Russia Begins Operations in Syria: End Game for the US Empire?

[luc]

From the twitter propaganda front:

U.S. Dept of Defense ‏@DeptofDefense 45 Min.
#SecDef: fighting #ISIL without pursuing a parallel political transition risks escalating the civil war in #Syria

Brooke Baldwin ‏@BrookeBCNN 19 Min.
#CNN LIVE: #SecDef Ash Carter: Russian striking areas ISIS “is not present”

Patrick Tucker ‏@DefTechPat 21 Min.
.@DeptofDefense #secdef says Russian actions in #Syria are "ill-advised" and "will backfire."

Alexander Nekrassov ‏@StirringTrouble 9 hrs.Islington, London
Russian parliament didn't even bother to debate the use of Russian air force in #Syria properly before approving it unanimously. Not good.

The U.S. Dept. of Fear is putting it more blantly: :)

U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept 2 hrs
How dare Putin fly into #Syria with the Syrian government's permission* and target ISIS and al-Qaeda fighters!

* We do it without asking.

 

[Carl]

This is getting really interesting. It's like watching another Caesar in real time .

I was thinking along the lines that the self styled Masters of the Universe simply will not stand for this, and they're gonna do something really stupid in reaction to this move by Russia.

However, all I see so far is hot air, posturing and whining, from Carter at least:

US-led airstrikes in Syria will continue despite Russia's actions, Carter said, adding that the coalition doesn’t “intend to make any changes in our air operations.”

Pentagon chief Ashton Carter said that the US believes it is impossible to both fight Islamic State in Syria and support President Bashar Assad at the same time because it “only risks escalating the civil war in Syria," and “is tantamount… to pouring gasoline on the fire.” Therefore a "political transition" from the Assad regime must be one of the aims of intervention, he said.

Well, we still have October to wait and see..

 

[RedFox]

There is a lot of people sharing images/videos of child casualties of the Russian bombing on twitter, which US media is picking up on.
As RT pointed out, all you need is a fake twitter account and the media runs with it.

So that looks like the most instant backlash. Some people are picking up on re-use/re-branding of these pictures/videos from elsewhere.

 

[T.C.]

The thing that strikes me most, in a general sense, is that it's a dire testament to how terrible our reality is when a guy just standing up and speaking some common sense (common to us, anyway) inspires such hope and brings such joy.

But, "in real life", Putin's speach and current stance on the Middle East and the role of the UN is a master stroke. And the most masterful thing about it really is the timing. It's like he just bided his time and stood back as long as he could, and just gave the Western powers "enough rope to hang themselves with".

Then, as usual, Russia comes along and shows everyone else how to pick up the pieces.

 

[Nicholas]

There is a lot of people sharing images/videos of child casualties of the Russian bombing on twitter, which US media is picking up on.
As RT pointed out, all you need is a fake twitter account and the media runs with it.

So that looks like the most instant backlash. Some people are picking up on re-use/re-branding of these pictures/videos from elsewhere.

Yes, and one of Soros' foundations "White Helmet" has been outed posting a picture on Twitter from 5 days ago and branding it as "look what the Russians did".

 

[angelburst29]

A short video clip of the first airstrike in Hama.

Russian airstrike on Tajamu Ala'azza" HQ in Lataminah(Hama)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c77_1443613309#m8cmt4k2RhP0gix0.99

Russia has conducted its first airstrike in Syria


Russian convoy delivers relief aid to Ukraine's east
http://tass.ru/en/world/824817

It is the 40th Russian Emergencies Ministry’s convoy with humanitarian aid for Donbas

 

[Skyalmian]

Yes, and one of Soros' foundations "White Helmet" has been outed posting a picture on Twitter from 5 days ago and branding it as "look what the Russians did".

Maybe. :/ It was brought to my attention that it may not be:

And there is no proof to show that Soros gave even one cent to this group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Helmets

 

[RedFox]

Yes, and one of Soros' foundations "White Helmet" has been outed posting a picture on Twitter from 5 days ago and branding it as "look what the Russians did".

Maybe. :/ It was brought to my attention that it may not be:

And there is no proof to show that Soros gave even one cent to this group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Helmets

Well that piqued my curiosity, so I went digging!
For one, wiki should be considered a biased source of data.

_http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/04/seven-steps-of-highly-effective-manipulators/

Take the following with a pinch of salt, unless you check the sources yourself.

Seven Steps of Highly Effective Manipulators

White Helmets, Avaaz, Nicholas Kristof and Syria No Fly Zone

by Rick Sterling / April 9th, 2015

You might think that after seeing the consequences of their campaign for “freedom and democracy” in Libya, journalists like Nicholas Kristof and “humanitarian campaigners” like Avaaz would have some qualms.

