoked attack, citing Israeli military officials who claimed "Iranian missiles" were fired at the Golan Heights - rather than on-the-ground sources - both Israeli and Syrian who said otherwise.

Syria Isn't Biting 


Retaliation by Syria, however, has been proportional and reluctant.


US Regime Change Targets Thailand

May 12, 2018 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - While US-led regime change in Syria continues to make headlines, it is important for the public to be aware and stay ahead of other US-led campaigns to target, destabilise and overthrow the political orders of other nations around the globe.


Observers of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine have warned about potential violence as the US continues arming its proxies and their dangerous ultra-right militant groups in Kiev. Analysts have also been covering US-sponsored political destabilisation being fomented in Armenia.

US funding and support alongside its Canadian and European allies in Southeast Asia is also on the rise. Protests planned throughout May in Thailand's capital Bangkok are openly aimed at regime change.

US regime change operations can be broken down into several categories; Western media operations, US-funded local media operations, US-backed political parties, US-backed street fronts, US-funded academia and US-funded "human rights" advocates. Identifying them before Thailand's political crisis grabs international headlines provides analysts and commentators with a guide to facts that will almost certainly be omitted from mainstream reporting.

Western Media Operations in Thailand 

The centre of Western media operations in Thailand is best represented by the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT). It serves as the physical headquarters of many of the West's most prominent media organisations including:
British state media front, the BBC;
Reuters;
NBC;
Qatar state media outlet Al Jazeera;
the Financial Times;
NBC;
ABC and;
many others.  

Reuters and the BBC in particular pursue a transparently bias agenda in support of political destabilisation and regime change in Thailand. Their narratives are unquestioningly repeated throughout many other US and European media platforms, big and small.


Their role in covering up the abuses of the previous and now ousted Thai regime of Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck Shinawatra while attacking and undermining the institutions that finally began dismantling their political machinery has played a central role in perpetuating Thailand's ongoing political crisis.

In particular, the BBC's Jonathan Head and Reuters' Panu Wongcha-um openly and regularly consort with and promote opposition figures while denying critics and opposing views from being featured within articles and reports appearing on their respective networks. Many other members of supposedly reputable Western media organisations, while less obvious and less prolific, follow a similar and predictable pattern.   

In addition to serving as a central hub for these organisations' offices, the FCCT includes a swank downtown club and bar where events are hosted primarily to promote US and European interests and impose supposed Western values upon the Southeast Asian region, often done under the guise of promoting "human rights" and "democracy."

The club regularly conducts training and indoctrination activities, many of which are funded by Western governments and Western corporate foundations like convicted financial criminal George Soros' Open Society.

Despite the FCCT categorically denying accusations that it has received extensive funding from Open Society, evidence has emerged that years of training programmes helped stand up cadres of pro-Western propagandists to help dominate public perception and narratives both in the region and around the world.

At least one alumni of this Soros-FCCT training programme now holds a senior position in Myanmar's new government.

The FCCT also regularly uses its prominence and well-funded domination of public discourse to promote US and European-funded opposition groups ranging from foreign-funded fronts posing as "nongovernmental organisations" (NGOs) to political parties and opposition groups working with foreign money and support to overthrow the current Thai political order.

US-funded Local Media Operations and "NGOs" 

The US State Department through organisations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its many subsidiaries and partners (including Open Society) fund myriad fronts posing as "local" and "independent" media organisations and "rights" advocates in Thailand.

These includes:

Prachatai;
Isaan Record;
Thai Netizens Network;
Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR);
Human Rights Lawyers Association;
ENLAWTHAI;
Cafe Democracy;
Book (re)Public;
Media Inside Out;
Makhampom Foundation;
Fortify Rights;
Human Rights Thailand;
Amnesty International Thailand;
Thai Poor Act and;
Cross Cultural Foundation 

These organisations have in recent months coordinated together to organise and promote anti-government protests. And as their activities continue to increasingly shift into open sedition, NED's website has been redesigned to further conceal US government funding to these fronts.

Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, funded by the US NED and whose co-founder Sirikan "June" Charoensiri was recently awarded the US State Department's "Women of Courage Award" presented by US First Lady Melania Trump, not only promotes and defends members of anti-government protests, its own members help organise and lead them.

TLHR's Anon Nampa is one of the core members of recent anti-government protests demanding regime change in Thailand, begging the question of whether or not US funding is also being channelled directly into the protests themselves.


America Planned to Break "Iran Nuclear Deal" Years Before Signing It

May 9, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The so-called "Iran Nuclear Deal," officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed on 2015 now under threat by a backtracking US - was billed at the time of its signing as a historic agreement that provided a path forward towards peace between the US and Iran. 


