May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous
National Security State as Racket on the Danger of Terrorism
Review of Literature
“Plunderers of the world, when nothing remains on the lands to which they have laid waste by wanton
thievery, they search out across the seas. The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if
it is weak, their lust for power as well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough
for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery,
rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”
"The greatest threat is that we shall become like those who seek to destroy us"
the legendary US diplomat George Kennan warned in 1947
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the
Ronal Reagan about a different crisis
Books have been written about President Eisenhower’s famous farewell warning in 1961 about
the “military-industrial complex,” and what he described as its “unwarranted influence.” But an
even greater leviathan today, one that the public knows little about, is the “intelligence-industrial
The National Security State is an ideology and practice of the USA elite, closely connected
with the idea of the rule of the
Complex, and especially three-letter agencies ("Trumanites" because of our 33rd president's
role in founding the CIA, the modern Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National
Security Agency). It is somewhat different from national socialist idea as it is married to neoliberalism
and does not included the decisive influence of the state in economic sphere.
Under neoliberalism society has become increasingly militarized, meaning that as most aspects
of the social-democratic state (New Deal state) are eliminated, a police state is rising in its place.
All problems that in the past were seen as social problems, and hence required social solutions, now
acquire police solutions.
Moreover intelligence services became Praetorian Guard of neoliberal elite that is in power and that
completely changed the nature of governance in the USA.
Now there is a country within the country in the USA. It can be called "Classified America". It has population of around 5
million people and controls the other 320 million. Almost 5 million people is more more then 1% of population. And now it become a
formidable political force that strives to become a kingmaker. much like Praetorian Guard in ancient Role it is clearly out of
control of elected government and has its own, sometimes nefarious agenda. All-in-all this is the fastest growing part of
In economic sphere deregulation (economic liberalism or neoliberalism) produce social conflict, which
at some point can not be masked by neoliberal demagogy ("shareholder value", "stakeholder participation"
and other neoliberal crap). At some point it requires police methods of suppression of dissent. As the state now represents interest only of the top 0.1% population,
economic and political spheres became merged under authoritarian rule of financial oligarchy, not unlike
the USSR under bolshevism with the only difference that until 1970th "nomenklatura" was more aligned with the interests
of the society then financial oligarchy. Later it became detached form that interest of lower 80% of population, adopted neoliberal
ideology, became turncoats and facilitated dissolution of the USSR privatizing its wealth in the process.
Under leoliberalism, which established itself in the USA since late 70th, tax laws, inheritance rules, status to trade unions,
door" regulations (which highly correlates with the degree of corruption of the society)
became political decisions favoring neoliberal elite at the expence of common sitizents. To hide this requires constant brainwashing of the population and instilling
fear using external threat. that's where intelligence agancies come handy as they by-and-large control key journalists and key MSM.
For example Washington Post for a long time was called "voice of CIA" even in the US establishment.
Since 9/11 terrorism is used as a smoke screen to hide the warts of neoliberalism and facilitate the transition of state into
nationa security state. Adoption of Patriot Act and resulting hypertrophied growth of intelligence agencies in the USA are just a
tip of the iceberg. In reality the situation became pretty much Orwellian with Intelligence agencies as a ne Big Brother and
the war between Oceania
(USA and NATO vassals) and Eurasia (Russia and China) in the Orwell's famous novel 1984, It is clear that the war with terrorism
launched what can be called "permanent war for permanent peace". The level of rampant militarism
in the USA now is close to what we observe in typical neo-fascist movements, especially under Trump (Fascism
- Wikipedia ):
Fascists saw World War I
as a revolution that brought
massive changes in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of
total war and total mass
mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilian and combatant. A "military
citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the
The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to
serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well
as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.
Fascists believe that
is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a
as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.
Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a
dictator and a
martial government composed
of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly
society.Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political
violence, war, and imperialism
as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.
Fascists advocate a mixed
economy, with the principal goal of achieving
interventionist economic policies.
Since the end of World
War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead
now usually used
by political opponents. The descriptions
are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar
to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.
Paradoxially intelligence agencies and Pentagon can't live peacefully with each other and struggle for power. That why
intelligence agencies launched a
color revolution against Trump, who can be viewed as the Presidential Candidate of Pentagon. After coming to power Trump
introduced several new measures which represent the idea of "national neoliberalism". He explicitly wants to use the power of the US
to bully all nations. Those who behave against the USA wishes have sanction imposed and are threatened with war.
In this mutation of neoliberalism as a social system US intelligence apparatus and military establishment are raised to the level
above and beyond civilian control and become a somewhat autonomous system, a hidden government of the
USA. The Deep state as it is now called. For example intelligence againces now
strive and de facto achieved the role of king maker for the most top positions in the USA government. And, if necessary, can
act as a king remover (JFK assassination is a nice example here; CIA fingerprints are all over the place,
but nobody from CIA went to jail for this: "mission accomplished").
