30 Jun 2017

Harry Oppenheimer Fellowship Award for South Africa 2017

Application Deadline? 30th October 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Accepted Subject Areas: Courses offered by the universities
Eligible African Countries: South Africa
About the Fellowship: The Trust was established in 1958 by the late Mr Harry Oppenheimer in memory of his father, Sir Ernest, and has a long tradition of investing in education and related fields. The Harry Oppenheimer Fellowship was initiated by the Trustees some twelve years ago and is the Trust’s most prestigious award.
The Trust is calling for nominations from South African Universities, Universities of Technology, Science Councils, Research & Policy Institutes, and other institutions or agencies of similar national standing. The Trust will also consider applications from individuals who do not have specific institutional affiliations. The award serves to reward excellence in scholarship in all its forms.
The Award seeks to attract candidates of exceptional ability and “big ideas” in any discipline.
It is intended to enable scholars based in South Africa to undertake a programme of work for a period of up to one year, by making possible full-time concentration on the work, contact with outstanding peers (locally or in foreign countries) and adequate logistic resources.  Further, it aims to strengthen relationships and partnerships between local institutions, foreign institutions and the Trust and build research excellence while stimulating scholarship in academic life.
Offered Since: 2000
Type: Fellowship
Selection Criteria: This Award focuses unambiguously on excellence. It is granted to candidates of the highest calibre to enable them to undertake a programme of cutting edge, internationally significant work
Who is qualified to apply? The Trust will consider candidates who:
  • are residents of South Africa (age is not a factor in selection)
  • are well established in their field
  • are leading scholars who have undertaken advanced research for many years (the Award is not for the purposes of studying towards a higher degree)
  • are outstanding achievers with a track record of sustained intellectual effort at the highest level
  • present submissions that describe a clearly focused and specific project
  • demonstrate a capacity and commitment to the transfer of skills and knowledge to fellow South Africans
How Many Scholarship Positions are available? Several
How long will sponsorship last? Up to one year
Value of Scholarship: R1.5 million.
How can I Apply? All submissions should be delivered to the offices of the Trust:
1st Floor
No. 9 St. David’s Park
St. David’s Place
Parktown 2193
or submitted electronically to e-mail CDigby@omt.org.za
Sponsors: Oppenheimer Memorial Trust

Algerian Government Scholarships for South African Students to Study at Algerian Universities 2017

Application Deadline: 18th July 2017
Eligible Countries: South Africa
To Be Taken At (Country): Algeria
Field of Study: Technical sciences, Science of matter, Mathematics and computer sciences, French
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: 
South African citizens in good health with a strong academic record;
A National Senior Certificate with Bachelor’s pass and a minimum of 60% average (excluding Life Orientation);
25 years old or younger;
Available to study in Algeria from September 2017;
Must have university entrance on NSC certificate and meet the minimum requirements to gain entry into a similar course at a South African university;
Intend to return to South Africa at the end of your studies.
Number of Awards: 8
Value of Award: The scholarship covers tuition, accommodation subsidy and a basic living allowance. Successful applicants will be expected to cover the cost of travel to Algeria and any additional living expenses.
How to Apply: Submit the following documents to InternationalScholarships@dhet.gov.za by 18 July 2017
Completed application form
Copy of Matric certificate
Copy of passport
Award Providers: Algerian Government
Important Notes: Please note that this scholarship is offered by the Algerian Government. Applicants are required to undertake their own research into programmes and institutions in Algeria and are responsible for ensuring that the qualifications will be recognised in South Africa. No additional financial support will be provided by the Department of Higher Education and Training.

Bavarian Government/DAAD Scholarships for International Students at Hochschule Hof 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 27th October 2017
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Germanyg
Type: Undergraduate, Postgraduate
Eligibility: Applicants must fulfil the following requirements:
  • international students must be enrolled as full-time students or double-degree students (not possible for exchange students) at the Hochschule Hof for the respective semester (summer semester 2017 or winter semester 2017/18).
  • international students must be academically (previous examination performance) and personally qualified. Foreign students enrolled in Bachelor courses must have achieved a minimum of 90 ECTS to be eligible. Please attach proof.
  • international students in financial need. Hochschule Hof may at any time ask for proof of given information. Students receiving any additional public funding (e.g. BAföG, DAAD, Erasmus, any kind of governmental scholarship) for the same period of time cannot be considered and are exempted from this scholarship!
Selection Criteria: Only complete, legible and personally signed applications will be considered.
Number of Awards: Nor specified
Value of Program: The scholarships shall provide financial support for foreign students to cover extra costs for living and study materials during their studies at Hochschule Hof. The scholarship depends on the financial means provided available for the respective semester. It lies between 100,00 € – 659,00 € per month.
How to Apply: 
  • completed online application form
  • Declaration of application – proof of enrolment
  • latest transcript of records (Master students add a copy of their final transcript of their Bachelor degree in either German or English language)
  • with average rating – short CV
  • proof of nationality (e.g. copy of passport)
Award Provider: Bavarian Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts (Bayerische Staatsministerium für Bildung und Kultus, Wissenschaft und Kunst) and the DAAD
Important Notes: “Bildungsinländer”, which means foreign students holding a German university entrance qualification (e.g. Abitur, Fachabitur) must present a written confirmation following §8 of the BAföG-law, that they are not eligible for BaföG funding.