The BBC in an October 2017 article titled, "Iran nuclear deal: Key details," would even go as far as claiming: 
The 2015 nuclear deal struck between Iran and six world powers - the US, UK, Russia, France, China, and Germany - was the signature foreign policy achievement of Barack Obama's presidency.

The initial framework lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to the country's controversial nuclear energy programme, which international powers feared Iran would use to create a nuclear weapon.
But while the agreement has been hailed as a "signature foreign policy achievement," it was, before even its inception - not a vehicle towards peace - but a cynical ploy to justify future war.

The United States had never intended to allow Iran to rise as a counterbalancing regional power in the Middle East or Central Asia nor escape from under the constant threat of US military intervention or the crippling sanctions it has targeted the nation with for decades.

The enduring presence of US military forces in Afghanistan transcending now three presidencies and nearly two decades was one of two bookends placed around the rise of Iran.

The other has been a war waged in the Middle East by the US and its allies against Iraq beginning in 2003 and spreading to Syria and Yemen by 2011.

Despite the numerous proxy wars Washington is waging against Tehran, US policymakers had determined years ago the necessity to justify a wider and more direct confrontation with Tehran itself.

A Conspiracy to Offer Then Sabotage an Iran Peace Deal is Stated US Policy 

Far from conjecture, plans by US policymakers have been documented and are available freely to the public from among the various corporate-financier funded policy think tanks that produce US foreign and domestic policy.

Prominent among these is the Brookings Institution whose corporate-financier sponsors include arms manufacturers Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, energy giants Exxon Mobil, BP, Aramco, and Chevron, and financiers including Bank of America, Citi, and numerous advisers and trustees provided by Goldman Sachs. 



In their 2009 paper, "Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran" (PDF), Brookings policymakers would first admit the complications of US-led military aggression against Iran (emphasis added): 
...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. 
The paper then lays out how the US could appear to the world as a peacemaker and depict Iran's betrayal of a "very good deal" as the pretext for an otherwise reluctant US military response (emphasis added): 
The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offerone so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
And from 2009 onward, this is precisely what the United States set out to achieve. First with US President Barack Obama's signing of the 2015 JCPOA, up to and including current US President Donald Trump's attempts to backtrack from it based on fabricated claims Iran failed to honor the agreement.

America's Clumsy Warmongering 

Perhaps unbeknownst to Brookings policymakers in 2009 was the eventuality of Western propaganda unraveling in the face of growing opposition in the form of both national and alternative media organizations.

Today, attempts to cite "chemical weapons attacks" and recycle 2003 "weapons of mass destruction" narratives to fan the flames of America's multiple and perpetual global conflicts are failing to persuade increasingly skeptical audiences.

The "game" - as Brookings policymakers called their attempts to covertly provoke war with Iran in their 2009 paper - they had hoped to hide from public view, is now exposed - dissected and displayed by independent analysts and national media organizations with unprecedented reach into global audiences once solely dominated by Western propaganda.


US Human Rights Racket Defends Thailand's Joseph Goebbels

May 6, 2018 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - The US and European-funded human rights racket comprised of organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and myriad fronts funded by the United States government via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have helped promote some of the worst human rights abuses in recent human history.


This includes their role in selling the US-led NATO assault on Libya in 2011 and their continued role in justifying US-led military intervention in Syria. "Human rights" have been cited by the US and its European partners during NATO's assault on Serbia, among the first of the so-called "humanitarian wars."

Of course, by citing "human rights," the US is able to paper over the very inhumanity the opposition groups it supports are carrying out, or the injustice of the destabilisation and destruction the US is attempting to perpetrate.

And while Washington's systematic destruction of the Middle East has taken centre stage among international headlines, the US is also using similar tactics to pressure nations elsewhere around the globe, including Southeast Asia's Thailand.

To the West, An "Activist" 

When Somyot Prueksakasemsuk was released from prison after some 7 years behind bars, the US and European media and their partners in Thailand's media hailed the release of what they portrayed as an "activist" and "political prisoner."

The Reuters in its article titled, "Thailand frees former magazine editor previously imprisoned for insulting monarchy," would claim:
A high profile Thai activist and former magazine editor imprisoned for insulting the country’s monarchy vowed on Monday to keep pressing his call for democracy after he was released from prison.
The article would also mention:
Mr Somyot, who was the editor of a political magazine, Voice of Taksin, had been imprisoned in 2013 for 10 years under Thailand’s lese-majeste law, but the Supreme Court reduced his sentence in 2017.
For unwitting readers, they would suspect this was another simple case of a draconian dictatorship in the developing world unjustly incarcerating progressive political activists.

In reality, Reuters intentionally omitted any details about the publication Somyot was the editor of, "Voice of Taksin."

The truth Reuters intentionally chose not to report is that "Voice of Taksin" was published on behalf of billionaire and ex-Thai prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.

