Dragonette Human Reactor feat. Polina Only You feat. Haley Call Out feat. Mindy Gledhill To The Skies feat. Polina Dont Wait feat.
Homeland Security Advisory Council Members
Haley Empty Streets feat. Mindy Gledhill Eyes feat. Neon Trees Lessons In Love feat. Skrillex Lick It feat. Haley Llove feat. Marcus Bently Let Me Go feat. Quadron Waste Love feat. Dada Life with Dan Black Kaskade's ICE Mix 9 of 10 10 of 10 10 of 10 9 How Long feat. Skylar Grey Room for Happiness feat. Love Mix Let It Go feat. Katfyr Lights E. Mike Diva Ready to Go Crazy Hello Manners Petrified Too Late Sunrise feat. Sara Kay Double Vision Stars feat. Stephen Richards PLC. Black Thought H!
Jenkins Devils Alex S. Sophie Jean What's Below feat. Imn Fall into Sleep Rain. The Kids Aren't Alright Original Prankster Want You Bad Defy You Hit That Can't Get My Head Around You Hammerhead Hammerhead Edit Session We Are One Kick Him When He's Down Take It Like a Man Get It Right 6 of 12 7 of 12 8 of 12 9 of 12 10 of 12 11 of 12 12 of 12 1 of 14 2 of 14 3 of 14 4 of 14 5 of 14 6 of 14 7 of 14 8 of 14 9 of 14 10 of 14 11 of 14 12 of 14 13 of 14 14 of 14 1 of 3 2 of 3 3 of 3 1 of 11 2 of 11 3 of 11 4 of 11 5 of 11 6 of 11 7 of 11 8 of 11 9 of 11 10 of 11 11 of 11 1 of 3 2 of 3 3 of 3 1 of 3 2 of 3 3 of 3 1 of 4 2 of 4 3 of 4 4 of 4 1 of 12 2 of 12 Dirty Magic Hypodermic Burn It Up No Hero L.
Eden Remix Dreaming Limitless Slide 1 2 1 6 9 of 22 3 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 M. Reasons feat. Indecision 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 of 3 15 of 20 15 28 10 of 13 11 of 13 8 of 13 14 29 14 of 20 13 of 16 2 13 7 of 13 Scrotal Torment Two Ton Paperweight Death Burger!
Pluh Beer!! ChaseMonkey Murdok Remix Comeback 15 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 3 of 13 1 of 12 2 of 12 3 of 12 4 of 12 5 of 12 6 of 12 7 of 12 8 of 12 9 of 12 10 of 12 11 of 12 12 of 12 1 of 13 2 of 13 3 of 13 4 of 13 5 of 13 6 of 13 7 of 13 8 of 13 9 of 13 10 of 13 11 of 13 12 of 13 13 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 Cerulean Blue Pump It! Jack Mushroom Breez Feat.
Sirah Original Mix Kyoto feat. Sirah Original Mix Summit feat. Ellie Goulding Original Mix Signal Concentrical 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 of 7 2 of 7 3 of 7 4 of 7 5 of 7 6 of 7 7 of 7 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 Equinox Seven Years Gypsyhook Mora Copaface2 Gypsyhook Vs. Dmndays Mora Vs. The Toxic Avenger Mora Vs. Lazrtag Copaface2 Vs. Penny Scatta Feat.
Sirah Original Mix Weekends!!! He was "totally self-absorbed, totally amoral and a danger to himself and anybody around him," Samuel F. Hart, a retired United States ambassador who first met him in Uruguay in the s, said in a State Department oral history. Hart said, "until he hit Watergate. Everette Howard Hunt Jr. He worked as a wartime intelligence officer in China, a postwar spokesman for the Marshall Plan in Paris and a screenwriter in Hollywood. Warner Brothers had just bought his fourth novel, "Bimini Run," a thriller set in the Caribbean, when he joined the fledgling C.
Hunt was immediately assigned to train C. He moved to Mexico City, where he became chief of station in He brought along another rookie C. Buckley Jr. Hunt and his wife, the former Dorothy L. In , Mr. Hunt helped plan the covert operation that overthrew the elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz. Hunt said in a CNN documentary on the cold war, "to terrify Arbenz particularly, to terrify his troops. By the time of the coup, Mr. Hunt had been removed from responsibility.
He moved on to uneventful stints in Japan and Uruguay. Not until was Mr. Hunt involved in an operation that changed history. The C. Eisenhower and his successor, President John F. Kennedy, to alter or abolish the revolutionary government of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Hunt's assignment was to create a provisional Cuban government that would be ready to take power once the C. He fared no better than the paramilitary planners who had vowed to defeat Mr.
Castro's 60,man army with a 1,strong brigade. The careers of the American intelligence officers who planned and executed the Bay of Pigs debacle in April were damaged or destroyed, as was the C. Hunt spent most of the s carrying out desultory propaganda tasks at the agency, among them running news services and subsidizing books that fell stillborn from the press. He funneled his talent into writing paperback spy novels.
His works followed a formula of sex and intrigue but offered flashes of insight. He retired from the C. Then, a year later, came a call from the White House. A fellow Brown alumnus, Charles W. Colson, special counsel to President Nixon, hired Mr. Hunt to carry out acts of political warfare. Within weeks, Mr. Hunt was in charge of a subterranean department of dirty tricks. He went back to C. He then burglarized the Beverly Hills office of a psychiatrist treating Dr. Daniel J. Ellsberg, a former national-security aide who had leaked a copy of the Pentagon Papers, a classified history of the Vietnam War, to The New York Times.
Hunt was looking for information to discredit Mr. When the break-in became public knowledge two years later, the federal case against Mr. Ellsberg on charges of leaking classified information was dismissed. Hunt, in league with another recently retired C. The job was botched, and the team went in again to remove the taps. The burglars were arrested on the night of June 17, One had Mr. Hunt's name and a White House telephone number in his address book, a classic failure of espionage tradecraft that proved the first thread of the web that ensnarled the president.
The final blow that drove Nixon from office was one of the secret White House recordings he made -- the "smoking gun" tape -- in which he vowed to order the C. By the time Nixon resigned in August , Mr. Hunt was a federal prisoner. Standing before the judge who imprisoned him, he said he was "alone, nearly friendless, ridiculed, disgraced, destroyed as a man. Freed from prison just before his 60th birthday, Mr. Hunt moved to Miami, where he met and married his second wife, Laura, a schoolteacher, and started a second family. John Hunt of Eureka, Calif.