The Poison of Commercialization and Social Injustice

Graham Peebles

In cities and towns from New Delhi to New York the socio-political policies that led to the Grenfell Tower disaster in west London are being repeated; redevelopment and gentrification, the influx of corporate money and the expelling of the poor, including families that have lived in an area for generations. To this, add austerity, the privatization of public services and the annihilation of social housing and a cocktail of interconnected causes takes shape. Communities break up, independent businesses gradually close down, diversity disappears and another neighbourhood is absorbed within the expensive homogenized collective.
People living in developed industrialized countries suffer most acutely, but developed nations are also being subjected to the same violent methodology of division and injustice that led to the murder of probably hundreds of innocent people in Grenfell Tower.
The rabid spread of corporate globalization has allowed the poison of commercialization to be injected into the fabric of virtually every country in the world, including developing nations.
As neoliberal policies are exchanged for debt relief and so-called ‘investment’, which is little more than exploitation, the problems of the North infiltrate the South. Economic cultural colonization smiles and shakes hands, wears a suit and causes fewer deaths than the traditional method of control and pillaging, but it is just as pernicious and corrosive.
In the Neo-Liberal world of commercialization everything is regarded as a commodity. Whole countries are regarded as little more than marketplaces in which to sell an infinite amount of stuff, often poorly made, most of which is not needed. In this twenty-first century nightmare that is choking the life out of people everywhere, human beings are regarded not as individuals with particular outlooks fostered by differing traditions, backgrounds and cultures; with concerns and rights, potential and gifts and heartfelt aspirations, but consumers with differing degrees of worth based on the size of their bank account and their capacity to buy the corporate-made artifacts that litter the cathedrals of consumerism in cities north, south, east and west.
Those with empty pockets and scant prospects have no voice and, as Grenfell proves, are routinely ignored; choices and opportunities are few, and whilst human rights are declared to be universal, the essentials of living — shelter, food, education and health care — are often denied them. Within the land of money, such rights are dependent not on human need but one the ability to pay, and when these rights are offered to those living in poverty or virtual poverty, it is in the form of second and third rate housing, unhealthy food, poorly funded and under-staffed education and health services. After all, you get what you pay for; if you pay little don’t expect much, least of all respect.
The commercialization of all aspects of our lives is the inevitable, albeit extreme consequence of an economic model governed by profit, fed by consumption and maintained through the constant agitation of desire. Pleasure is sold as happiness, desire poured into the empty space where love and compassion should be, anxiety and depression ensured. But there’s a pill for that, sold by one or other of the major benefactors of the whole sordid pantomime, the pharmaceutical companies. Corporations, huge and getting bigger, are the faceless commercial monsters who own everything and want to own more; they want to own you and me, to determine how we think and what we do. These faceless corporate entities are given rights equivalent to nations and in some cases more; they have incalculable financial wealth and with it political power. They devour everything and everyone in their path to the Altar of Abundance, assimilate that which springs into life outside their field of control and consolidate any organization that threatens their dominance.
Commercialization is a headless monster devoid of human kindness and empathy, it sits within an unjust economic system that has created unprecedented levels of inequality, with colossal wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer men (the zillionaires are all men), whilst half the world’s population attempts to survive on under $5 a day and the Earth cries out in agony: every river, sea and stream is polluted, deforestation is stripping huge areas of woodland, whole Eco-systems are being poisoned and the air we breathe is literally choking us to death. Apathy suffocates and comforts us, distractions seduce us and keep us drugged: “Staring at the screen so we don’t have to see the planet die. What we gonna do to wake up?” screams the wonderful British poet Kate Tempest in Tunnel Vision. “The myth of the individual has left us disconnected, lost, and pitiful.”
How bad must it get before we put an end to the insanity of it all? It has got to end; we can no longer continue to live in this fog. During a spellbinding performance of Europe is Lost at Glastonbury Festival, Tempest stood on the edge of the stage and called out, “We are Lost, We are Lost, We are Lost”. We are lost because a world has been created based on false values — “all that is meaningless rules” — because the systems that govern our lives are inherently unjust, because we have been made to believe that competition and division is natural, that we are simply the body and are separate from one another, because corporate financial interests are placed above the needs of human beings and the health of the planet. Excess is championed, sufficiency laughed at, ambition and greed encouraged, uncertainty and mystery pushed aside. The house is burning, as the great teacher Krishnamurti put it, Our House, Our World — within and without — both have been violated, ravaged, and both need to be allowed to heal, to be washed clean by the purifying waters of social justice, trust and sharing.
Systemic external change proceeds from an internal shift in thinking — a change in consciousness, and whilst such a shift may appear difficult, I suggest it is well underway within vast numbers of people to varying degrees. For change to be sustainable it needs to be gradual but fundamental, and have the support of the overwhelming majority of people — not a mere 51% of the population.
Kindness begets kindness, just as violence begets violence. Create structures that are just and see the flowering of tolerance and unity within society; Sharing is absolutely key. After Grenfell hundreds of local people shared what they had, food, clothes, bedding; they shopped for the victims, filling trolleys with baby food, nappies and toiletries. This happens all over the world when there is a tragedy — people love to share; giving and cooperating are part of who we are, while competition and selfishness run contrary to our inherent nature, resulting in sickness of one kind or another, individual and collective.
Sharing is the answer to a great many of our problems and needs to be placed at the heart of a new approach to socio-economic living, locally, nationally, and globally. It is a unifying principle encouraging cooperation, which, unlike competition, brings people together and builds community. The fear of ‘the other’, of institutions and officials dissipates in such an environment, allowing trust to naturally come into being, and where trust exists much can be achieved. In the face of worldwide inequality and injustice the idea of sharing as an economic principle is gradually gaining ground, but the billions living in destitution and economic insecurity cannot wait, action is needed urgently; inaction and complacency feed into the hands of those who would resist change, and allows the status quo to remain intact. “We sleep so deep, it don’t matter how they shake us. If we can’t face it, we can’t escape it. But tonight the storm’s come,” says Kate Tempest in Tunnel Vision. Indeed, we are in the very eye of the storm, “The winter of our discontent’s upon us” and release will not be found within the corrupt ways of the past, but in new forms built on ancient truths of love and unity held within the heart of all mankind.