The publication itself regularly featured not only signed letters handwritten by Thaksin Shinawatra himself, but was also packed with threats of violence, calls for terrorism and armed insurrection, direct and indirect threats against Thailand's head of state (the nation's constitutional monarchy) and specific threats aimed at intimidating Thaksin Shinawatra's opponents.

Shinawatra, ousted from power in 2006 after serial abuses of power including the systematic surrendering of Thailand's sovereignty to Western interests, has been supported ever since by an army of US-based lobbyists, US and European government-funded fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) and political opposition groups receiving political, financial and material support from the West in a bid to overthrow Thailand's political order and transform the pivotal Southeast Asian nation into a US client state.

Somyot's publication distributed on behalf of Shinawatra, included vitriol that would not be tolerated in even the most liberal North American and European societies. Despite this fact, US and European media organisations have intentionally and systematically covered up the true nature of the publication for years and have defended Somyot disingenuously as an "activist."

Thaksin's Joseph Goebbels

In a February 15, 2010 issue, Somyot's publication would feature the names, pictures, addresses and phone numbers of all judges scheduled to decide on an upcoming court ruling over the seizure of Shinawatra's assets, a court case lingering since his ouster from power in 2006. The article followed other pieces on punishing judges, the Nuremberg trials and assassinations with the implicit implication that these judges too should be punished and/or assassinated.

Image: The pictures, names, telephone numbers and addresses of judges were published in Somyot's "Voice of Taksin" magazine in between articles about judges throughout history being punished and assassinated. 
Despite the threats, on February 26, 2010 the court moved forward with the seizure of 46 billion Thai baht, the Guardian would report.

In a bid to overthrow both the Thai government at the time, and the ruling political order including both the military and the monarchy, Thaksin Shinawatra moved forward with plans for armed insurrection backed by his US and European sponsors and their respective media organisations.

Image: Somyot's publication would depict cartoon-like images of Shinawatra's militant leaders shooting war weapons at key figures in the Thai government and military. On the streets of Bangkok, Shinawatra would then employ militants wielding M79 grenade launchers, assault rifles and bombs leading to bloodshed claiming nearly 100 lives. 

Somyot's publication would help prepare the rhetorical grounds for this upcoming bloodshed, with imagery of Shinawatra's militant leaders shooting grenades at prominent leaders in the Thai government opposed to Shinawatra featured with the open implication of targeted assassinations.

In a March issue, Somyot's publication advocated nationwide arson, which would in fact be carried out one month later, destroying sections of Bangkok and provincial halls upcountry and leading to several deaths of Shinawatra's own supporters trapped while looting torched shopping centres.

Image: A call for arson in 2010.
In an April 18, 2010 issue, after Shinawatra had fielded some 300 armed militants among several thousand supporters he bussed into the Thai capital of Bangkok to oppose the above mentioned court seizure of his assets, Somyot's "Voice of Taksin" publication announced and promoted the beginning of armed insurrection.

Fortunately for Thailand, its security forces were able to successfully restore order to the city, but not after nearly 100 were killed in the ensuing gunfights and campaign of city-wide arson (for which Somyot's publication advocated) that followed Somyot's call to arms. For Shinawatra, his dreams of armed insurrection did not extend beyond the mercenaries he was able to hire and arm.

Despite the open threats and admissions of carrying out violence published in Somyot's "Voice of Taksin" magazine, fully endorsed by Thaksin Shinawatra himself, the Western media has ever since depicted the 2010 violence as a brutal "military crackdown."

Clearly when Somyot was finally imprisoned in 2013, his incarceration was warranted. Serial threats of violence toward individuals, organisations and particularly the government and head of state in any nation is punishable by many years in prison. In the United States, for example, penalties ranging from 5 years to 20 years in prison await those communicating threats of violence.

However, a 2013 Reuters article would decry the sentence and cite "condemnation from international rights groups and the European Union." While the 2013 Reuters article would admit Somyot's publication was written on behalf of Shinawatra, it did not discuss the nature of the publication.

Image: Somyot's publication advocated arson and terrorism that translated directly into real deaths and city-wide destruction.  
Instead, it depicted criticism of Thailand's head of state as merely an expression of free speech, ignoring the bloody imagery and references to historical episodes of regicide included in virtually every issue of "Voice of Taksin."

Reuters would cite Human Rights Watch, David Streckfuss, the European Union Delegation to Thailand and US-trained and funded "academic" Sawatree Suksri. It is unlikely these organisations or individuals did not possess copies of Somyot's publication, and even failing to read its contents in native Thai, not notice the disturbing and very straight forward violent imagery used throughout its pages.

They were fully aware of the nature of Somyot's crimes, and intentionally ignored it, leveraging "human rights" rhetoric to defend and cover up his criminality.