Unfortunately they have learned nothing. They have generally not been held to account, with a few nice exceptions such as this Greenwald/Hussain article. And now they are at it again. Many well-intentioned but naive members of the U.S. and international public are again being duped into signing an Avaaz petition based on fraud and misinformation. If the campaign succeeds in leading to a No Fly Zone in Syria, it will result in vastly increased war, mayhem and bloodshed.

The following illustration shows the sequence and trail of deceit leading to Avaaz’s call for a No Fly Zone in Syria.

Following is a brief description documenting the flow of misinformation and deceit, beginning at the Source and ending with Avaaz’s campaign for NATO/US attack on Syria.

Source

The “Source” is unknown at this time. It might be some US agency with or without the approval of the Obama administration. Or it might be another foreign government which seeks, in plain violation of international law, the overthrow the Syrian government. In addition to the U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, France, Britain and Qatar have each spent hundreds of millions and even billions in heavy weaponry plus 3,000 tons of weapons via Croatia plus arming, training, supplying and paying the salaries of thousands of domestic and international mercenaries sowing mayhem and destruction in Syria.

At this point we do not know but there is a REWARD: $100 finders fee to the first person who can provide credible evidence identifying the SOURCE.

PURPOSE Inc.

This is an international PR firm. CEO is Jeremy Heimans, a co-founder of Avaaz.

President is Kevin Steinberg, previous CEO of World Economic Forum USA (antithesis of World Social Forum). Their website describes their goal:

“Purpose builds and accelerates movements to tackle the world’s biggest problems.”

In this case the “problem” is reluctance to take over Syrian skies and land.

For a hefty fee, “Purpose” will dupe the public and break down that reluctance.

Toward that end, Purpose created “The Syria Campaign”.

The Syria Campaign

The Syria Campaign began in spring 2014. One of their first efforts was to work to prevent publicity and information about the Syrian Presidential Election of June 2014. Accordingly, “The Syria Campaign” pressured Facebook to remove advertisements or publicity about the Syrian election. Since then Syria Campaign has engineered huge media exposure and mythology about their baby, the “White Helmets” using all sorts of social and traditional media. The campaigns are largely fact free. For example, the Syrian election was dismissed out of hand by them and John Kerry but taken seriously by many millions of Syrians.

The Syria Campaign is managed by Anna Nolan, who grew up in northern Ireland and has very likely never been to Syria. In addition to promoting the White Helmets, Syria Campaign promotes a new social media campaign called “Planet Syria”. It features emotional pleas for the world to take notice of Syria in another thinly veiled effort pushing for foreign intervention and war.

According to their website, The Syria Campaign received start-up funding from the foundation of Ayman Asfari, a billionaire who made his money in the oil and gas services industry.

White Helmets

White Helmets is the newly minted name for “Syrian Civil Defence”. Despite the name, Syria Civil Defence was not created by Syrians nor does it serve Syria. Rather it was created by the UK and USA in 2013. Civilians from rebel controlled territory were paid to go to Turkey to receive some training in rescue operations. The program was managed by James Le Mesurier, a former British soldier and private contractor whose company is based in Dubai.

The trainees are said to be ‘nonpartisan’ but only work in rebel-controlled areas of Idlib (now controlled by Nusra/Al Queda) and Aleppo. There are widely divergent claims regarding the number of people trained by the White Helmets and the number of people rescued. The numbers are probably highly exaggerated especially since rebel-controlled territories have few civilians. A doctor who recently served in a rebel-controlled area of Aleppo described it as a ghost town. The White Helmets work primarily with the rebel group Jabat al Nusra (Al Queda in Syria). Video of the recent alleged chlorine gas attacks starts with the White Helmet logo and continues with the logo of Nusra. In reality, White Helmets is a small rescue team for Nusra/Al Queda.

But White Helmets primary function is propaganda. White Helmets demonizes the Assad government and encourages direct foreign intervention. A White Helmet leader wrote a recent Washington Post editorial. White Helmets are also very active on social media with presence on Twitter, Facebook etc. According to their website, to contact White Helmets email The Syria Campaign which underscores the relationship.

Nicholas Kristof/New York Times

The “White Helmets” campaign has been highly successful because of uncritical media promotion. Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times was an advocate of the NATO/US attack on Libya. According to him, villagers who had been shot, injured and their homes destroyed were not bitter, they were thankful! . “Hugs from Libyans” is how he viewed it. It was, of course, nonsense, helping to pave the way in the invasion and destruction of the country.

Now Kristof is uncritically promoting the White Helmets, aiding and abetting their political and propaganda message seeking foreign intervention in Syria.

Avaaz

Avaaz is an online lobby organization founded in 2007 by Jeremy Heimans (now CEO of Purpose) and others. Start-up funding was provided by George Soros’ foundation. {can't find a source for this yet} While Avaaz has promoted some worthy causes, they have been prominent in promoting neoliberal foreign policies in keeping with the U.S. State Department. Accordingly, they had a major disinformation campaign against Venezuela last year.

Avaaz very actively promoted a No Fly Zone in Libya. They are now very actively promoting the same for Syria.