Making Utility Bills Rise Again: Trump’s Attack on Energy Efficiency

Basav Sen

It’s summer and the mercury is soaring.
Temperatures are higher than ever, it turns out. Last year was the hottest year since humanity started recording temperatures, and it’s going to get much worse in the years to come, as a recent University of Hawaii study shows.
The relentlessly hot conditions in many parts of the country this summer mean that our air conditioners and refrigerators are working harder — and burning through more energy — to maintain a comfortable temperature for our families and a safe temperature for our food. And we pay for this increased energy use in our utility bills every month.
For me, it’s comforting to know that both my air conditioner and my refrigerator come with a little blue Energy Star label. Those labels indicate that they use less energy than comparable models without it.
If you’re like me, you like to save money on your bills, and you probably look for that blue label when you buy household appliances.
Energy Star is a government program that costs about $50 million a year to operate. It saves consumers about $34 billion (with a “b”) in energy costs annually.
Put another way, every dollar in government spending on Energy Star produces $680 in broadly shared public benefits. That’s quite a return on investment!
Why, then, is the Trump administration proposing the complete elimination of the Energy Star program? That’s right: The proposed White House budget allocates precisely $0 for the popular label.
From the standpoint of serving people’s actual needs, this should be a non-starter. It would almost literally take $34 billion every year out of the pockets of regular people and businesses — and hand that windfall revenue to the utility companies who sell them electricity.
It also means those utilities will burn more coal and natural gas, propping up the dirty energy industries this administration apparently loves.
We’ll all be the ones paying for this love-fest between the administration and coal, oil, gas, and utility companies — in the form of higher energy bills, higher medical bills for asthma and other illnesses, and damages from heat waves, flooding, droughts, wildfires, and other impacts of releasing more climate-altering greenhouse gases.
The administration routinely cites “jobs” as the justification for its attack on sensible energy and environmental policy. But energy efficiency employment totaled 2.2 million jobs last year, compared to 522,000 for coal and natural gas combined. That’s a difference of more than 4 to 1.
So the administration wants to undermine energy efficiency, a proven job creator that saves consumers money, to prop up polluting industries with far weaker job creation potential. The excuse of “jobs” is just that — a flimsy excuse.
The excuse of saving public money isn’t tenable either. The $50 million cost of the program is chump change for the federal government, given that overall federal discretionary spending is more than $1 trillion, and pays for itself 680 times over.
Apparently, the Trump administration’s real intent behind eliminating Energy Star is to Make Utility Bills Rise Again, without regard to the very real harm it does to your household budget and to the environment.