The colossal budget with juicy cost-plus contracts of affiliated private companies gives intelligence agencies and Pentagon not only tremendous power, but also
create vested ideological and financial interests. Wars became necessary for maintaining the level of those budgets. Existence of
the "country-scapegoat" is important too for projecting on it all evil that happens within the USA under neoliberalism and blowbacks
from neoliberal foreign policy. For example,
for the moment of its creation, due to Allen Dulles background CIA was aligned with the interests of
There no real overseeing of three letter agencies from neither executive branch, not from
the Congress, nor from the Supreme Court. But the reverse is not true. In a way they now strive to serve as a surrogate king. In other words,
instead of the servant of the state intelligence agencies became the master. Tail wags the dog. This phenomenon is not
limited to the USA. The same hijacking of executive, parliamentarian and judicial braches of govern
happened in other countries. A very interesting example provides the USSR: it was actually betrayal
of KGB brass, who switched side and decided to privatize the country, that was the key factor tthat led to the dissolution of the USSR.
The key "three letter agencies" (CIA,
DOD, NSA, FBI) were established by the National Security Act of 1947, signed in September 18,
1947 by President Harry S. Truman. This year can be considered as the year when National Security State
was born and probably should be celebrated accordingly instead of old-fashioned Independence Day.
Very little was preserved from the "old republic" after this transformation of the USA.
The surveillance state is the ruling class's key hole through which they monitor us and our
potential dissent.It's now an integral part of capitalism and can't be removed.
The game has changed. It's now about convincing us as much as possible that they will stop snooping
on us. They won't though. It will just become more heavily hidden.
Surveillance state was made possible with the advent of computers, Internet and wireless communication.
In some features it is close to neo-fascism and Latin-American far right authoritarian regimes, but
there are important difference. Instead of organized violence against opponents it achieved its goals
without relentless physical repression/elimination of opponents. It's key feature is mass surveillance,
discreditation and blackmailing of opponents (like in German Democratic Republic there are dossier for
every member of society and skeletons from the closet can be revealed for any politician or activist)
as well as control and manipulation of media, not mass repression of opponents. Like neofascist regimes
of the past (such as Pinochet regime in Chile) and authoritarian "communist" regimes of the past and
present, it make organized opposition to the government virtually impossible. Of the
traits of neo-fascist regimes probably around a half are applicable to the national security state.
After 9/11, Bush government's behavior and especially appeals to public clearly resonate with the
proto-fascist "... uber alles" ideas ("America is an exceptional nation"). As an amazing example of doublespeak Bushists
managed to integrate American exceptionalism into the framework of globalist neoliberal regime (as the
command-and-control center for neoliberal world empire, no less).
Bush government inspired post-9/11
paranoia doesn’t come cheaply, though. Costs were staggering: the military ($682 billion), Homeland
Security (about $60 billion), and 15 intelligence agencies (official figure of combined budget is perhaps
$75 billion; but in reality more then that). The total is probably over a trillion.
Nothing changed under President Obama, which suggests that he is just a figurehead and the
"deep state" is actually in charge. In most
areas the Obama administration was more like Bush II administration, with "change we can believe in" as a smokescreen for
nefarious actions. Obama launched more wars then Bush II too.
In this sense this was the most blatant and the most successful "bait and switch" in the recent political history of the
USA. Later is lightly different form repeated with Trump, who also during election campaign proposed reasonable steps of
improving standard of living of the US population and finishing forign wars, but instance switched sides after election pushing
neoliberal policies at home, and continuing all Bush-Obama wars foreign wars abroad. He also appointed open war hawks into his
administration. The list of neocons in Trumps administration is as long as in Bush II administration and includes people in key
positions such as Haley,
This is the view of Professor Michel Greenon, who in his book advocated the view that tradition
troika of powers in the USA became by and large ceremonial and that real actors, at least in area of
national security are not non-elected executives of super-powerful and well financed three-letter agencies.
Here is a brief overview taken from review published by Reason (National
Security State - Reason.com):
Though Glennon doesn't describe his thesis in terms of public choice theory, it echoes that discipline's
insight that institutions are run for the benefit of the people who run the institutions. For the
Trumanites, Glennon explains, "benefits take the form of enlarged budgets, personnel, missions;
costs take the form of retrenchments in each." Witness the vast archipelago of intelligence
facilities-nearly three Pentagons' worth of office space-that have been erected in greater Washington,
D.C., since 9/11.
The national security state is becoming an autonomous, self-perpetuating entity, Glennon
warns. It sets the table for elected officials' choices and increasingly dictates terms to them.
The permanent bureaucracy basks in the "glow" of Madisonian institutions, drawing legitimacy from
the illusion that elected officials are in charge. But while the buck may stop with the president,
the real power resides with the Trumanites.