In-depth research and exposure of Avaaz can be found here. The titles give some indication: “Faking It: Charity Communications in the Firing Line”, “Syria: Avaaz, Purpose & the Art of Selling Hate for Empire”, “Avaaz: Imperialist Pimps for Militarism”.

Avaaz justifies its call for No Fly Zone in part on White Helmets. Given the close interconnections between Avaaz and Purpose, they are surely aware that White Helmets is a media creation. This calls into question their sincerity.

Conclusion

The manipulators rely on emotional images and messages, not facts. They depend on willing partners in the mainstream media who amplify the easy and glib characterizations of who and what is good and bad. The manipulators depend on their audience not asking questions or investigating on their own. In these times of rapid spread of visual and text information via social media, the potential for deceit is huge.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Heimans

Background

Jeremy has been politically active since the age of 8 when, as a child activist in his native Australia, he ran media campaigns and lobbied leaders on issues like children's rights and nuclear non-proliferation.[4][5] In 2004, Jeremy dropped out of Oxford to co-found a campaign group in the U.S. presidential elections that used crowd-funding to help a group of women whose loved ones were in Iraq hire a private jet to follow Vice-President Dick Cheney on his campaign stops, in what became known as the "Chasing Cheney" tour.[1]
Career

In 2005, Jeremy co-founded GetUp, an Australian political organization and one of Australia's largest campaigning communities.[6] In 2007, Jeremy was a co-founder of Avaaz.org, a global civic organization that operates in 15 languages and claims over forty million members in 194 countries. The Guardian considers it "the globe's largest and most powerful online activist network".[7]

In 2009, Jeremy co-founded Purpose, a social business that seeks to be a "home for building 21st century movements and ventures that use the power of participation to change the world".[8] Since its launch, Purpose has launched several major new organizations including All Out, a 2 million-strong LGBT rights group,[9] and advised institutions like the ACLU and Google.[8][10]

Jeremy began his career with the strategy consultants McKinsey & Company and he has degrees from Harvard University and the University of Sydney. He lives in New York.
Awards and honors

In 2011, Jeremy received the Ford Foundation's 75th Anniversary Visionary Award for his work building "powerful, tech-savvy movements that can transform culture and influence policy."[11] In 2012, Fast Company ranked him 11th on their annual list of the 100 Most Creative People in Business.[3] His work has been profiled in publications like Harvard Business Review,[12] The Economist[13] and The New York Times.[14]

Jeremy has been a keynote speaker at venues such as the World Economic Forum at Davos,[15] TED,[16] the United Nations,[17] The Guardian Activate,[18] and the Business Innovation Factory.[19]

See:
_http://www.forbes.com/sites/rahimkanani/2011/12/13/jeremy-heimans-of-purpose-com-on-mobilizing-millions-for-change/
for more on Jeremey/Purpose.com

What does the wiki bias say about Soros/Avaaz?

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaaz

Cofounders

Groups

Avaaz.org was co-founded by Res Publica, a "community of public sector professionals dedicated to promoting good governance, civic virtue and deliberative democracy",[3] and MoveOn.org, an American non-profit progressive public policy advocacy group.[4][5] It was also supported by Service Employees International Union, a founding partner.

Individuals

Avaaz's individual co-founders include Ricken Patel, Tom Pravda, former Virginia congressman Tom Perriello, MoveOn Executive Director Eli Pariser, Australian progressive entrepreneur David Madden, Jeremy Heimans (co-founders of Purpose.com), and Andrea Woodhouse.[4] The board consists of Ricken Patel (president), Tom Pravda (secretary), Eli Pariser (board chairman), and Ben Brandzel (treasurer).[6]

Leadership

Avaaz's founding president and executive director is the Canadian-British Ricken Patel.[5] He studied PPE (politics, philosophy, economics) at Balliol College, Oxford University. He received a Masters in Public Policy from Harvard University. He worked for the International Crisis Group around the world, including in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan and Afghanistan, where he says "he learnt how to bring rebel forces to the negotiation table, to monitor elections (covertly), to restore public faith in once corrupt political systems and to spot when foreign forces were being manipulated." He returned to the US and volunteered for MoveOn.org, where he learned how to use online tools for activism.[7]
[..]
Some question whether Avaaz's focus on online petitions and email campaigns may encourage laziness, transforming potential activism into clicktivism.[8][11] Malcolm Gladwell says that petition tools do not create "close-knit, disciplined and tenacious" networks of activists.[12][13] In February 2012, Avaaz raised money for the evacuation of Paul Conroy from Syria, a mission that led to the deaths of 13 activists in Syria.[14][12] A New Republic article Avaaz of making false claims about their own role in the evacuation.[15][12] Jillian York has accused Avaaz of lack of transparency and arrogance.[16] The Defensor Da Natureza‍‍ '​‍s blog has accused Avaaz of taking credit for the success of the Ficha Limpa anti-corruption bill in Brazil, which Luis Nassif reposted.[17][18] The Art of Annihilation blog have also published an investigative report.[19]

In 2008, Canadian conservative minister John Baird labeled Avaaz a "shadowy foreign organization" tied to billionaire George Soros.[20]

Another conservative Canadian, Ezra Levant,[21] tried to make a link between Soros and Avaaz.org as an indirect supporter through MoveOn, but the article was later retracted as baseless and an apology was offered to Soros.[22][23][24][25]

Curious.