According to Buckley's son, Christopher, Hunt informed Buckley that, were he to die, Buckley would be contacted by a person he did not know who had a key to a safe deposit box, which the two of them would open together. When Christopher asked his father what the box might have contained, Buckley replied, "I don't know exactly, but it could theoretically involve information that could lead to the impeachment of the president of the United States.
H oward Hunt and Frank Sturgis became notorious in with the start of the Watergate scandal. Both men plead guilty on a variety of charges in January of Frank Sturgis was arrested by police at the Democratic party headquarters on the sixth floor of Watergate. He was found with four other men, wearing rubber surgical gloves, unarmed, and carrying extensive photographic equipment and electronic surveillance devices. He was officially charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other conversations. Sturgis was also apart of the Miami Cuban exile community and involved in various "adventures" relating to Cuba which he believed were organized and financed by the CIA.
Howard Hunt was one of the "plumbers" and a former White House aid during the Watergate scandal. He was directly linked to Sturgis and the other four men that broke into Watergate. He was charged with burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping. He served 33 months. Hunt was also a former employee of the CIA, serving from He typically performed work relating to propaganda operations in foreign countries. To say this punched all kinds of buttons among JFK conspiracy theorists would be an understatement.
- Michael Arruda | Jason Harris Promotions;
- Ty's Music Collection (6!12!12) - avijihybihyl.ga.
- Wikileaks Must Be Stopped | Hacker News.
- Pambazuka News - Yash Tandon.
- Dept of Homeland Security, Advisory Board.
It was claimed that they were two of the three tramps photographed on the day of the assassination. By , when the Rockefeller Commission was established to investigate the domestic activities of the CIA, Hunt and Sturgis were chief suspects in the assassination of John F.
It was stated, for example, the E. In connection with those duties, it was further alleged that Hunt was instrumental in organizing the Cuban Revolutionary Council and that the Cuban Revolutionary Council had an office in New Orleans. Finally, it was claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald lived in New Orleans from April to September , and that a pamphlet prepared and distributed by Oswald on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee during that period indicated that the office of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee was situated in building which was also the address of the New Orleans office of the Cuban Revolutionary Council.
About this book
It was therefore implied that Hunt could have had contact with Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans during the spring or summer of No evidence was presented that Hunt ever met Oswald, or that he was ever in New Orleans in , or that he had any contact with any New Orleans office of the Cuban Revolutionary Council.
Hunt's employment record with the CIA indicated that he had no duties involving contacts with Cuban exile elements or organizations inside or outside the United States after the early months of This was more that two years before Oswald went to New Orleans in April and more than a year before Oswald returned to the United States from the Soviet Union, where he had lived for almost three years. An example of the testimony relating to an alleged relationship between the CIA and Jack Ruby consisted of a statement that Frank Sturgis was engaged in a series of revolutionary activities among Cuban exiles in the United States in the 's and 's and that the CIA also sponsored and organized anti-Castro activities among Cuban exiles in the United States in and the early 's.
It was further stated that someone once reported to the FBI that Jack Ruby had engaged in supplying arms to persons in Cuba in the early 's in association with a former Cuban President, Carlos Prio, and that Frank Sturgis also had connections with Carlos Prio during the 's and 's. In addition, it was alleged that Frank Sturgis was at one time before he escaped from Cuba in June a director of gambling and gaming establishments in Havana for the Castro government, and that in August or September, , Jack Ruby made a trip to Havana at the invitation of a friend who had interests in gambling establishments in Cuba and the United States.
Moreover, both Sturgis and Ruby were alleged to have had connections with underground figures who had interests in the United States and Cuba. From this group of allegations, the witness inferred that Sturgis and Ruby could have met and known each other--although no actual evidence was presented to show that Ruby or Sturgis ever met each other. Even if the individual items contained in the foregoing recitations were assumed to be true, it was concluded that the inferences drawn must be considered farfetched speculation insofar as they purport to show a connection between the CIA and either Oswald or Ruby.
Even in absence of denials by living persons that such a connection existed, no weight could be assigned to such testimony. Moreover, Sturgis was never an employee or agent of the CIA. A witness, a telephone caller, and a mail correspondent tendered additional information of the same nature. None of it was more than a strained effort to draw inferences of conspiracy from the facts which would not fairly support the inferences.
A CIA involvement in the assassination was implied by the witness, for example, from the fact that the Mayor of Dallas at that time was a brother of a CIA official who had been involved in the planning of the Bay of Pigs operation in Cuba several years previously, and from the fact that President Kennedy reportedly blamed the CIA for the Bay of Pigs failure.
The same witness testified that E. Hunt's service in Mexico City, however, was twelve years earlier--in and and his only other CIA duty in Mexico covered only a few weeks in Hunt and Sturgis categorically denied that they had ever met or known Oswald or Ruby. They further denied that they ever had any connection whatever with either Oswald or Ruby. Howard Hunt. Before his death in January , CIA master spy and convicted Watergate conspirator Howard Hunt confessed to being peripherally involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, and named several other participants.
In notes and conversations with his son Saint John, and in an audiotape he created in to be played after his death, Hunt described being invited into the "big event" at a Miami safehouse in Others named in the plot:. Hunt says he declined active participation but did have a "benchwarmer" role in the plot. In the tape excerpt made available so far, Hunt made no claims which would prove his allegations.
However, the people he names have all been suspects in the assassination for some time, and many of them worked closely together in anti-Castro operations. In the "smoking gun" tape which helped drive him from office, President Richard Nixon said this of Hunt: "You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning forward and shouting, 'The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this.
I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs'. Hunt's story has been challenged due to its lack of corroboration, its internal inconsistencies and Hunt's failure to provide any details from his activities in which would support it. Some will accept Hunt's confession as the truth. For others, Hunt's naming of LBJ at the top of the plot will be seen as a bit of "spin" to present the assassination as a "rogue operation," deflecting attention from higher-level sponsors within the government. For that matter, Hunt was not necessarily in a position to know the ultimate authors of the conspiracy.
For others, the confession will be dismissed, seen as a parting gift to a ne'er-do-well son or perhaps a "last laugh" on America from a man who hated Kennedy with a passion. Moscow Exile says: September 15, at am. Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters.
I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" — Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof — primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof — primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's pathetic election defeat to Trump, and CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers. The promotion of the alleged Russian election hacking in certain media may have grown from the successful attempts of U.