This explanation is strongest in the realm of state surveillance, which serves as Glennon's central
case study. Recall the embarrassing revelation, in the summer of 2013, that the NSA was tapping German
Chancellor Angela Merkel's cellphone. What did the president know, and when did he know it? If you
believe top administration officials, Obama was almost as surprised as Merkel. Glennon quotes Secretary
of State John Kerry to the effect that the Merkel wiretap, like a lot of NSA programs, occurred "on
On one hand, that's what you'd expect them to say. On the other hand, the claim is
entirely plausible, and it is consistent with the earlier history of NSA abuses uncovered by the
Church Committee in the 1970s. Under Project SHAMROCK, for example, the NSA collected the content
of virtually all cable traffic entering or leaving the United States for three decades-150,000 messages
a month at its height. It was, the committee's final report concluded, "probably the largest governmental
interception program affecting Americans ever undertaken." And yet it's not clear that any president
ordered, approved, or was even aware of SHAMROCK. When the program's existence was exposed in the
mid-'70s, Louis Tordella, longtime deputy director of the NSA, admitted that he didn't know whether
any president or attorney general had ever been briefed on it.
The picture grows somewhat more complicated when we look at the modern practice of presidential
war making. From the Truman administration onward, the president has accumulated enormous unchecked
authority, despite James Madison's conviction that, since the executive department was "most distinguished
by its propensity to war," it is "the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to
disarm this propensity of its influence."
When it comes to picking the wars we wage, it's not clear that the Trumanites are fully in charge.
Take four major war-powers decisions during the Obama administration: the Afghan surge, the escalation
of drone attacks, the Libya intervention, and the current war against ISIS. I put the Trumanite win-loss
record at roughly .500 here. The military and national security bureaucracy fought hard for the surge
and the drone escalation, and got them. They generally opposed the Libyan action, and some prominent
Trumanites-such as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs -appear to have been reluctant to endorse our
latest war in the Middle East.
In the case of this most recent war, domestic politics seems a better explanation: The president
yielded to the near-irresistible demand that he "do something" about the beheading of Americans and
the implosion of the Iraqi state. Bombing ISIS is something, so we're doing it.
The Obama experience suggests we get the wars the Trumanites want -- and also some they don't.
But this is hardly fatal to Glennon's thesis. He stresses that "a good theory of institutional
behavior can predict, at best, only tendency over time"; his "predicts only that national
security policy will change little from one administration to the next." So far, that theory is holding
up rather well.
Even so, I've always been partial to one version of the "government politics" explanation. A few
years ago, I wrote a book arguing that "Americans' unconfined conception of presidential responsibility
is the source of much of our political woe and some of the gravest threats to our liberties." If
the political reality is such that the president will be held personally accountable for any domestic
terror attack, don't be surprised when he seeks powers nearly as vast as the expectations put upon
Glennon acknowledges it's not either-or; "explanations overlap," he writes. Dumb wars and
security-state overreach are the result of political choices and the bureaucratic imperative. Policy
continuity is depressingly overdetermined.
Real-time histories of key national security decisions in the Obama years tend to underscore this
point. In Kill or Capture, reporter Daniel Klaidman describes the enormous political pressure the
Obama administration was under after the failed "underwear bomber" attack on December 25, 2009. "For
the White House," Klaidman writes, "the psychic toll of Christmas Day was profound. Obama realized
that if a failed terror attempt could suck up so much political oxygen, a successful attack would
absolutely devastate his presidency. And much as he liked to talk about returning to first principles,
Obama also had a powerful instinct for self-correction-as well as self-preservation."
The psychic aftershock of Christmas 2009 helped shape a lot of what followed: from body scanners
at airports to ramped-up drone strikes to the lethal targeting of an American citizen.
But to Glennon's point, the administration was under pressure from the Trumanites well before
that. In the 2012 book, The Obamians: The Struggle Inside the White House to Redefine American Power,
James Mann describes a concerted effort by then-CIA director Michael Hayden and other senior
intelligence officials to preserve business as usual by scaring the hell out of the incoming Obama
team. Their private name for this scheme was the "Aw, Shit! Campaign."
The scare tactics worked. Klaidman reports that both Harold Koh, legal advisor at the State Department,
and Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon's general counsel, used the same metaphor to describe the military
pressure for more targeted killings: a runaway train. It was like "a massive freight train hurling
down the tracks" Koh said. "You would have to throw yourself on the tracks to try to stop it," said
All this helps shed light on Obama's strange and disorienting May 2013 "drone speech" at the National
Defense University in Washington, D.C., in which the president seemed to be speaking not as commander
in chief, but as his own loyal opposition.
In the speech, Obama said things like "Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions,
our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents
unbound powers." And: "The very precision of drone strikes can also lead a president and his team
to view [them] as a cure-all for terrorism." I remember thinking: "A president"? Which one? Anyone
in particular? Who's in charge here, anyway?
National Security and Double Government suggests that the answer to that last question isn't quite
so obvious, that the "most powerful man in the world" isn't nearly as powerful as he might appear.
It remains the case that Obama had the formal authority to say no to mass surveillance and perpetual
war. But saying no would require resisting enormous bureaucratic and political pressure. And anybody
willing to do what it takes to become president is unlikely to transform himself into a self-denying
Cincinnatus once in office. Political survivors don't jump in front of trains.