_http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/avaaz

Founded in 2007 by “Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and Moveon.org,” a George Soros-funded organization involved in ideological and political campaigns in the United States.
Co-founder Ricken Patel also serves on the advisory board of lobby group J Street.

Aims to empower “millions of people from all walks of life to take action on pressing global, regional and national issues, from corruption and poverty to conflict and climate change.”
Campaigns in “15 languages, served by a core team on 6 continents and thousands of volunteers.”
Funding: 2013 total revenue of $14,647,766 (accessed March 10, 2015).

Maintains that “Avaaz is wholly member-funded” and that “[n]o corporate sponsor or government backer can insist that Avaaz shift its priorities to suit some external agenda.”
Political Advocacy: Azaav is openly political: “Avaaz is very rare in that our donations are not tax deductible, leaving us 100% free to say and do whatever we need to to (sic) get leaders to listen to people. Since so many important issues are won and lost in the political realm, this makes us much more effective than advocacy groups that shy away from speaking out politically.”
Activities include “signing petitions, funding media campaigns and direct actions, emailing, calling and lobbying governments, and organizing ‘offline’ protests and events.”
Active on internal Israeli issues, including social protests, as well as topics related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including recognition of a Palestinian state, protests over a Jewish presence in Sheikh Jarrah (East Jerusalem), boycotts, divestments and sanctions (BDS) campaigns, and conflict in Gaza.

Its petition on the 2014 Gaza War called on banks, businesses, and pension funds to divest funds from Israel. The petition claims: “The only way to stop this hellish cycle of Israel confiscating Palestinian lands, daily collective punishment of innocent Palestinian families…is to make the economic cost of this conflict too high to bear.” The petition accuses Israel of committing “war crimes,” targeting civilians, “occup[ying], colonis[ing], bomb[ing], raids” and “creat[ing] the largest open-air prison in the world.”

In a highly ideological and distorted response to criticism of this campaign, Campaign Director Alice Jay claimed that “our campaign offers one of the few directions that can save Israel as we know it….Extremists on both sides (Including both Netanyahu and Hamas) are the true threat to the kind of peace that reasonable people seek.”
The statement also asserts, “To address the violence we need to address the decades long dispossession of the Palestinian people and the occupation of millions.”
Jay pretentiously concludes, “If you're an Avaaz member outraged by our campaign, it's possible that you're a very good, socially conscious person that just does not know how awful the Israeli occupation, colonisation and repression of Palestinians has been.”

Initiated a 2011 campaign, “Palestine: the time is now,” aimed at pressuring the UK, France, and Germany to support a Palestinian bid for recognition by conducting protests outside EU offices and “run[ning] 3 urgent public opinion polls that clearly show these leaders that their people support recognition, and flood[ing] the media with full page ads.” The petition and accompanying video titled “Middle East Peace – The Real Story” promote the Palestinian narrative, claiming that “US-led peace initiatives have failed for decades, while Israel has confined the Palestinian people, confiscated their lands and blocked Palestine from becoming a sovereign political entity.” While Avaaz’s PR initiative on statehood was uncritically cited by numerous media outlets, an independent analysis expressed concerns that this represents “astroturfing” – “the manufacture of fake ‘grassroots’ campaigns.”

Calls for members to participate in the Sheikh Jarrah protests, providing a distorted account of the situation and using highly offensive, racially-charged rhetoric: “the unjust eviction of Palestinians, losing their homes in the aggressive Judaization of East Jerusalem.” (emphasis in the original)

Initiated a 2009 campaign, “Gaza: Full ceasefire, end the blockade,” calling on the UN Security Council, the European Union, the Arab League and the USA to “act immediately to ensure a comprehensive ceasefire in the Gaza Strip,” claiming that “Gaza lies in ruins and its people are still blockaded,” placing responsibility for the conflict on Israel and omitting Hamas terror attacks, as well as legitimate Israeli security concerns.

So Avaaz looks well meaning, so does the campaigns on Palestine.
But the connection and influence are curiouse. Add in the Syrian compaign and reading SoTT for years on how these things work, and the whole thing starts to stink.