Several other international news site published additional material though the mass of NSA papers that Snowden allegedly acquired never saw public daylight. In July the Guardian was forced by the British government to destroy its copy of the Snowden archive. Together they invested in a Canadian quantum computing company. It took up to February until the new organization launched its first site, the Intercept. Only a few NSA stories appeared on it. The Intercept is a rather mediocre site. Its management is said to be chaotic. It publishes few stories of interests and one might ask if it ever was meant to be a serious outlet.
Omidyar has worked, together with the U. He had strong ties with the Obama administration. Snowden had copies of some 20, to 58, NSA files.
Only 1, have been published. The Snowden papers were practically privatized into trusted hands of Silicon Valley billionaires with ties to the various secret services and the Obama administration. The motivation for the Bezos and Omidyar to do this is not clear. The Washington Post buy is chump-change for him. But the use of billionaires to mask what are in fact intelligence operations is not new. The Ford Foundation has for decades been a CIA front , George Soros' Open Society foundation is one of the premier "regime change" operations, well versed in instigating "color revolutions".
It would have been reasonable if the cooperation between those billionaires and the intelligence agencies had stopped after the NSA leaks were secured. But it seems that strong cooperation of the Bezos and Omidyar outlets with the CIA and others continue. The Intercept burned a intelligence leaker, Realty Winner, who had trusted its journalists to keep her protected. It smeared the President of Syria as neo-nazi based on an intentional? Despite its pretense of "fearless, adversarial journalism" it hardly deviates from U.
The Washington Post , which has a much bigger reach, is the prime outlet for "Russia-gate", the false claims by parts of the U. Just today it provides two stories and one op-ed that lack any factual evidence for the anti-Russian claims made in them. In Kremlin trolls burned across the Internet as Washington debated options the writers insinuate that some anonymous writer who published a few pieces on Counterpunch and elsewhere was part of a Russian operation. They provide zero evidence to back that claim up. Whatever that writer wrote see list at end was run of the mill stuff that had little to do with the U.
The piece then dives into various cyber-operations against Russia that the Obama and Trump administration have discussed. What the story lists as alleged GRU puppet postings reads like normal internet talk of people opposed to the fascist regime change in Kiev. The Washington Post leaves completely unexplained who handed it an alleged GRU report from , who classified it and how, if at all, it verified its veracity. To me the piece and the assertions therein have a strong odor of bovine excrement.
An op-ed in the very same Washington Post has a similar smell. It is written by the intelligence flunkies Michael Morell and Mike Rogers. The op-ed which includes a serious misunderstanding of "deterrence" asserts that Russia never stopped its cyberattacks on the United States :. The author link to this page which claims to list Twitter hashtags that are currently used by Russian influence agents. Apparently the top issue Russia's influence agents currently promote is " merrychristmas". When the authors claim Russian operations are "more numerous than can be listed here" they practically admit that they have not even one plausible operation they could cite.
Its simply obfuscation to justify their call for more political and military measures against Russia. This again to distract from the real reasons Clinton lost the election and to introduce a new Cold War for the benefit of weapon producers and U. G , Dec 26, PM 1. If what you allege is true about Greenwald and the Intercept, then why hasn't Snowden spoken out about it yet? My understanding is that early on, Snowden placed his trove of documents in the exclusive care of Glenn Greenwald and his associates. Although Snowden has since become a public figure in his own right, and his opinions on state-security events and issues are solicited, as far as I know Snowden has no direct responsibility for managing the material he downloaded.
Snowden presumably took pains to acquire items of interest in his cache as he accumulated classified material, but even if he has extraordinary powers of recall he may not remember precisely what remains unreleased. FWIW, I was troubled from the first by one of the mainstays of GG's defense, or rationale, when it became clear that he was the principal, and perhaps sole, executive "curator" of the Snowden material. In order to reassure and placate nervous "patriots"-- and GG calls himself a "patriot"-- he repeatedly emphasized that great care was being taken to vet the leaked information before releasing it.
GG's role as whistleblower Snowden's enabler and facilitator was generally hailed uncritically by progressive-liberals and civil-liberties advocates, to a point where public statements that should've raised skeptical doubts and questions were generally passively accepted by complacent admirers. Bad enough that Greenwald was requiring the world to exclusively trust his judgment in deciding what should be released and what shouldn't.
He was also making it clear that he wasn't exactly committed to disclosing "the worst" of the material "though the heavens fall". In effect, as GG was telling the world that he could be trusted to manage the leaked information responsibly, he was also telling the world that it simply had to trust his judgment in this crucial role. To me, there was clearly a subliminal message for both Western authorities and the public: don't worry, we're conscientious, patriotic leak-masters.
It's a going concern, which lends itself much more to the "modified limited hangout" approach than freely tossing all the biggest eggs out of the basket. GG found an opportunity to augment his rising career as a self-made investigative journalist and civil-liberties advocate. Now he's sitting pretty, the celebrity point man for a lucrative modified limited hangout enterprise. What is wrong with this picture?
He regularly tweets, gives online talks and publishes on his own. He has not used either Poitras or Greenwald as a means of communication for years. And he has never dropped a single hint of being disappointed or frustrated with how documents and info was published. What we see here is these bastions of establishment thinking in the USA promoting "objective reality" as partisan - i. This divorce from objectivity is a symptom of the overall decline of American institutions, an indicate a future hard, rather than soft, landing near the end of the road.
I believe that Snowden does have a job in Russia and possibly this job does not permit him the time to say any more than what he currently tweets or says online. B has said that its management is chaotic which could suggest among other things that Greenwald himself is dissatisfied with its current operation. I assume Russia loves the idea of the US Intel agencies being embarrassed. Snowden speaks his mind about plenty of domestic and international events in US. I have never seen him act like he's being censored. There is the possibility also that Snowden trusts or trusted Greenwald to know what to do with the NSA documents.
Perhaps that trust was naively placed - we do not know. Snowden is "the squirrel over there! Compared to Assange, who is being slow-martyred in captivity, Snowden is a boy playing with gadgets. Why did not Snowden make certain a copy of his theft went to Wikileaks? That would have been insurance. Since he did not, it all could be just a distraction. What is known about the Snowden affair is we received proof of what we knew.
Not much else. For those who didn't know, they received news. We connect the dots and it's always the same picture. It was this way in the 60s,70s,80s,90s, 00s, and this forlorn decade. Fascism more bold each decade. Billionaires and millionaires have always been in the mix. Sorry I can't help with your questions, but I concur with your hunches about the creation of Intercept. I was a regular reader and commenter at Glenn Greenwald's GG "Unclaimed Territory" blog, which was absorbed into the progressive-liberal lite Salon site.