Planting “Regime Change” in Venezuela

Maxim Nikolenko

The myth of human rights playing a decisive role in the diplomacy of the United States is an important façade to be broken before touching the current political crisis in Venezuela. A noble crusade for democracy and promotion of human rights are applied by the State Department only in times when these enlightening qualities serve the interests of Washington. Thus, the regime change is conveyed to the public as liberal intervention, while the predominantly authoritarian outcomes of such liberal interventions are rarely discussed in the corporate press. This goes without plunging deep into describing the Western protectionism of the most repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Afghanistan, Egypt and Turkmenistan.
With such resume of hypocrisy, human rights and democracy were used to formally glorify the overthrow of Ukrainian government in 2014, replacing one corrupt regime with a right-wing, marionette and fascist-leaning oligarchy. Human rights were cited in Donald Trump’s speech to tighten the persisting and human rights violating embargo on Cuba. Promotion of democracy and human rights were cited in the West to justify liberal intervention, or in practice: a NATO-led slaughter of Libya, with David Cameron declaring the succeeding chaos an “inspiration for the world.”
The corporate media in the West is embedded with these political ventures. This means an overwhelmingly unfavorable coverage of certain governments is present only in times when there is a political agenda of suppressing or removing such regimes. A striking example has been Syria where the corporate press is actively involved in covering the conflict. That coverage overwhelmingly stands hostile to the Syrian government, echoing the U.S’s openly stated interest of seeing the downfall of Assad. On other side, there is coverage or the absence of it on Yemen.  For over 2 years, the Saudi-led and American-supported destruction of this country of 28 million had virtually gone unnoticed. Perhaps, the world’s worst cholera outbreak and the world’s worst humanitarian disaster don’t worth the news.
Yet, there is news, constant news, covering the political crisis in Venezuela. Daily reports are published on the corporate outlets reverberating the soaring crime, food shortages and poverty experienced by millions of ordinary Venezuelans. If considering their perspective a valid fact, Venezuela has been a failed state for over 2 years, with editorialists anxiously waiting for a final default. An overwhelming blame for the validly existing economic crisis was attributed to the socialist policies of Nicolás Maduro’s government, with Forbes arrogantly celebrating the setbacks of Bolivarian Revolution.
Certainly, there are failures for which the government is responsible.However, the fundamental factors influencing the crisis had virtually been ignored. The slump in oil prices and an outright economic war being fought against Venezuela, are out of discussion. The overthrow of a socialist government is.
For over 3 months, Venezuela had experienced violent protests from the opposition forces who are calling for ‘that’ overthrow. Daily clashes are occurring between the security forces and protesters. At least 87 deaths had so far been attributed to the violence. Venezuelan fractured opposition to the ruling socialist government is politically right-wing, supported by local elites who lobby for the exercise of neoliberal capitalist policies, practiced by many regional oligarchic allies of the United States. An independent investigative journalist, Abby Martin, was on the ground covering the demonstrations. Her report contradicts the mainstream portrayal of these protests. While the majority of anti-government demonstrators are peaceful, a small contingent of masked radicals is used on the “front lines” to clash with security forces. These provocateurs; sometimes outright fascists, are the most effective elements whose actions intend to provoke the international response.
And the response is coming. The government is now being charged with repression of the opposition protests. Barely any attention is taken on the opposition violence. Breakdown of the death toll is not reported, with all deaths automatically being blamed on the security forces. Yet, such data exists. The South American-based TeleSUR published a report with names of individuals who lost their lives in the crisis. Only 6 deaths are blamed on the security forces. The rest were killed in shootingslooting and lynching, exercised by the opposition mob. Other figures estimate the security forces to be responsible for over a dozen deaths.
With existing media blackout on such facts, it is not surprising that the American financial and diplomatic support for the opposition remains unchallenged. In fact, the American people themselves are encouraged to sponsor the protests. Embedded with the State Department, corporate press helps to circulate the message. An article published on Bloomberg describes in details how the protesters are armed and organized. This organization process involves helmets and goggles, worn by provocateurs on the front lines, coming “via private couriers. Portable radios and gas masks are smuggled across the border or sent on charter planes.” Venezuelan expats are holding “fund raisers” and their appeal for support is shared on social media networks. The article was open in connecting these actors to the previous incidents of unrest in Venezuela. Indeed, “they failed to oust Maduro back in 2014.”