_http://off-guardian.org/2015/07/18/avaaz-clicktivist-heroes-or-soros-wolf-in-woolly-disguise/
See original article for sources

Avaaz: clicktivist heroes or Soros wolf in woolly disguise?
by BlackCatte

Avaaz, with a membership topping 40 million, is one of the princes of the clicktivist phenomenon. These virtual warriors for justice are everywhere and have been for a while, and once you somehow arrive on their mailing list you are going to be bombarded with their earnest updates until you find the magic unsubscribe button that sets you free. Their website looks like the frantic centre for some brilliantly synchronised social experiment of the kind Big Brother would be into if Orwell was writing his book now, and it offers this self-description:

Avaaz — meaning “voice” in several European, Middle Eastern and Asian languages—launched in 2007 with a simple democratic mission: organize citizens of all nations to close the gap between the world we have and the world most people everywhere want.

Which is mistily inspirational in a way that wins universal approval simply by its refusal to commit to any specific course of action. Post stuff like this on Facebook and you get a hundred shares, because of course, by definition, everyone wants to close the gap between the world they have and the world they want. To this extent Avaaz is selling Hallmark cards.

However, more specifically they claim:

Avaaz empowers millions of people from all walks of life to take action on pressing global, regional and national issues, from corruption and poverty to conflict and climate change. Our model of internet organising allows thousands of individual efforts, however small, to be rapidly combined into a powerful collective force.

Their forte – as with all such groups – is of course:

…signing petitions, funding media campaigns and direct actions, emailing, calling and lobbying governments, and organizing “offline” protests and events — to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people inform the decisions that affect us all.

And, we have to admit, Avaaz does this better than almost anyone. Any mainstream social conscience issue you can name, Avaaz will probably be all over it like a rash. Petitions are their game and they have petitions running about everything. Right now they want to stop hunger, ban the Confederate flag, save the whales, stop global warming and find a safe place for Syrians.

Which of course is great and admirable – provided they are what they claim to be, and are truly voicing honest grassroots opinions – not someone’s bought and paid for propaganda.

So, what – beyond the beguiling presentation – is Avaaz? Who set them up? Who pays their bills? Who mans their ramparts?

Follow the money

According to Wiki (quoting the Guardian):

Since 2009, Avaaz has not taken donations from foundations or corporations, nor has it accepted payments of more than $5,000 (£3,100)…Instead, it relies simply on the generosity of individual members, who have now raised over $20m (£12.4m)

$20 million? That’s a lot of generosity right there. But yes, the money is definitely rolling in. In an article from 2012, Empire Strikes Black links to Avaaz’s 990 form for 2010, which demonstrates an annual income from “contributions and grants” of $4,767,187 in 2009, and almost half as much again in 2010. Similar returns from 2012-13 show figures of $11,611,547 and $14,545,459 respectively.

Which if nothing else makes me want to add a “donate” button to our front page. I mean – who knew, right?

The claim that all this comes from “the generosity of individual members” is of course impossible to quantify, as is the claim that Avaaz “doesn’t accept payments of more than $5,000.” We need more information here. Does this mean there’s a ceiling of $5,000 per donor? Or can a single donor hand over unlimited parcels of $5,000? And how about numerous “individual members” from one family or organisation? We seem to be getting a frank disclosure, but on closer analysis we really aren’t being told very much.

Also of some note – according to that Wikipedia page Avaaz was founded in 2007, so the claim that “since 2009, Avaaz has not taken donations from foundations or corporations” obviously implies that before this time they did take such donations. No one at Avaaz seems to have more to say about that though. Do we assume its founders funded it for the first two years? Yes – according to this site, but the links it offers as proof are all dead or hijacked, so this can only be offered as a suggestion at this time.

And who are those founders? Well,that much is no secret. You can read it on their own site:

Avaaz.org was co-founded by Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and Moveon.org, an online community that has pioneered internet advocacy in the United States. Our co-founding team was also composed of a group of leading global social entrepreneurs from six countries, including our founding President and Executive Director Ricken Patel, Tom Perriello, Tom Pravda, Eli Pariser, Andrea Woodhouse, Jeremy Heimans, and David Madden.

Who are those guys?

Res Publica and Moveon.org? Ricken Patel, Tom Pravda, Tom Perriello, et al? Who are they? A bit of googling can tell us a certain amount about them.

Res Publica is a bit hard to pin down. Their Wiki link leads nowhere now, and their URL is dead. There seems to be nothing much about them online that adds more information than the brief summary offered by Avaaz, but NGO Monitor tells us they:

received grants totaling $250,000 from the Soros Open Society Institute in 2008.

Though it gives no source so that can’t be verified. This article from the National Catholic Reporter in 2004 fills in a few blanks. It tells us Res Publica was founded by three of the people now running Avaaz – Ricken Patel, Tom Perriello and Tom Pravda, and was – back in 2004 – claiming to be “developing the political and communications infrastructure of the religious left.” Why they have now disappeared from the scene seems unclear, but it’s pretty obvious that Avaaz is basically Res Publica under a different name.

Moveon.org are easier to trace. Their website is still active. They are a Democratic party front group, currently campaigning against GMO salmon, the Confederate flag, Greek austerity and numerous other things, many of which seem eminently reasonable. According to the WaPo they received $1.6 million from “George Soros and his wife” back in 2004.