I even had a few brief but cordial e-mail exchanges with GG, since I diligently sent him requested private e-mail alerts to grammatical and syntactic errors in his prolific posts. Not me; I knew better than to push his buttons. Also, GG adopted, or independently reached, what I call the "Chomsky Bubble" stance-- essentially, a sophisticated rationalization that amounts to "nothing to see here, move along. It's too late to blithely conclude "In short Grieved , Dec 26, PM In my opinion, what the journalists did worked. And Snowden destroyed his own access to the materials. My guess - purely a guess - is that Snowden was, and remains, quite satisfied with what happened and what got published.
In this matter, I'd call his entire effort a tremendous success. Snowden's face and story went around the world and shook things up. Paradigms came crashing down. In my own personal case, the Snowden material showed me the scale of US adventurism, and the vast audacity of its criminality. It took a change in the paradigms of the scale of corruption to open up that possibility for me.
I'm sure it's done similar things for millions of people. Snowden was one of the few events I can think of that actually played out in the mainstream before anyone figured out how to shut it down - and the genie was out of the bottle. We don't know what we've lost by not having the missing pages released. But I find it hard to think they could change paradigms any more than has already happened. There's a diminishing return here.
Wikileaks publishes troves of material, but what paradigms get changed unless it plays in the mainstream? Manning with the video of the mercs shooting the civilians was the last time this happened, I think. When it comes to seeing what's behind the curtain - which is precisely what the information war is about - the words and the details of the stories matter far less than the way that people's thinking gets changed. At Christmas I socialized with ordinary people. I learned that they believe the Russians interfered in the US election, and planted Trump.
Bummer, but on the other hand, I could talk to everyone about the NSA getting my Facebook feed or my phone data, and there's full agreement, or at least no disagreement. Snowden went into the culture. Russiagate is still playing out, and we don't yet know who will be the big loser in the belief system of the culture. I'm still willing to bet it's the mainstream media. Putin has said that Snowden didn't reveal anything that Russian intelligence didn't already know.
Russia didn't want to harbor Snowden, but the US State Department forced the issue by revoking his passport while he was in the air terminal in Russia. The current asylum granted is for a 3-year period. I see no reason to make any change in this. It will be reviewed when it expires, and if Snowden is still a stateless political refugee, which seems very likely, than I imagine it will be renewed. Russia is a nation of laws. Russia has little to do with Snowden. And even less to do with the US elections. Russia doesn't want confrontation, between anyone.
Russia wants a world of no conflict, and every action it takes pursues this end. Russia will easily forego a cheap victory in order to gain a valuable cessation of hostilities. I believe Putin when he says that who won the US election was of no great importance to Russia - they would deal with whomever was there. It's always important to understand that Russia is not playing a zero-sum game, nor is she playing to "win" against any other nation in geopolitics.
Russia wins when other nations stop fighting. The lat thing she wants to do is interfere with the internal order of other countries. But she is rooting for the orderliness of each country. Thanks for your nice long comment and its excellent observations. And Happy Holidays since I haven't wished them on you yet this year! For me, Snowden's revelations were nothing new as I had already learned about Project Echelon , which by the end of the s was global girding and mostly intent on industrial espionage as this summary at the link informs:.
Indeed, the extent of Echelon was available to the public--sort of--but there were very few publications about it, although that changed as the internet grew during the s. So for me, Snowden's actions becoming headline news was more important than the content of his revelations as the slumbering public got slapped upside its collective head. Another historical factoid of interest is FDR's meeting with media CEOs a few days prior to 7 Dec , of which no transcript exists to my knowledge, although what was said can be inferred by subsequent actions by all the actors involved--there was no, zero, deviation from the official government line about the Day of Infamy, which was a prelude to media portrayal on Fundamentally, the bottom line is whenever interests between national governments diverge from those of their public, governments will lie every time--those two sets of policy HRC admitted she had for public versus private consumption.
My favorite pet peeve is Bernays. The man hated the masses and short of calling them 'useless eaters', he saw them solely as means to corporate profits. His legacy is a citizen without any other rights than that to "go shopping". Go Ask Alice tells us the latest story about how much the surveillance has advanced. The article is about some content provider with unknown identity.
While that has been known since Snowden, the masses suffer from short term memory loss. Any dissent to the establishment is noted. This proves that there is no more rule of common law and nothing resembling a democracy by a far shot. A Plutocratic dictatorship determined to destroy anybody that poses a threat to its existence. If you meant, intrigue, double agent or useful idiot sort of thing, well, Snowden had no intention of running to China and definitely not to Russia.
The Intel Agencies would have loved if he ran straight to Moscow. But it didn't happen. So,we sort of know he wasn't "used". He was "allowed" because they had it covered when he handed off the purloined data. What sort of encrypted communication did he use on that trip to Hong Kong? They knew what he was doing. They tried for it to be an out-and-out treason case. Remember that they insisted the Chinese in Beijing had it all? They they tried to generate the same with Russia and Putin when he landed in Moscow. I find him to be a useful tool for everyone who wants something out of his adventure.
People who think he's a hero have their hero. People who want him dead probably have some contract out on him. And others want him to be returned and prosecuted like Timothy McVeigh and executed. Grieved indicated above 57, Snowden was in our culture now. He's an asterisk. Compare him to Daniel Ellsberg. You cannot. Ellsberg forced the country against the war machine, forced the NYTimes to grow a set of balls and publish the Papers, and he won against the Deep State who tried to destroy him. All the while he stood like a man of courage and didn't scurry around and lateral the papers off.
They got published. He faced down the system and won a huge First Amendment battle. I chalk up the differences as Snowden is a kid with a keyboard. Assange and Ellsberg are men. The latter really matter. Snowden is a very light symbol, at best. I guess Vietnam was the great Evil, and surveillance just doesn't match up against what that charnel house of napalm, carpet bombing, white phosphorus, Agent Orange and Agent Blue, Phoenix Program assassinations became.
Today the media throughout the Western world serves as a Propaganda Ministry for Washington. The Western media is Washington's Ministry of Truth. At the top it isn't the case that the CIA controls the media; rather that the board of directors is named by the banksters and mega-rich. Like all the mega-corps, they are thoroughly controlled by the Usurpers. To rule a world requires control of military force, of money, information, energy, and the elimination of private property. Everything else is distraction. Probably the end of net neutrality is important. The coming global digital money is catastrophic.