Crowdfunding is described to be the key driving force of resistance. Small donations do contribute to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela. There are many campaign pages on GoFundMe and Generosity raising funds for the radicals in masks.
In my search for such fundraisers, I found 17 pages, (15 on GoFundMe and 2 on Generosity), specifically raising money for the protests. At the time of writing this article, the combined sum raised on these campaigns tops $102,584. The most successful fundraiser on Generosity raised $44,768 in small donations. The opening dates of these campaigns correlate with the period of current unrest in Venezuela. Beneficiaries of these funds will perhaps be the most radical elements on the ground, those who intend to provoke the international response.
In the meantime, liberal British newspaper the Guardian outlines 9 ways readers can support “Venezuelan human rights protests.”
Undoubtedly, crowdfunding provides just a small fraction of the money used to sponsor opposition. The most recent bill in Congress aims to provide Venezuela $9,500,000 on democracy promoting activities. Value of this sum would increase astronomically on the Venezuelan black market exchange. Ones again, the regime change agenda is painted with “democracy promotion” and human rights.
That “democracy promotion” also involves sanctions. It was the Obama administration who first imposed them on Venezuelan officials back in 2014. A year later, the non-militaristic republic was declared a threat to national security of the United States. Today, a list of sanctioned individuals includes 8 members of Venezuelan Supreme Court and top government officials, including the Vice President Tareck El Aissami, who was labeled a drug “kingpin” by Washington. If drug “kingpin” was the motive for sanctions on the Vice President, then a large circle of politicians and oligarchs in Mexico should long be veiled under similar restrictions. But Mexico is portrayed to us as a democracy while Venezuela is an authoritarian regime, requiring a package of democracy promoting measures.
Tough economic sanctions against Venezuela were also debated in Washington. If imposed, they will only exacerbate the already difficult situation facing millions of ordinary citizens.
In the time when multinational corporations and Washington are plaguing the economy and interfering in politics, the Bolivarian Revolution moves on implementing its promises. In a span of 6 years, over 1.4 million new homes were built across the country to rehouse the poorest families from the barrios. Since the triumphs of Chavistas in 1998, the rates of extreme poverty were successfully reduced while the literacy rates uplifted. Enrollment into institutions of higher education was surged from 670,000 in 1998 to 2,500,000 in 2013. Social security now covers over 2 million retired residents. These achievements had virtually received no credit on the American news outlets. Neither is mentioned the fact that in spite of economic strains, Venezuela continues to make payments on its debt, thus eroding the widely speculated narrative of default. Understandably, the mentioned triumphs against poverty and hunger had suffered setbacks from the economic woes. The government’s agenda, however, remains unshackled
Even before the economic crisis, before the scarcity of basic goods and manipulative use of currency devaluation, attempts were made to topple the socialist government from powers. Back in 2002, the Venezuelan elites had colluded with Washington to orchestrate a coup against the predecessor of Nicolás Maduro, the symbolic leader of Bolivarian Revolution, Hugo Chavez. They failed…  The power of ordinary citizens had restored the democratically elected leadership.
Nothing has changed since.
The Empire and its multinational corporations maintain a strong interest in Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, numerically the largest in the world. For them, the biggest crime committed by the government was the use of oil revenues for empowerment of ordinary citizens, the people who were forgotten and neglected by previous administrations. Reinforcing political influence over the government and privatizing control over the oil sector became an obsession. So far, it seems the elites and Washington are prepared to use any diplomatic and economic means to achieve the outlined goals. Thus, there is no end in sight to protests. Meanwhile, the ordinary Venezuelans face a tough road ahead.
“I always say we don’t want to be rich, our aim is not material wealth. It is to live with dignity”, emphasized Hugo Chavez in an interview with a renowned filmmaker and investigative journalist, John Pilger.The struggle to “live with dignity” continues for Venezuelans, similarly as it continues for the billions of people across the world.
It is not for the corporate Empire to decide on the lives of ordinary people and the expropriation of natural wealth their lands preserve. It is cannibalistic to use starvation as a weapon, forcing people submit to the cynically imposed ultimatums.
Venezuela deserves sovereignty! Venezuelan people deserve to “live with dignity.”