Now let’s also take a look at those “leading global social entrepreneurs” who co-founded Avaaz.

Ricken Patel

The most high-profile of these is Ricken Patel. He’s a special darling of mainstream media, which likes doing features on him as a fearless crusader for marginalised truth and justice. I’ve found at least two Guardian articles lauding his virtues, while People Magazine – with bold self-parody – included him in an article on the world’s most eligible hot humanitarians. In 2013 the Observer called him “the global leader of online protest“. That same year Intelligent Life Magazine ran a similarly adulatory piece on him, complete with a pic of Rick sitting in a street cafe, looking hip and caring and keeewl. “Can we change the world, one click at a time?” it asked, before answering “Ricken Patel, a young Canadian, thinks so, and he now has tens of millions of followers to show for it.”

So apparently the neo-liberal, pseudo-left press love this man and really – really – want us to love him too.

His media fans tend to avoid more than a brief summary of Ricken’s life prior to co-founding Avaaz, and becoming its well-paid Executive Director. Maybe because the Oxbridge/Harvard education and stints working for the Rockerfeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the United Nations, and consulting for the International Crisis Group don’t fit that well with the carefully cultivated image of a young average guy just trying to make a difference.

The International Crisis Group has George Soros as a “trustee” (my how that man gets around). Other trustees include Wes Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Carl Bildt, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Sweden, several retired state department officials, ambassadors, diplomats and prime ministers.

So, a prime breeding ground for potential clicktivists as you can see.

Tom Perriello

Tom Perriello, the second name on Avaaz’s list of individual founders is a “United States State Department official”, and a lawyer, who “served one term as a U.S. Representative for Virginia’s 5th congressional district.” He is also a member of the Democratic Party. He formerly served as President and CEO of Center for American Progress Action Fund and Counselor for Policy at Center for American Progress.He apparently worked as a “consultant to the International Center for Transitional Justice” in Kosovo (2003), Darfur (2005), and Afghanistan (2007) where he worked on Orwellian-sounding “justice-based security strategies”.

Tom is also an avowed supporter of the war on terror, who, while in the House of Representatives (2009-11) voted for the continuation of U.S. military action in Afghanistan and opposed removing the United States Armed Forces from Pakistan.

He is also on chummy terms with Barack Obama.

If you are thinking this must be a different Tom Perriello from the one listed as an Avaaz founder, sorry, no. Check his Wiki page for yourself. It’s all there. Tom is that rare animal – a state department official and ex-congressman who also happens to be a radical activist. And here’s a pic of him arranging the “fire Wolfowitz” banners in preparation for a big Avaaz demo back in 2007 to prove it.

Tom Pravda

The third of the triumvirate who were also the original founders of the vanished ResPublica, Tom Pravda is a bit more of a mystery. He has no wiki page, and not much online biography. I haven’t found any photos of him. He allegedly attended Balliol College, Oxford (like Patel). SourceWatch seems to be the only source for this, and I don’t know where they got their information, but here is what they say:

Tom holds a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Balliol College, Oxford, where he won several academic scholarships and prizes. He has worked for the United Nations Development Program in New York, and as a diplomat dealing with European Union development policy and relations with the Middle East and Africa for the Foreign Office of the UK Government. He designed and oversaw a research project looking at ex-combatants’ attitudes to justice in post-conflict Sierra Leone for the International Center for Transitional Justice. He has written about African politics for the international consulting group, Oxford Analytica, and interned for Global Witness and the World Development Movement.”

So, Tom Pravda, late of the United Nations Development Program and the UK Foreign Office is from very much the same school as his two ResPublica bros.

A fourth co-founder worth mentioning is David Madden, ex-army officer and “entrepreneur”. David’s previous employers include (go on – guess) the World Bank and – once again – the United Nations

At this point the unduly cynical might suggest this is a passing strange set of CVs to find in the founders of any grassroots political movement. But we are not such cynics, are we?

Avaaz and US warmongering

Sadly, the strangeness doesn’t stop there. In their own very different way Avaaz and their endless petitions can be as unwittingly helpful to certain western interest groups as can the ever-helpful ISIS. In Syria, for example, between 2012 and late 2013, just when the US and NATO were trying to whip up public opinion for a war with Assad, along came grassroots, no-agenda Avaaz wielding petition after petition demanding the west send “3,000 international monitors” and impose a no-fly zone over the entire country. This is how they put it in June 2013:

To the Arab League, European Union, United States, and Friends of Syria: As global citizens, we call on you to take immediate action to stop the deadly terror in Syria. Enough is enough. We ask you to immediately demand a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed so that parties can come to the negotiating table to agree on a way forward. Until a ceasefire is reached, we call on you to work together and with the international community to enforce a no fly zone to stop the bombardment of Syria’s civilians and ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those most in need.