Agenda 21 is the global dictatorship, and is already decreasing private property-- among other things. This is a crucial point. Edward Snowden chose not to possess the files after he had handed them off to the journalists. He wiped out his copy when they started to publish them. This was a deliberate choice, and part of an entire ethical view that Snowden held of the situation he was in, and the situation he had created. If you can't understand why he held this view, then you have to ask him, or study his words. But rest assured that he didn't simply "fail" to have a backup copy in case his journalists chickened out or sold out their commitment.
He was a geek. He wasn't a journalist. He wanted sensible journalists to handle the lifetime scoop that he was holding. In my view, he made an incredibly good choice. Put yourself in his shoes. The path he had already walked just to get those files to those real-world journalists in Hong Kong was already a thousand times longer than anything that could possibly lie in front of him. All this talk about assets - like you can keep this kind of thing going: the man lived a lifetime in a few short years and did the best thing he could ever have conceived of.
He earned the space to delete the files and sit back for a while and watch things happen. He said he wanted the public to know, and the public to discuss - if he was wrong, so be it, but it was for the public to discuss, he always said. Everything I've written here may not be true. But if it is true, then on the basis of this narrative of events, no one has any right to ask anything more of Snowden. He was the messenger who put his body in the circuit to complete the signal. We all gained. He gained nothing, except satisfaction of mission accomplished.
For me that's where his story ends. Greenwald, Intercept, oligarchs, slavery - these are all another story, and one that I'm focused on. But I choose to honor Snowden for the bravery of what he seems to have done, and if true that achievement scored so high that no amount of falling short can diminish it.
They were greeted by rallies, raves and riots by an army of anti-capitalist street protestors and civil rights movements. The G20 the Group of Twenty is essentially a western creation with participation of some selected countries from the global South. Look at the composition of the G That comes to a total of 21, not 20! The only African presence is that of South Africa in the mixed bag of Group 2.
The G20 is more or less like the green room of the WTO, which makes all critical decisions on behalf of the so-called international Community. One is that its decisions are not binding. Second is that while the G20 is a club of likeminded countries from the west or close allies of the west , there is an increasing influence of China in it.
The last summit of G20 was held under Chinese presidency in Hangzhou in September But at Hangzhou, Africa was sidelined. Germany is the real financial and industrial hub of Europe. In its essence, its thrust was to force open African doors to European and generally western investments. African governments have been told in no uncertain terms that for them to receive FDIs foreign direct investments , they need to improve conditions for such investments.
This report proposed a catalogue of instruments and measures Africa should take to improve macroeconomic, business and financing frameworks. Using its financial muscle the west through Berlin is waging war against Africa. These are just promises. The irony is that there is a net outflow of capital from Africa. As always, we need to make a distinction between the common people of Africa and the civil society , and the regimes in control of state power. At the G20 Hamburg meeting, Africa was officially represented by only one country — South Africa, which was obsequiously behaving like the neocolony that it is.
This said, I need to add that this is no reason why we who come from the civil society should spurn our regimes. So here are my recommendations. We demand from our governments that the resources of Africa be used for the development of the people of Africa. Of course, this is easily said than done.
The world is going through a significant geopolitical shift. I mention only two of its manifestations. One is the emergence of China as the global leader displacing the USA in many aspects of global economic governance. This is opening space for Africa to play the west against China, and vice versa. There is nothing wrong in this.
Also, Chinese investments in Africa are long term and are focused on infrastructural development as well as resource extraction; whilst western investments are focused only on resource extraction. Of course, let me repeat, China is a capitalist state with its own interests. In trying to, for example, reforming the IMF and building parallel global economic structures, it does so for its own interests.
That is to be expected. The question is how we in Africa can take advantage of this. I will write more on this another time. The second development is the changing political-economy of the United States under President Trump. At the G20 Summit in Hamburg, whilst China and India came out against protectionism the policy of building firewalls of protection for national industries , Trump was in its favour.
Whether he will achieve this is a different matter, but on this issue he is on our side ideologically. At the national, regional and pan-African levels, we must continue with our nonviolent struggles for democracy and respect for our human rights. At the same time, we must help — yes, help — our governments to take the courage to stand up to the empire, and where possible to build the capacity of our state officials to analyse global events, and to negotiate in the global organisations for economic and political governance on matters related to trade, investments, and technology transfer and resource sovereignty.
See below for further details. None of the countries of the South could overturn the decision made by the imperial countries.
Senator Rand Paul | Pronk Palisades
Although the chair was held Kenya, Kenya had no influence at all on the outcome. I was present at the Ministerial, and made an appraisal of the outcome. Introduction I limit my contribution to making some general observations of a theoretical nature. That, hopefully, would provide a broader historical and global perspective to the forthcoming elections in Kenya on issues of electoral politics and state policies.
There are many things that Karl Marx had said with which I disagree and I will not go into these here. However, there is one fundamental point he made that remains valid and important to keep in our mind whilst analysing elections in our time, not only in Kenya and Africa but the world over. Marx divides society into essentially two parts: the base and the superstructure. To put it simply, the "base" comprises of the economy, the forces and relations of production e.
The "superstructure" comprises of the government, laws, religion, ideology, culture, education, etc. It is better to quote Marx directly, for it is one of his most his profound observations, and worth reading over until one understands its deep significance. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms - with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn into their fetters.
Then begins an era of social revolution". At the same time, however, as events develop from day to day, it is the social and political consciousness of the people that shapes the events. People are poor. This is their material reality. Out of this arises, their political consciousness — the significance of self-empowerment. As Mao Tse-tung said, in the short run it is politics that are in command. Political independence is a significant stage in the fight against imperialism. Political parties are formed to vie for power.
They have to reach out to the people for votes. The problem is that elections are regularly manipulated by political leaders. Above all, political independence exposes the internal class contradictions - class oppression and class struggle - more clearly. They are not.
I will return to this point later. This is an important question, one that applies to all Africa and most of the countries of the so-called third world. It is important to understand the phenomenon of neocolonialism. In his Neo-Colonialism , the Last Stage of Imperialism , he argued that Africa is not yet independent; it is still under the control of the empire. Nkrumah waged a fierce battle against it, but the empire manipulated the economic system especially the global cocoa market - and its neocolonial agents within Ghana - to stage a military coup and oust him.
Ghana to this day remains a neocolonial state. Here I describe its three principal features:. For over two decades, the ANC has presided over entrenched corruption, which must now be resisted. In January , following a guerrilla war, Museveni took over power. That was in Thirty years down the road, on 12 May , President Museveni was sworn in for a fifth term following an election that the opposition declared was not "free and fair".