While US government spent around $3.67 trillion in 2013, the revenue was just $2.77 trillion. Of
that amount over one trillion went to three-letter agencies and DOD. Now you understand to whom real
power belongs. Moreover the government has to borrow about $900 billion in order to maintain national
security state programs intact. And there are 5 million (yes million) people in the USA with security
clearance and around 3 million with top security clearance. In other words "Welcome to the USSR." or
even Third Reich (actually republican senators opposed Truman initiative due to fear that he replicated
institution of the Third Reich in the USA and only support of powerful Democrats allowed the president
to push the act through the Congress.
But even if it was close to the Third Reich in political effects and its essence, this type of political
structure is different, because it does not rely on mass mobilization. Instead it relied on the power
of "deep state" and mass surveillance as well as passivity of most electorate.
As Paxton describes it (Tracking
Fascism) fascism as just hypertrophied and misguided nationalism, a specific flavor of far right
nationalism. The central emotions in fascism and nationalism are identical. In other words
at the core of fascist emotional mobilization always lies far right nationalism and that is important
distinction with national security state and neoliberalism which are globalist and "imperial"
and does not stress particular nationality as long of the person/group serves empire interests:
...Feelings propel fascism more than thought does. We might call them mobilizing passions, since
they function in fascist movements to recruit followers and in fascist regimes to "weld" the fascist
"tribe" to its leader. The following mobilizing passions are present in fascisms, though they
may sometimes be articulated only implicitly:
The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether
universal or individual.
The belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action against
the group's enemies, internal as well as external.
Dread of the group's decadence under the corrosive effect of individualistic and cosmopolitan
Closer integration of the community within a brotherhood (fascio) whose unity and purity
are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary.
An enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur of the group reinforces
Authority of natural leaders (always male) throughout society, culminating in a national
chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny.
The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in
a Darwinian struggle.
Post 9/11 "passions" in the USA were definitely skillfully used by Bush administration to push
the nation into the Iraq war and the attacks on dissenters that occurred during it were pretty vicious,
really in traditions of Third Reich ("you are either with us, or with our enemies").
But public was not really central in this whole issue. Americans were extras at best, patsies at
worst, Essentially all major decisions were made "behind the curtain" by
deep state structures and public was just brainwashed
into approval of those action. That's an important different between national security state and classical
fascist regimes. In classic fascist state the leading fascist party would be central to unleashing such
a war. Here it was bust a bunch of highly placed bureaucrats in Bush II administration (so called
neocons, which is an ideological group allied with the military industrial
complex, but not an organized party as such).
1. [Group primacy]: See, again, the Bush Doctrine. An extension of this sentiment is at play
among those jingoes who argue that Americans may need to sacrifice some of their civil rights --
say, free speech -- during wartime.
2. [Victim mentality]: This meme is clearly present in all the appeals to the victims of Sept.
11 as justifications for the war. It is present at nearly all levels of the debate: from the White
House, from the media, even from the jingoist entertainment industry (see, e.g., the lyric of Darryl
Worley's extraordinarily popular country-western hit, "Have You Forgotten?": "Some say this country's
just out looking for a fight / Well after 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right.").
3. [Dread of liberal decadence]: This meme has been stock in trade of the talk-radio crowd
since at least 1994 -- at one time it focused primarily on the person of Bill Clinton -- and has
reached ferocious levels during the runup to the war and after it, during which antiwar leftists
have regularly and remorselessly been accused of treason.
4. [Group integration] and 5. [Group identity as personal validation] are, of course,
among the primary purposes of the campaign to demonize liberals -- to simultaneously build a cohesive
brotherhood of like-minded "conservatives" who might not agree on the details but are united in their
loathing of all things liberal. It plays out in such localized manifestations as the KVI Radio 570th
On-Air Cavalry, which has made a habit of deliberately invading antiwar protests with the express
purpose of disrupting them and breaking them up. Sometimes, as they did recently in Bellingham, this
is done with caravans of big trucks blaring their horns; and they are also accompanied by threatening
rhetoric and acts of physical intimidation. They haven't yet bonded in violence -- someone did phone
in a threat to sniper-shoot protesters -- but they are rapidly headed in that direction.
6. [Authority of leaders]: This needs hardly any further explanation, except to note that
George W. Bush is actually surprisingly uncharismatic for someone who inspires as much rabid loyalty
as he does. But then, that is part of the purpose of Bush's PR campaign stressing that he receives
"divine guidance" -- it assures in his supporters' mind the notion that he is carrying out God's
destiny for the nation, and for the conservative movement in particular.
7. [An aesthetic of violence]: One again needs only turn to the voluminous jingoes of Fox
News or the jubilant warbloggers to find abundant examples of celebrations of the virtues -- many
of them evidently aesthetic -- of the evidently just-completed war.