Avaaz, ladies and gentlemen. the only grassroots organisation in the world that actually begged the US to go to war with Syria.

And they’re still doing it. Even after their biggest fans felt the need to point out their calls for action of various kinds might actually be getting people killed. Their latest effort, from June 2015, repeats the recent US claim that Assad had just dropped “chlorine gas” on children. Avaaz shows just as little scepticism about this, unproven allegation as they did about the previous one from 2013 that later turned out to be a lie.

Avaaz does seem to like no-fly zones, because they also campaigned for the one in Libya that was used as a shield for a covert US invasion and the murder and rape of the head of state.

By this point it will probably come as no great surprise that Avaaz has a lot to say about Russia…

In fact almost every major piece of Russophobia propaganda seems to have been turned into an Avaaz petition. Pussy Riot. The “Arctic 30”. Putin’s alleged “20 homes”.

Yadda y yadda.

So far they aren’t calling for no-fly zones over Moscow but if they start doing so, I think we might be able to guess where US foreign policy is heading.

Understandably some in the alternative media are beginning to suspect Avaaz is being a little economical with the truth about its real agenda. They are even unkind enough to suggest the whole thing is a Soros-created front to trick the unwitting and corral potentially dissident opinion.

Patel believes in using the exponentially growing number of internet users to his advantage with online petitions and propaganda slogans; as well as the ability to syphon donations from ignorant members to the tune of $13.5 million annually and $3 million during fund-raising events. While Avaaz claims to facilitate the individuality of protesters, it uses mob-mentality tactics to create a large online community of people who will defend the organization.

It’s a sobering thought which certainly puts that too-easy clicktivism in a whole new light. Their cutesy cosiness and one-stop solutions do make them an obvious candidate for diversionary “designer activism.” Who’s going to bother to check out “LetsJustBeNiceDotOrg” before clicking on their bright green “save the earth” campaign button? I mean, we all want to save the earth, right? And those aesthetically pleasing, smiling, perfectly ethnically diverse guys in the PR photos, with their matching (green) logo tee shirts are just so beguiling. Click, sign, move on, with the comfy feeling the earth is now a bit safer, thanks – ever so slightly – to you.

We’ve all been there, and all felt slightly queasy about the unanswered questions, but clicked anyway. That is human nature. If we wait around long enough to realise we’ve signed a petition for involuntary euthanasia or something, it’s just too late. We’re already a non-erasable statistic. A clicktivist who has clicked and been counted for eternity.

We have to admit, if shills and honeytraps are needed, then some kind of faux, or semi-faux clicktivist website would be a terrific place to start.

So what of Avaaz? Should we offer it and its gang of super-well-connected founders the benefit of the doubt? Does it matter why Ricken wants us to sign up and save whales, or why Tom Perriello was out there campaigning for Wolfowitz to be fired? Isn’t the fact they are speaking up enough?

No, I don’t think so. Motive matters, and if we ignore it we risk losing the meaning behind anything we try to achieve. We become as hypocritical as those we allow to set our agenda. Any organisation that tries to put a moral glaze on calling for the invasion of sovereign countries, and the inevitable resulting murder of innocents is not worth defending in my view. If we just let their obviously corrupt, or at very least hugely misconceived agenda pass without comment we are conniving at a deception. Well-intentioned people risk having their energies misdirected or wasted in causes that are ill-defined or even entirely bogus. And one discredited clicktivist can easily cast doubt on the many genuine grassroots movements trying very hard to do good.

Avaaz is not what it pretends to be. If I was a member I’d go find the unsubscribe button that would stop their malignantly saccharine agitprop taking up any more space in my inbox.

And if those 41 million trusting souls all did that I think the earth might actually be a bit more saved.

If you think Avaaz is betraying its donors, its millions of followers and its avowed objectives, why not follow the principles of grassroots activism they claim to represent and let them know how you feel?

“The banality of evil transmutes into the banality of sentimentality. The world is nothing but a problem to be solved by enthusiasm.” — Teju Cole

 

[RedFox]

On another note, watching the top comments on this BBC article (the comments are actually open?!) gave me hope this morning.

_http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34405983

10. Posted by Neb
on 30 Sept 2015 21:54

Lets just put this in perspective. While Russia has its fair share of problems as a country, so does the USA. Russia is simply defending its ally here. If the shoe was on the other foot and the US were bombing a rebel group to keep someone an ally in power, I doubt Russian concerns would be highlighted. There is a ridiculous amount of hypocrisy in the world today.

Comment number 12. Posted by Limeyfrog
on 30 Sept 2015 22:00

Putin's policy is clear and well thought out. Unlike the West's coalition actions since gulf war 2. Eliminating regimes that are unliked and hoping for a friendly democratic alternative does not work. Saddam Hussein was hated but there was stability.

Comment number 69. Posted by Fed up
on 8 hours ago

We can all be sure of one thing. For every Russian airstrike there will be detailed (and immediate) reports from "activists" about the precise number of civilian casualties. For the US-led strikes we will hear nothing. This is perhaps the clearest example of the propaganda which our media constantly disseminate.