In March , an Oxfam report on Uganda   found that Uganda's resources are exploited largely by the dominant western finance capital. These have led to the removal of protection from local industry and agriculture, and inequitable access to productive resources like land — leading to conflict and political dissension. The question is: where did Museveni and the NRM go wrong? Kakonge had proposed a "socialist project" for Uganda. This was hijacked, and a right wing of the UPC took over the leadership. However, the UNLF rule lasted only one year. In May there was another military coup masterminded by Obote.
Within a year, the guerrilla force was disbanded. I cannot go deeper into this here, but the principal reason was our discovery that the leadership was far ahead of the masses. Their material reality had not changed. The common man was still poor. We were trying to emulate the Chinese and Cuban models, but discovered that there are no models to emulate. Sowing the Mustard Seed , McMillan, p. Oloka-Onyango, To put it simply, the "base" comprises the economy and science and technology applied in production, and the "superstructure" comprises the government, laws, religion, ideology, culture, education, etc.
In the long run, Marx said, it is the base that determines the social relations of production between, for example, the workers and the owners of capital under capitalism. However, in the short to intermediate term, the superstructure can influence the base. In fact Mao went further to say that in the short-run politics are in command.
Among the PIL issues, the book ploughs through the complex issues relating judicial struggles over sexual and gender-based discrimination, social justice and poverty, and the adjudication of presidential elections. Can courts generate significant social reforms through litigation? Can courts be used in order to address issues of poverty and marginalisation? But it has had only a handful of judicial contests … thrice in the case of Uganda , and , and once in the case of Kenya Indeed, given our common knowledge that presidential elections have almost always been controversial in East Africa, it has come to me as a bit of a surprise that these have been contested in a court of law only three times in Uganda, only once in Kenya, and never in Tanzania.
In Kenya, after the presidential elections, the losing party headed by Raila Odinga took the matter to the Supreme Court but lost the case. In the recent August 8, election, Odinga lost again, but initially announced that there was no point taking the matter to court. He has since lodged his petition at the Supreme Court. Today, the notion of popular justice in Uganda has more or less disappeared from the political lexicon. This is a devastating verdict on both the nature of politics and the limited role that the courts can play in the politics of power.
This is a question that was widely debated in the s at the University of Dar es Salaam which had attracted a host of people — refugees from neighbouring countries, freedom fighters from South Africa and Zimbabwe, and academics from across Africa, including Uganda, and beyond. Almost fifty years down the road, the issues raised in the debate are still very relevant and significant.
During the debate I held the view and still do that in the neocolonies, the state is still in the effective control of multilateralised imperialism. Britain controlled Uganda until our independence, but since then the economy of Uganda and for that matter of Kenya and Tanzania is effectively in the hands of globalised capitalist corporations. Nonetheless, I would argue that political independence is an important stage in the fight against imperialism. Under neocolonialism, the common people are brought into the democratic process directly.
Political parties are formed to vie for power and they have to reach out to the people for votes. This is significant. But elections are regularly manipulated by political leaders — partly, of course, for their own benefit, but also, I would contend, for the benefit of the empire. Is it surprising that the empire endorsed the 18 February elections in Uganda and the August elections in Kenya?
Main argument summarised. President Jacob Zuma narrowly survived the recent 9 August parliamentary secret ballot on no confidence in him. It was a close call. Had the motion been carried, the President and his cabinet would have had to resign immediately. In this piece I take a longer term perspective.
Briefly stated, my view is that it is not in the parliament or even in the ANC where the real problem or its solution lies. In other words, even if President Zuma were to leave and replaced by, say, Cyril Ramaphosa , the country is nowhere near getting out of its political crisis.
It is because the problem lies, essentially, in the captured polity of the South African state and economy. This has deep historical and systemic roots, and it is an attempt to analyse these that I write this piece. Some questions remain perennial. As long as capitalism remains the dominant system of production, one question on which we need clarity is the ownership of capital. The ownership of capital can change from time to time — for instance from private hands to state control. But there are certain aspects of ownership that will remain substantially the same.
Even if the state takes over capital, the question still remains: whose state is it? The two questions — whose capital and whose state? During our days in Dar es Salaam in the s the question of who owns capital in South Africa had become a major issue of contention between our party in Uganda at that time still clandestine, and led by the late Dani Nabudere and the South African Communist Party SACP. We had debates with, among others, Joe Slovoe and Ruth First.
We discussed a wide range of issues with Ruth and Joe whenever Joe happened to pass through Dar. Joe maintained that the capital in South Africa was South African, owned by global capitalists but only temporarily. Once apartheid was defeated, this capital would be nationalised. We agreed that the capital should be nationalised, but contended that this was not such an easy matter as Joe seemed to suggest. Anglo-American, for example, was precisely that — owned largely by the British and the Americans.
And so on with respect to other banks, mining companies, large estates, and insurance and shipping companies, etc. We argued that the ANC and other parties would have to fight against Boer nationalism first. It would not be so simple an exercise as it might appear. Ruth slowly came closer to our position; Joe was adamant that once the state was captured by the people of South Africa, one of the first things the government would do was to take over the control of capital on the way to building socialism.
In other words, the empire simply betrayed their erstwhile allies in South Africa, and turned from the Boers to Africans. As of today, just as the Boers had failed to take over imperial capital, the post-apartheid regime has also, 23 years down the road, failed to take over imperial capital in South Africa. The South African struggle to nationalise the economy has substantially failed. In neighbouring Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe was at least able to transfer land to the people — notwithstanding the shortcomings. But it had no clout, no backup by the state. Look back to what happened immediately after independence.
The people were politically demobilised. I travelled around South Africa several times during those early years, and I could see that the people who had given their lives to the cause were getting disillusioned. The South African state was firmly in control of the empire - it was a neocolonial state — and the first thing it did was to demobilise the masses. Malikane has come out strongly in favour of nationalisation. In the hoo-ha that accompanied his appointment, and as the word spread around of his views creating near panic even within the ANC, the minister distanced himself from Malikane, and went on to assure foreign corporations that there was no intent to nationalise their assets.
And this is the point of this essay. The empire was fuming against the government for their lack of loyalty. Had the empire not helped to liberate the people from the Boers? Please come. As we noted earlier, the nitty-gritty of the problem lies neither in the parliament, nor even in President Zuma as head of the ANC.
South Africa had abandoned its liberation project in favour of a neoliberal project, and had evolved into its second phase the first was under the Boers as a neocolonial state. This is palpably untrue. Our understanding is that independence is an important achievement, but it manifests itself only at the political level and that, too, only partially. The economy is still not liberated from the control of the empire, and so even its politics are compromised.