I would like to stress that similar processes occurred in different states after WWII as well (Latin
America military dictatorships are one example). And with new force and on the new level after the dissolution
of the USSR in Russia. Of course the USSR was a National Security Surveillance State even before
WWII, being one of the "pioneers" of this form of state along with Italy and Germany. But it was a rather
"primitive" form of national security state in a sense that it did not rely on computers, collecting
"envelope" of all Internet communication, emails headers and other "meta-data" as well as systematic
interception of SMS-based communications as well interception of wireless communication and financial
operations via computerized banking (especially credit card transactions) for surveillance.
Mickey Edwards, who served in Congress from 1977 to 1993, and is the author of “The Parties Versus
the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans.” published a very penetrating review
of the book in
The Boston Globe. In which he stated:
It has long been the province of conspiracy theorists to claim that the real power of government
is not wielded by the obvious practitioners of statecraft — presidents, members of Congress, the
judiciary — but by secret or semi-secret entities, real wizards whose hidden machinations send us
to war, sell us out to enemies, siphon public treasure into private hands. Depending on your talk
show or paranoia of choice, these are the bankers, oil barons, one-worlders, war profiteers, Bilderbergers,
Masons, Catholics, Jews, or Trilateralists. Our formal institutions, in this scenario, are stage
sets, Potemkin villages; our officials are puppets; we are an unsuspecting audience.
Michael Glennon, a respected academic (Tufts’s FLETCHER SCHOOL) and author of a book brought to
us by an equally respected publisher (Oxford University Press), is hardly the sort to indulge in
such fantasies. And that makes the picture he paints in “National Security and Double Government”
all the more arresting. Considering Barack Obama’s harsh pre-election criticisms of his predecessor’s
surveillance policies, for example, Glennon notes that many of those same policies — and more of
the same kind — were continued after Obama took office. “Why,” he asks, “does national security
policy remain constant even when one President is replaced by another, who as a candidate repeatedly,
forcefully, and eloquently promised fundamental changes in that policy?”
The answer Glennon places before us is not reassuring: “a bifurcated system — a structure of double
government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall
direction of US national security policy.” The result, he writes, is a system of dual institutions
that have evolved “toward greater centralization, less accountability, and emergent autocracy.”
If this were a movie, it would soon become clear that some evil force, bent on consolidating power
and undermining democratic governance, has surreptitiously tunneled into the under-structure of the
nation. Not so. In fact, Glennon observes, this hyper-secret and difficult-to-control network arose
in part as an attempt to head off just such an outcome. In the aftermath of World War II, with the
Soviet Union a serious threat from abroad and a growing domestic concern about weakened civilian
control over the military (in 1949, the Hoover Commission had warned that the Joint Chiefs of Staff
had become “virtually a law unto themselves”), President Truman set out to create a separate national
By 2011, according to The Washington Post, there were 46 separate federal departments and agencies
and 2,000 private companies engaged in classified national security operations with millions of employees
and spending of roughly a trillion dollars a year. As Glennon points out, presidents get to name
fewer than 250 political appointees among the Defense Department’s nearly 700,000 civilian employees,
with hundreds more drawn from a national security bureaucracy that comprise “America’s Trumanite
network” — in effect, on matters of national security, a second government.
Glennon’s book is not a breezy read: It’s thick with fact and not unappreciative of conundrum
(“The government is seen increasingly by elements of the public as hiding what they ought to know,
criminalizing what they ought to be able to do, and spying upon what ought to be private. The people
are seen increasingly by the government as unable to comprehend the gravity of security threats.”).
Nor is he glib with proposed solutions: to adequately respond to the threats posed by a below-the-radar
second government will require “a general public possessed of civic virtue,” which prompts Glennon
to cite retired Supreme Court justice David Souter’s bemoaning of a “pervasive civic ignorance.”
Not all of the problem can be laid at Truman’s feet. And if we ourselves are part of the zeitgeist
that allows invisible governments to flourish, repair will be difficult. As Glennon puts it, “the
term Orwellian will have little meaning to a people who have never known anything different, who
have scant knowledge of history, civics, or public affairs, and who in any event have never heard
of George Orwell.”
This is no secret conspiracy nor a plot to deprive Americans of their civil liberties. It is the
unintended consequence of a thoughtful attempt to head off the very threats that those attempts have
inadvertently created. But if Glennon’s book is enlightening it is also scary. And it’s not fiction.
Any defense of the national security state requires
the proponent to show, at a minimum, that the present apparatus is competent at its task.
Having lived through Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention many smaller
governmental adventures) I see no evidence of competence. Instead, it’s repetitive failures of
analysis and imagination no matter how much raw intelligence is gathered.
Nor is there any evidence that existing oversight mechanisms function as intended. Recent revelations
about the CIA spying on the Senate should be enough to dispel the idea that leakers have no role
Kinsley is particularly loathsome. His position is little more than “your betters know best”
and that the state’s critics are guttersnipes needing to be kicked to the curb. Kinsley doesn’t
need a coherent position, his goal is to be a spokesman for the better sorts, nothing more...