The Vicious Cyber-War Against Venezuela

Manuel E. Yepe

Havana.
The psychological warfare being waged by the oligarchic opposition in Venezuela –following the strategic and tactical objectives of US imperialism– has strong support in a well-organized Twitter operation that promotes protests from the Miami-based DolarToday platform. This is described in a research article published by the well-known specialist Erin Gallagher.
DolarToday is a US website based in Miami that, according to Wikipedia, “is more known for being an exchange rate reference to the Venezuelan bolivar” and “monitoring the Venezuelan economy.”
Currently, with no other reliable source other than the black market exchange rates, these rates are used by ReutersCNBC, and several media news agencies and networks.
The Economist states in its defense that the rates calculated by DolarToday are “erratic”, but that they are “more realistic than the three official rates” released by the Venezuelan government. It maintains that it is not true that the rates published by DolarToday are manipulated in order to undercut the Venezuelan government.
The DolarToday website has been denounced by the Venezuelan State for setting a parallel dollar artificial price marker (black market). It has also been the target of a lawsuit by the Central Bank of Venezuela for falsifying the country’s exchange rates.
In 2013, President Maduro accused the website of “fueling an economic war against his government, and manipulating the exchange rate.”
“DolarToday is also promoting opposition protests in Venezuela. Its tweets are being boosted by automated accounts that exhibit repetitive, bot-like characteristics and are using a social media management tool called IFTTT (If This Then That) to automate their tweets”, says Erin Gallagher.
“What immediately caught my attention in the #TeamHDP hashtag data were the shared networks between the influencers (real persons of high credibility),” explained the specialist.
Trolls and bots carry out coordinated attacks to create false trends, congest or disrupt networks, and disseminate misinformation. Sometimes they succeed having a respected media –by neglect or mistake– disseminate their fake information and misleading headlines.
“Bots” are automated systems or programs –that can be run on home computers or on sophisticated servers—which use non-existent Twitter accounts to repeat a certain phrase hundreds or thousands of times. Thus they can turn those phrases into “trends”; that is to make them appear among the 10 or 20 topics that Twitter considers the subjects most discussed in recent hours.
Bot experts disguise themselves as “digital marketing companies”,create dozens or hundreds of fake Twitter accounts, and then use “bots” so that these accounts simultaneously tweet certain content, including headlines from news sites.
Because many journalists in the print media, radio and television use Twitter trends to determine what topics to deal with in their media, whoever dominates Twitter trends can get to determine the topics most talked about in the country’s media.
Gallagher says it is relatively easy to discover the use of these systems: when you enter a tag on Twitter and then click “Most Recent”, you will notice that there are hundreds or thousands of accounts tweeting exactly the same phrase.
This is not the first time robotic cyber actions have been observed in Venezuelan networks. Mexican researchers from the platform “LoQueSigue” used, in 2014, bots with the hashtag #PrayForVenezuela, which denounced “the violence, the repression and the supposed “censorship” of the protests in Venezuela,” which became a worldwide trend.
In addition, NoBotsPolitico of Spain documented fake accounts that supported the protests in Venezuela until June 2014, then remained silent for eight months, but went back to tweeting propaganda against Podemos in hashtags related to the 2015 elections in Spain.
Bloomberg published a feature on an investigation of March 2016 titled “How to Hack an Election” about the Colombian hacker Andrés Sepulveda, who worked with a team of hackers to manipulate information about the elections in Latin America. Sepulveda is currently serving 10 years in prison for crimes such as abusive access to computer networks, violation of personal data, espionage, and the use of malicious software during the 2014 election in Colombia.
It is not difficult to guess who controls the automated accounts that support #TeamHDP. The counterrevolution will someday have to answer for so much crime against the Venezuelan people.