Comment number 71. Posted by FrankSydney
on 8 hours ago

"Are the Russians trying to destroy IS/Isis/Isil/Daesh or are they trying to prop up President Assad?"

The same question could be asked of the US.

"Are the US trying to destroy IS/Isis/Isil/Daesh or has their policy been regime change right from the start?"

The Wikileaks cables on Syria provide evidence that this is yet another attempt by the US at regime change, by any means possible.

Comment number 13. Posted by Neb
on 30 Sept 2015 22:05

After the US and UK's track record of removing dictators, saying it's for the best, only to leave those countries a hive for ISIS and a total mess, is there any surprise Russia has said enough is enough?

 

[Mr.Cyan]

fwiw whatever happens I take the whole thing as positive (with the exception of acknowledging that people are dying - but they die every day at the hands of the US etc) and am celebrating!
It seems to have been a masterful maneuver by Putin, whatever angle you look at it from.

I feel the same way too - reading and watching videos over the last year of what the head choppers have been up too in Syria was very distressing and depressing, and I'm so glad/relieved/positive that Putin has taken a stand is doing something about it. This can only bring about some balancing in the world, and i feel immensely grateful to Putin. I guess this is what it must have felt like when Caesar was alive in Rome, and the hope that he brought to people.

Feeling a bit concerned as well about the Empire's next moves - in typical psychopathic fashion, i think they will go for the scorched earth/tipping the chessboard move. Once they are done stomping and stamping from this first hissy fit, most likely they will strike back. Im sure Putin and his team are prepared for this, but still it won't be easy; i guess with great will and good intent, any plans the Empire comes up with can be "blocked"...there is still hope yet.

 

[luc]

fwiw whatever happens I take the whole thing as positive (with the exception of acknowledging that people are dying - but they die every day at the hands of the US etc) and am celebrating!
It seems to have been a masterful maneuver by Putin, whatever angle you look at it from.

Yeah, and it seems he really took the empire by surprise, including their propaganda machine (MSM). I was totally amazed today when I read the following as the lead story in the most influential German (conservative) newspaper - IMHO, they are shooting themselves in the foot big time:

_http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/syrien-washington-wirft-russland-angriff-auf-amerikas-partner-vor-13833313.html

Syria: Washington accuses Russia of attacking America's partners



According to the United States, the Russian airstrikes in Syria don't target the IS, but the rebels trained by the CIA. Secretary of State Kerry warns of an escallation. And Chinas Foreign Minister of an "arbitrary meddling".

I mean - what?? They say it as if it was the most common thing in the world to use your secret service to train foreigners to overthrow a foreign government, thus creating a bloody civil war. Incredible. And then they somehow imply that China's FM warns of Russian meddling, when it's totally obvious that he means the real "meddlers" - those who train armies for coups d'états. It really seems the psychos in the US were so surprised that they couldn't come up with anything yet except crying "he is killing our guys!! he is killing our beloved CIA-funded head choppers!! How dare he? Buah, buah!"

The article goes on:

The United States accuse Russia of an airstrike against Syrian partners of America. The targets of Wednesday's Russian attacks include at least one rebel group which had been trained by the Amercian secret service CIA, reports the New York Times on Thursday with reference to government representatives in Washington. [...]

They then give a few more details, speaking of "opposition members with ties to America" etc. As the article goes on, they cite Lawrov, Kerry and Assad and it becomes more and more clear that Russia is doing the right thing and Assad is making good points, even though the authors desperately try to put their spin on it. I think they really don't have their talking points/campaigns ready yet and won't have for a little time, maybe just enough for Putin to make his next move. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[Laura]

I think that the info on avaaz would make a great sott article almost exactly as it is.

luc's quotes and comments also.

 

[RedFox]

I think that the info on avaaz would make a great sott article almost exactly as it is.

luc's quotes and comments also.

The full post?
I'll pull something together.

 

[luc]

I think that the info on avaaz would make a great sott article almost exactly as it is.

luc's quotes and comments also.

Do you mean a separate article from my post? If so, I could come up with a little something as well I guess if that would help, it would have to be proofread though since I'm not a native speaker. Maybe I can put something together in German as well this evening.

 

[SeekinTruth]

While the timing of the military action from Russia (and China may be getting involved too) may seem sudden, I think the diplomatic steps were being taken for months, and the logistics, planning, etc. too. The whole thing is very similar to the way they outmaneuvered the Empire in Crimea. They had the intelligence that the overwhelming majority of Crimeans would want what came about and just moved and made it happen.

Same thing with Syria - the vast majority are behind Assad's government and that's why they've survived. The military moves come after much other work to make it a success. With Iran and Iraq on board now to take out the hired thugs and nut jobs in Syria and Iraq, the Anglo-Zionist Empire is outmaneuvered once again.... fait accompli.