Tremendous push (or acceleration of pre-existing tendencies) toward National Security State occurred
after 9/11 under the banner of fighting terrorism. At the point technological capabilities of mass surveillance
using computers and the ability to have a dossier for everybody were in place, while mass deployment
of PC, credit cards and cell phones provides constant stream of information to those dossiers, not that
different from "gum shoes" reports. On November, 2001 the phone records of most Americans begin flowing
to the N.S.A. After 9/11, President Bush
the N.S.A. to collect phone and Internet content and metadata without a warrant. Within weeks, under
the so-called President’s Surveillance Program (P.S.P.), the major telephone companies voluntarily hand
over the data. The N.S.A. creates a twenty-four-hour “Metadata Analysis Center” (MAC) to search the
phone records. In October 26, 2001: The Patriot Act is passed. Section 215 allows the government to
seize “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation
to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”
At this point the process started with adoption of Truman doctrine came to a logical end: national
surveillance state became a reality. Formally Truman Doctrine was created "to support free peoples
who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." but in
reality their function was more questionable and after 9/11 (some people date this event as early as
1963 -- JFK assassination) those activities created what is called "The State Within a State"
similar to the USSR KGB role (see
The State Within a State by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick). Here is one review of
passionate albeit muddled, August 24, 1999
I have problems with the author's obvious hatred of the Russian Revolution and Stalin and the
way she claims there is an unbroken chain of horror going all the way back to 1917. Obviously
things are better today -- hence her book! She says 66.7 million people died under "Chekist" rule
since the Russian Revolution -- and then cites the Guiness Book of Records as her source!? No
one could ever prove such a figure, I think its one of things that's repeated 'til it becomes
I also find the author's lack of knowledge about our own CIA kind of disheartening. This fine
organization has spread as much death and terror in the Third World (Indonesia, Guatemala,Chile,
Argentina, Brazil etc. etc. ) as the KGB ever did anywhere, yet she seems to make them out to
be benevolent compared to the KGB (which if you read this book are responsible for everything
wrong with the world today).
After reading this book I still don't understand why she thinks the KGB or its incarnations
are as bad today as they were at the height of the Terror in 1937. Its not really explained in
the book. I still am not convinced that the KGB was the NKVD, and definitely convinced that either
was the SS. Research I have done casually has never come up with hard, convincing figures for
a Nazi style genocide in the USSR, and this anecdotal, unconvincing book didn't change my historical
See Michael J. Hogan, A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National
Security State, 1945-1954. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998; which "explains the transformative
process that ended in the ultimate demise of the New Deal state with its emphasis on social spending
and ushered in the militarist National Security State." From Amazon review:
Hogan, a specialist in American diplomatic and national security studies, has written a complex
but interesting work on the emergence of the national security state. To create this state, it
was necessary to merge the armed forces, the Defense Department, and scientists into a single unit
to enhance the military's capabilities. To a large extent, this unification was accomplished
in the 1950s. The driving forces were James Forrestal, Dean Acheson, and powerful members of Congress
such as Carl Vinson (D-GA), who chaired the Committee on Naval Affairs, along with presidents Truman
Hogan presents a compelling case but overemphasizes the importance of Truman and Eisenhower while
downplaying the role of Vinson and others in the security state's creation. In fact, both Truman
and Eisenhower often seemed opposed to it but succumbed to pressure from Congress and key figures
like Acheson. This extremely complex study, which deals with a subject few other books handle, is
designed for scholars and informed lay readers interested in the creation of the "military-industrial
complex." by Richard P. Hedlund, Ashland Community Coll., KY
"As I pointed out in the preface to The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence in 1974, democratic
governments fighting totalitarian enemies run the risk of imitating their methods and thereby destroying
democracy. By suppressing historical fact, and by manufacturing historical fiction, the CIA,
with its obsessive secrecy and its vast resources, has posed a particular threat to the right
of Americans to be informed for the present and future by an objective knowledge of the past.
As long as the CIA continues to manipulate history, historians of its activities must be Revisionist
if we are to know the truth about the agency's activities, past and present."
Attempts to curtain the surveillance proved to by fruitless.
Church Committee was probably the most
important "after JFK assassination" attempt to somewhat tame three latter agencies and especially CIA,
but it ended in nothing.
Later NSA overtook CIA in many areas of intelligence gathering activities. Which create internal
frictions between two agencies. State Department also "infringed" in CIA role in foreign countries and,
for example, in organization of neoliberal color
revolutions in oil rich or strategically important countries it is difficult to tell when clandestine
actions of State Department ends and clandestine actions of CIA stars and vice versa.
In is interesting to note that even Senators feel threatened by this
total surveillance system. In December 14, 2005 Senators
Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, Richard Durbin, and several colleagues
sign a letter
warning that Section 215 “would allow the government to obtain library, medical and gun records
and other sensitive personal information” that “would allow government fishing expeditions targeting
innocent Americans.” They demand that the records requested should “have some connection to a suspected
terrorist or spy,” a requirement that would
protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance and ensure that government scrutiny is based
on individualized suspicion, a fundamental principle of our legal system.