The American Way of War

Sheldon Richman

The most striking fact about the United States of America is not its supposed founding principles — more often lauded than observed — but how often “the greatest country on earth” has waged war. If we count wars against internal “enemies” (i.e., the Indians), covert foreign wars, and aid to other states’ aggressive external and internal wars, we can see the United States has been at war almost continuously since it broke free from Britain.  By one estimate this nation has been at war 214 out of the 228 years since the Constitution took effect — that’s 94 percent of the time — and there were wars during the Articles of Confederation period too. Contrary to popular misconception, the war state did not begin in 1945. From the start, war was an acceptable means to national policy ends, whether to open markets or to install friendly regimes.
It’s a gross understatement to call this record shameful. It’s criminal when you calculate the predictable butcher’s bill — including the killing of noncombatants, deliberately targeted and so-called collateral damage — not to mention the destruction of scarce resources that would have made all people better off.

Do Americans have any clue? The information is readily available, but you have to want to look for it. Most do not. They don’t want to know the truth. They’d rather laud “the troops” for their heroism and hear pundits describe America as a “force for good in the world.” It’s a state-worshiping worldview that resembles religion from which the ruling elite profits politically and financially.
Of course, that word — America — is intentionally ambiguous. It includes American inventors, entrepreneurs, workers, traders, and all kinds of artists, who have benefited the world. But it also includes self-serving politicians and military bureaucrats, their chests ostentatiously adorned with ribbons, who could not do a tiny fraction of the damage they do if they did not have the state’s machinery of violence at their disposal. How many voluntary contributions could they have raised to finance their wars and domestic oppression? If that isn’t an indictment of the state in itself, I don’t know what is. It also takes some of the gloss off “limited government,” seeing as how it would be “limited” to the military, the police, and the jailers. Libertarians have long argued over whether they should “hate the state,” but how can you not hate it once you have seen its destructive essence?
Some of America’s many wars eventually lost favor with the public — Vietnam is a case in point, though not until two million Vietnamese and 58,000 Americans had perished  — but the harshest thing that you can say about such wars in polite company is that they were well-meant mistakes committed in “noble causes.” Call the wars criminal and you will be struck from the invitation list. You certainly won’t be published in the respectable U.S.-based media. If you’re a famous investigative reporter with a long track record of documenting American war crimes, you’ll be banished to the London Review of Books or Germany’s Die Welt.
But let’s be fair about this. War does have its uses besides making a few folks rich and powerful. It’s good for distracting the people, who may otherwise get fed up with the obvious scam we call government. Shakespeare understood this, as he showed when he had Henry IV tell his son, “Therefore, my Harry, be it thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels; that action, hence borne out, may waste the memory of the former days” (Henry IV Pt. 2). Thus the need for a constant supply of invented enemies, with Russia always available for the lead villain.
Trump, the alleged Great Disrupter, may not read, but he has demonstrated that he understands Henry’s advice. Trump’s attacks on Syrian and allied forces have won him plaudits even from avowed political enemies. That those enemies have quickly gone back to hating him probably only taught him that he needs to do more of the same. His latest warning to Bashar al-Assad seems to indicate this. So does his statement about Qatar, which stands accused — can you imagine it? — of aiding terrorists by Trump’s new friends in Saudia Arabia. His cynical campaign against Iran is another indication of where he’s heading. And then there’s Ukraine. And North Korea.
What’s more likely to distract Americans from their problems, tweaking the health-insurance rules or a venturing into another splendid war? There are no Purple Hearts for fixing the infrastructure.
If we step back we might appreciate the big picture. What kind of country spends so much time and money making, facilitating, provoking, and underwriting war? Certainly not a progressive — in the everyday sense — or liberal — in the original Adam Smith sense — country. (The original liberals despised everything connected with war.) We Americans thankfully do not live in a totalitarian state. There is still a line the politicians not to cross. But that line has been moving — and not in favor of liberty. Where were the crowds of protesters when the news broke that the government was spying on Americans en masse in the “war on terror” — something we learned, thanks to Edward Snowden, just after the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, swore it was not happening? Not only were there no protests, Clapper today routinely appears on the news networks as a credible source on how Russia is waging cyber war on America. That speaks volumes. Lying under oath if you believe it’s for national security is just fine. We’ll believe whatever you tell us next as if it never happened.
Afghanistan has replaced Vietnam as the site of America’s longest war, but Americans have long stopped paying attention. The war party knows what this means: keep American casualties low, call the troops “advisers,” and a war can continue indefinitely — even occasional surges will be acceptable. Thanks to special ops and drones, wars can be extended to or intensified in other countries with impunity: Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and who knows where else. The casualties and hardships inflicted on indigenous populations don’t count. They are only foreigners, brown-skinned Muslims. Besides, didn’t we get attacked on 9/11 while minding our own business? Just keep saying that.
Members of Congress either approve of wholesale American state violence or are too cowardly to stop it. Occasionally one of them wants a new authorization for the use military force in Syria because the post-9/11 authorization has been stretched beyond recognition. But it never gets far. I hear the Constitution says something about Congress having the power to declare war, but that’s long been a dead letter. Presidents are free to make war anywhere anytime. (John Quincy Adams, who famously orated that America “goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” thought those who conducted the coup d’etat in Philadelphia had erred in not lodging the war power in the executive branch so that American presidents would have the same power as European kings. He needn’t have worried.)
At any rate, for constitutional sticklers, an authorization for the use of military force is not a declaration of war. Rather, it is a delegation of the war power to declare to a president. Forgive my quaint notions.
I see no signs this is going to change anytime soon, which should concern libertarians because the U.S. empire (that is, American super-sovereignty), militarism, and war profiteering jeopardize liberty like nothing else.