However, and this is important, the neocolonial state is at a heightened level of contradiction between imperialism and the people. The empire, though it may still control the economy, has no direct political control. It operates in a different political context; it has to use local agents, and this makes it more cumbersome for it than during direct political rule. Political independence, even if partial, is an important stage in the fight against imperialism.
The common people are brought into the democratic process directly. Elections are regularly manipulated by political leaders and the empire. More than a quarter century since political independence, South Africa is still a neocolonial state. Its economy is still, for all intents and purposes, under the control of the empire. South Africa has not liberated itself fully.
The next phase of the battle for liberation has to be fought at three levels: the ideological; the state and economy; and the global. All three are interconnected and contested terrains. Also, at all the three levels the battles are concrete expressions of the history and contemporary circumstances of South Africa. This said, it is also important to learn from other experiences — especially from countries in the global south that are fighting against capitalism and imperialism.
It is risky to generalise, for the battles at all levels are complex; so in this essay we can only talk in general terms. The actual strategy and tactics can only be worked out by people in South Africa in their ever changing circumstances. Within the capitalist camp, for example, the ideological battles on economic theory are fought — in the main - between the orthodox neoclassical diehards represented by the World Bank and the IMF, and the heterodox neo-Keynesian social-democratic reformists.
Besides the intrusion of imperialist ideologies within the ranks of the working classes and the petty bourgeoisie, there are other forces also at play at the grassroots level which is fragmented along ethnic, religious, regional, gender and other factions. The debates between and within each faction can get extremely complex, and largely beyond the reach of ordinary people.
Earlier, we discussed how this has happened in the discourse amongst the left triggered by the sacking of Gordhan as finance minister and his replacement with Gigaba who appointed Malikane as his adviser. Malikane was then deftly defended by Oupa Lehulere. These are important debates, but in my view, the polemical style is distractive and potentially divisive. Some of us from Uganda had a similar debate in the s, the scars of which lasted for quite a while. Importantly, what emerged from our debate was the central question of who is the principal enemy of the people of Uganda.
Following this, the view of the leaders of the government of the Uganda National Liberation Front UNLF was that we must resolve the internal secondary contradictions amongst the people in order to face the principal enemy on a united front. My analysis above leads me to conclude that this is true also of the South African situation. For over a quarter century the people are paying the price of ideological cleavages among the left — including between and within the political parties and the trade unions.
This is much more challenging, but the absence of a vanguard party makes the challenge even more daunting. My guess is that these number no more than a couple of thousand individuals. This has not changed the fact that the economy is still in the hands of imperial capital. Indeed, most of the large properties in Johannesburg and other large cities, banks, insurance and shipping companies, export and import companies, mining and large estates are still owned by global finance capital. Malikane, after all, was only expressing his personal opinion.
Malikane is correct that the resources should be owned by South Africa, but for that to happen there is need for a concrete strategy — a phased strategy with sophisticated tactics - to lead the masses. And this leads us to the third level — the global. This is a vast subject that needs an entirely separate treatment. However, some salient issues might be upfronted here for further discussion. It should be clear to any objective observer of the global geopolitical scene that there is a fundamental shift in global economics and power politics.
To start with, the west is in the middle of a deep crisis, worse than the crisis of the s. The crisis is structural and systemic. Europe is fragmenting, starting with Brexit. And there are other proto-nationalist movements in the rest of Europe that have challenged the legitimacy of the undemocratic institutions located in Brussels. With American and NATO military encirclement of the whole world, the Western governments make their peoples feel as if it is them in the west that are beleaguered!
It is simply incredulous. At one point it invited Russia to make it G8. But this did not work out. G7 is now replaced by G20 — a concoction of the West in recognition of the fact that it must adjust itself to a new reality — that of Russia and the emerging countries of the global South. Germany holds the G20 presidency for Its real purpose is to recover the economic and political ground that Europe and America have lost in Africa.
China is steadily taking over the command of the global economy. China has adopted capitalism, but has adapted it to its own needs and circumstances learning from over 3, years of history and the Maoist revolution. China has advised African countries to choose their own path to development. China now favours a free movement of goods and capital, but is very protective of its own industries and technology in which it is fast catching up with the West , and careful about free movement of services. At the Davos conference, President Xi Jinping delivered a well thought-through, clever speech, basically saying that China is not ready to take up world leadership, but it may be forced to do so because it was clear that the United States and Europe do not have the material and moral capacity to lead anymore.
I can go on and on. South Africa and the rest of Africa have benefitted from having China and Russia to counter years of western hegemony. South Africa should learn from China whilst, also, maintaining a strong negotiating position with China, especially on investments. South Africa is the only African member of G20, but is acting in a servile manner in relation to its dominance by the West.
China, too, is a member, but it knows its limitations and is ploughing its own furrow independent of the G South Africa is still a neocolony — now in its second phase. South Africa's first independence struggle was waged by the Boers. The first neocolonial state lasted from to South Africa is now in the midst of the second phase of liberation — this time from imperialism.
Political independence from the Boers was an important stage in the fight against imperialism. Political independence, whilst partial, has heighted the level of contradiction between imperialism and the people. Nonetheless, people continue to demand "free and fair" elections. Who owns capital in South Africa? It is still primarily in the control of imperialist global corporations. Thus, imperialism is still the principal enemy of the people.
The empire, though it may still control the economy, has no direct political control, and has to use local agents in state and economy. Immediately after independence from the Boers in the masses were politically demobilised; their remobilisation has only just begun. This is chocking the economy and the people. However, there are positive developments at the level of global geopolitics. The west is in deep economic, political, and moral crisis. The rise of China and Russia has opened space for South Africa as also for other countries of the global south.
The G20 is part of the imperialist agenda. South Africa, as its only African member, should put forward the demands of the people of Africa, and not be subservient to the west. The absence of a vanguard party makes the challenge of uniting the nation to fight against imperialism in this second phase daunting. I fear it is going to be long, long, struggle without a vanguard party. I am from Uganda, and together with other comrades from Uganda, Kenya, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, as well as South Africa, we were guests as asylum seekers of Mwalimu Nyerere in Tanzania during the s.