Let's put the question of morality aside. What are the "national security" reasons that legitimize
the existence of the CIA? Once you learn that Al-Qaeda is a CIA creation and
proxyinsurgent army and that 9/11 was a massive false flag operation, you come
to the natural conclusion that the CIA does not perform a national security role.
The CIA plays a much dirtier role: engineering the American mind. It is not denied that the shadow
CIA has major influence in the mainstream media, especially amongst top newspapers such as The Washington
Post and The New York Times. Michael S. Rozeff
speculates that the New York Times is entirely run by the CIA.
We can't know for certain if that is true because of the lack of historical documentation in the
public domain, but there is a mountain of observable evidence that proves the CIA has many of its
spooks working for the New York Times. Go
for just one example.
Until the American people demand that the U.S. government commit to radical transparency and the
principles enshrined in the U.S. constitution, the shadow CIA and the mainstream media can twist
history and manage public perceptions of reality as much as they like.
The shadow CIA's greatest power comes from its
command of the American public mind as well as its ability to create a fictional version
of history. The false flag September 11 events was the shadow CIA's biggest media operation to date.
It was their Mona Lisa. They painted the canvas of reality with the brush of myth, and worked day
and night to shape the collective memory of the American people while the horror of the tragic attacks
was still fresh in the nation's mind.
Although the shadow CIA doesn't have a total command of the American mind and of history, as proven
by the rise of the global 9/11 truth and justice movement, it possesses enough media power to mold
world public opinion and dictate government policy for the United States with ease. There is no question
that its power is totalitarian in nature and its aims are evil. It does not serve the interests of
the American people; that much is clear.
How can there be freedom when CIA officials in television studios, newspaper offices, and publishing
companies drive the public conversation and form the national narrative on every issue of significance.
The global alternative media is the only global civil society actor that is putting limits on the
CIA's power to make up history and suppress the truth about historical events like 9/11 and the occult
sacrifice of JFK.
In the past, the shadow CIA was presented with roadblocks in the Congress. But 9/11 fixed that
problem. The laws and the politics changed. In
"The Big Chill," author Dan Froomkin says the absence of Congressional leadership in the
post-9/11 political universe has strengthened executive power. Here is an excerpt his article:
After past periods of executive excess, the Fourth Estate was certainly more robust and arguably
more persistent, but it also found natural allies in the other branches of government—particularly
Congress. By contrast, over the summer of 2012, the publication of a minimal amount of new information
regarding drones, cyberwarfare and targeted killings incited bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill—not
to conduct hearings into what had been revealed, but to demand criminal investigations into the
That's how Congress has been ever since the terrorist attacks 11 years ago. "We never got our
Church Committee," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists's
Project on Government
Secrecy, referring to a special investigative Senate committee that held hearings on widespread
intelligence abuses after the Watergate scandal. "What we've got instead is the intelligence oversight
committee drafting legislation to penalize leaks."
Since the Congress is not willing to stand up for the rights of the American people, the truth, human
rights, and the U.S. Constitution, then the American people and global civil society must stand up.
Congress has no real power. According to a recent
Rasmussen survey, Congress only has an eight percent approval rating. There are underground,
neo-Nazi groups in Europe that are more popular than the Congress.
The mainstream media is no better. It is content with its role as a propaganda arm of the shadow
CIA, and that is a tragedy. American newspapers have the power to improve their nation and change
the world for the better, but instead they choose to cover up independent investigations of shady
events like 9/11 that shed light on how the U.S. government really operates.
Alternative media outlets like Infowars.com, Veterans Today, Lew Rockwell.com, Washington's Blog,
The Corbett Report, and countless others are doing the best they can to educate the American people
and wake up humanity.
The last thing the shadow CIA wants to see is an informed and awakened America. It is waging a
war on human consciousness because it is scared of an enlightened world. A world that
is awake and aware of its crimes against humanity is its greatest nightmare.
If the shadow CIA has its way, it will continue inventing stories and passing it off as history
with total immunity. But the global alternative media is telling the shadow CIA: Enough is enough,
stop lying to the American people and the world.
The CIA's reckless disregard of U.S. traditions and laws made former President Harry Truman rethink
his decision to create the CIA in the first place. On December 22, 1963, Truman wrote in The Washington
For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original
assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government.
This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas. I never
had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger
On August 17, 1975 Senator Frank Church stated on NBC's Meet the Press without
mentioning the name of the NSA about this agency (Wikipedia):
In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States
government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that
go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at
enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be
turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability
to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place
If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological
capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total
tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together
in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the
government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there
to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess
this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that
abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.
In his book "Brave
New World Order" (Orbis Books, 1992, paper), Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argues that the Bush I war in
Iraq (as well as Bush II invasion and occupation of the country) was an action of the military industrial
complex usurping the "peace dividend". Iraq was attractive target as it has oil and far enough away
to prove a good vehicle for eating up contract cash. He views the rise of the National Security Defense
State as a consequence of "the threat of peace" for military industrial complex and identifies seven
characteristics of a such a state:
The military is the highest authority. In a National Security State the military
not only guarantees the security of the state against all internal and external enemies, it has enough
power to determine the overall direction of the society. In a National Security State the military
exerts important influence over political, economic, as well as military affairs.