Deaths in the Amazon: Increase in Indigenous Killings as Brazil’s Political Crisis Deepens

Joe Sandler-Clarke & Sam Cowie

There has been a significant increase in the number of indigenous people and environmental activists killed over land disputes in Brazil, as human rights experts warn of a dangerous political mood in the nation.
New research shared with Greenpeace’s Energydesk by Brazilian human rights NGO Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT), shows that 37 people have been killed in the first six months of the year in rural land conflicts, eight more than at the same time in 2016.
The data comes as President Temer’s right-wing government has cut funding dramatically for the country’s indigenous rights agency, Funai.
CPT, which has been collecting data on rural violence since 1985, has found that so far the number of people killed in these disputes is set to exceed last year’s figures, when 61 people died.
At the end of April, violence against indigenous people in Brazil made international headlines, as 13 members of the Gamela community in Maranhão state were attacked by farmers wielding machetes in brutal land dispute.
A couple of week’s earlier, nine people were stabbed and shot over a territorial dispute in Mato Grosso state, in the Amazon.
Jeane Bellini, national coordinator of CPT told Energydesk that recent years have a significant increase in the number of people being killed in rural land conflicts.
Bellini believes the current political turmoil in Brazil, the former President Dilma Rousseff was ousted last year while sitting President Michel Temer is embroiled in a corruption scandal, has helped fuel the violence:
“Rural violence has accelerated under President Temer. Actually, it isn’t only the government. I would say that the political instability created by all of those irresponsible people in congress, as well as Temer and his government have added. I mean, they’re doing things that are completely against the needs and the rights of the people.”
Indigenous rights agency cut
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, told Energydesk that there is a close correlation between the government’s moves to cut the agency and the increase in violence. She explained:
“There is increased violence because the offices of Funai at the state levels are not functioning anymore. Funai is the only government agency trusted by Indigenous people. People look up to Funai to protect them. Now there is nobody trying to protect them.”
Tauli-Corpuz visited Brazil at the end of last year and found government agencies unable to function. She told Energydesk in December that she visited Funai regional offices which had no staff:
“We went to the office in Bahia and there was no one there. There have been huge cutbacks, and they have continued since I came back from my trip … I have a sense that the situation in the country is deteriorating.”
Months later, the UNSR said that the recommendations she made to Brazilian officials have not been addressed.
In May, a congressional committee led by a powerful farming lobby moved to replace the indigenous rights agency with a body controlled by the justice ministry – a move which campaigners believe could have terrible consequences.
Impunity
According to Bellini, a culture of impunity around rural killings in Brazil is also to blame for the worsening situation. CPT states that of the 1,800 killings the organisation has recorded since 1985, only 112 ended up in court with very few ending with conviction.
She said: “Given all the political instability in Brazil since last year, those who are looking to accumulate land, in whatever way they can, have found an opportunity to accelerate the process and apparently they feel quite convinced of impunity.”
In response to this story, Amnesty International Brazil – which uses CPT’s data in its own work – sent us the following statement.
“Amnesty International believes, that in the light of the recent attack on the Gamela community in Maranhão state, it is absolutely essential that the Brazilian government makes a strong statement committing to upholding the Constitutional obligations to demarcate and deliver Indigenous Peoples’ ancestral lands.
“Funai must be strengthened, by making available necessary financial resources, and recent appointments to the agency should be reviewed, in order to ensure that those in leadership positions in the agency have the necessary political independence to do their job.
“The Brazilian government must ensure security to human rights defenders and withdraw any initiatives to criminalize or limit their work.”