We were fighting our own separate battles in our case against Iddi Amin , whilst also engaging with one another in debates on how the continent might liberate itself from imperialism and racism. During that period and in the s, I have been visiting South Africa through underground routes organised by the comrades in South Africa. Ngugi presents an alternative nationalist narrative of Kimathi as a revolutionary, admired by peasants and workers of Kenya. It is, therefore, important that contemporary narratives are subjected to a critical assessment from the hindsight of history, and also with a view to the future.
I end with some suggestions for the unknown future. The Report says:. This has been supported by a stable macroeconomic environment, low oil prices, earlier favourable harvest, rebound in tourism, strong remittance inflows, and an ambitious public investment drive.
The KEU recommended a number of structural reforms that could accelerate growth. Credit access could, it said, be supported by reducing public sector borrowing, and the transactions cost for accessing credit through better credit reporting. Replace Kenya with any other country in Africa, and you would not notice the difference. It does not fool the masses. The masses know their existential realities. As a one-time political refugee in Kenya and Director of the Uganda Refugees Relief Services which I had founded — together with other comrades from Uganda , I traversed up and down the slums of Nairobi providing whatever little help we could muster for Ugandan kindred refugees.
In Dandora, Kibera, Mathare and other slums, literally thousands of people mostly women and children — because men were looking for work in the city sifted through trash dumped by lorry-loads of rubbish from the better-off citizenry in the city. In the rural areas - where the bulk of the population live - the peasants plant coffee, maize and potatoes and, in return, harvest poverty. Because they cannot afford the bus fare. President Kenyatta describes himself as a "digital president" - i.
I suppose this is an electioneering gambit to contrast himself with Raila Odinga who is now in his early 70s. The Jubilee government is implementing the ambitious Kenya Vision project. There are also the one-stop-shop service centres popularly known as Huduma Centres , which promise to enhance access to and delivery of government services to all citizens. They all look the same. Is it simply a coincidence?
Who or what is behind these visions? And behind these is the global business community. And this means mainly northern global corporations and finance capital.
We fought tooth and nail against the imposition of the agricultural agreement and other issues by the US-EU Empire. Whereas we succeeded at Cancun, we failed in our own home ground. But in our view from the non-governmental organisations the MC10 was a farce from the beginning to the end. Africa is being marginalised on the very soil of Africa. This will create massive unemployment in Africa, especially for youth and women. It will dispossess millions people of their livelihoods and become internal refugees in Africa, and easily half a million people potential refugees heading for Europe no matter what the obstacles.
Uganda is still sitting on the fence. But Tanzania, under President Magufuli, has resisted. However, the current Doha negotiations have allowed EU supports to be retained! They include food processing, textiles, paper and printing companies. These firms employ more than , people.
Furthermore, the regional market for manufacturing is much more important for local producers than any other market. Kenya and the whole region is already facing agricultural import surges from Europe - from poultry, to dairy, cereals as well as processed agricultural products. All these sectors, should they be liberalised, will be badly affected by EU's highly subsidised exports.
Why are our industries and agriculture not protected from highly subsidised and state-aided exports from Europe to Africa? How are these policies made in our countries? And hence the following question:. It has the biggest number of white landowners concentrated in one place, in Kenya. Kibaki owns different pieces of land in Bahati, Laikipia and Rumuruti, which add up to more than 30, acres.
Moi owns land in Bahati, Olenguruoni, Molo and Nakuru which add up to nearly , acres. And, of course, the Kenyattas own nearly , acres of prime land across the country. Of course this does not mean Kenyan Africans do not own their businesses. They do, but they tend to be small to medium size companies. Also, most of the multinationals, whilst owned by foreign capital, have Africans as their chief executives, and sometimes minority shareholders. Also, there are some wealthy families that own big enterprises.
For example, some 15 years ago flowers were produced by hundreds of small producers, providing a livelihood for thousands in their families. Now they are produced by a four or five multinationals and the Kenyatta family-owned enterprises. The flowers industry draws water out of Lake Naivasha on an average of approximately 20, cubic meters a day. The Lake is dying. The papyrus swamps that were the breeding grounds for fish had almost dried up. Thousands of peasant producers and fisherfolks have been alienated from their means of survival.
People were facing severe problems of food and water insecurity. Effectively, Kenya exports water to Europe as the water-bearing flowers from Lake Naivasha fly to Amsterdam. If this is not the 'Empire of the Absurd', what is? Not included in this list are scores of micro-credit banks that provide small loans to rural communities. I have also not listed big retialers such as Uchumi; big hotels like Serena; and communications companies like Safaricom — most of which are owned by foreign corporations.
To some this may seem to be an absurd question. After all, Kenya got its independence long time back — in , some 54 years ago. So you may or may not agree with my analysis. My understanding is that independence is an important achievement, but it manifests itself only at the political level and that, too, only partially. I would state unhesitatingly that Kenya is a neocolonial state. Nonetheless, I reckon there are not more than 1, compradors in Kenya — meaning, agents of imperial capital - located at the top echelons of government, and at higher levels of management in the private sector.
Yes, no more than a thousand!
People demand "free and fair" elections, and wait in long queues from dawn to dusk to cast their votes. This is important, very important. So where is the problem? Looking at the two party manifestos — the ruling Jubilee Coalition and the opposition National Super Alliance - I must say that there is very little to choose between them. Both parties promise to foster economic growth; improve education, health, and infrastructure; create employment; and, significantly, fight corruption. The electorate do not have much of a choice. Early in , Awaaz had put out a publication devoted to the Kenya elections Volume 14, issue 1.
There were some excellent articles critically examining the process and the issues. My own piece was more theoretical and attempted to provide a global perspective. The piece ended with my observation that the material conditions of our people are so bad that Africa has been ripe for revolution for a long time.
Through experience, we leant that the fundamental problem is not the class character of our petty bourgeois leadership although that is a strong contributing factor , but the system of imperial domination and the neoliberal ideology that imprisons our mindse t including some of the best economists in our universities , and those in the state who make policies in the name of the people. Kenya is heading for a re-election, and the country appears to be polarised along two personalities - Kenyatta and Odinga.
This is a pity. Nothing can be done in the short run, or even for quite some time until the new regime settles itself. It will decide on its own programme of action and strategy, of course, but here are some guidelines I might suggest. I am interested in what is happening in Kenya just as much as in Uganda.
The book is an important addition to the literature on the continuing relationship between Africa and Europe since colonial times to today. The back cover of the book describes its essential message as follows:. Meanwhile, direct bilateral re-engagement which eluded the Government of National Unity GNU , became real following ZANU-PF landslide victory on 31 July , that sufficiently altered the power balance to trigger the process between the former nemesis in support of iEPA domestication, and social and economic development.