Political democracy and democratic elections are viewed with suspicion, contempt, or in
terms of political expediency. National Security States often maintain an appearance of democracy.
However, ultimate power rests with the military or within a broader National Security Establishment.
The military and related sectors wield substantial political and economic power. They do
so in the context of an ideology which stresses that 'freedom" and "development" are possible only
when capital is concentrated in the hands of elites.
Obsession with enemies. There are enemies of the state everywhere. Defending against external
and/or internal enemies becomes a leading preoccupation of the state, a distorting factor in the
economy, and a major source of national identity and purpose.
The working assumption is that the enemies of the state are cunning and ruthless. Therefore,
any means used to destroy or control these enemies is justified.
It restricts public debate and limits popular participation through secrecy or intimidation.
Authentic democracy depends on participation of the people. National Security States limit such participation
in a number of ways: They sow fear and thereby narrow the range of public debate; they restrict and
distort information; and they define policies in secret and implement those policies through covert
channels and clandestine activities. The state justifies such actions through rhetorical pleas of
"higher purpose" and vague appeals to "national security."
The church is expected to mobilize its financial, ideological, and theological resources
in service to the National Security State.
Now we can add one additional feature
Compare that definition of the National Security State with the definition of
Inverted Totalitarism. Most countries
now have features of both.
The debate about National Security State reemerged in June 2008 due to revelations make about existence
of the Prism program and similar program
by British security services. For example, Jacob Augstein used the term "Obama's Soft Totalitarianism"
in his article
Europe Must Stand Up to American Cyber-Snooping published by SPIEGEL.
Here's the thing about the NSA, the GCHQ, Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, et al...
We all have to stop commenting as if the NSA and the GCHQ are in this thing on their own; the
reality is that no one was supposed to know one iota about any of these programs; the NSA and the
GCHQ began and put in place the structure that would allow all internet service providers, and indeed
all corporations using the net, the ability to track and profile each and every user on the planet,
whether they be using the net, texting, cell, and landline.
We all now know that Google, Yahoo, and the rest, likely including major retailers, and perhaps
not so major retailers, are all getting paid by the United States government, hundreds of millions
of dollars of taxpayer money, our money, to profile 24/7 each and every one of us..., they know how
we think, our desires, our sexual preferences, our religious persuasion, what we spend, etc.; make
no mistake about it, they know it all, and what they don’t currently have, they will very soon…
These agencies and indeed all those who are paid by them, will be engaged over the next few weeks
in a unified program of "perception management" meaning that they will together come up with an all-encompassing
plan that will include the release of all manner of statements attesting to the enforcement of several
different disciplinary actions against whomever for "illegal" breaches of policy...
They may even bring criminal actions against a few poor unfortunate souls who had no idea they
would be sacrificed as one part of the "perception management" game.
Has anyone wondered why, to date, no one in power has really come out and suggested that the program
must be curtailed to limit its application to terrorism and terrorist types?
Here’s why; I was fortunate recently to have given an education on how networks such as Prism,
really work, aside from the rudimentary details given in many publications. They cannot, and will
not, stop monitoring even one individuals activity, because to do so will eventually cause loss of
the ability to effectively monitor as many as 2.5 Million individuals.
Remember the “Two to Three Hop” scenario, which the idiot in one of the hearings inadvertently
spoke of; therein lies the answer. If the average person called 40 unique people, three-hop analysis
would allow the government to mine the records of 2.5 million Americans Do the math; Internet usage
in the United States as of June 30, 2012 reached a total of over 245,000,000 million…
The following link shows how connected the world is… http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats2.htm
We should never forget how the Internet began, and who developed it, the United States Armed Forces;
initially it was known as Arpanet, see excerpt and link below…
"The Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation." - Supreme Court
Judge statement on considering first amendment rights for Internet users.
"On a cold war kind of day, in swinging 1969, work began on the ARPAnet, grandfather to the
Internet. Designed as a computer version of the nuclear bomb shelter, ARPAnet protected the flow
of information between military installations by creating a network of geographically separated
computers that could exchange information via a newly developed protocol (rule for how computers
interact) called NCP (Network Control Protocol).”
There is no government anywhere on the planet that will give up any part of the program…, not
without one hell of a fight...
Incidentally, they do hope and believe that everyone will come to the same conclusion; they will
keep all of us at bay for however long it takes; they have the money, they have the time, and they
economically control all of us...
The book American Exceptionalism
and Human Rights (edited by Ignatieff) raised an important and probably the most controversial question
in world politics: whether the United States stands within the order of international law or outside
To a secular humanist, the principles of international law seems logical, right, and crucial.
Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles.
It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading
as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn
from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or
draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.
We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant
reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define
this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics
of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century.
Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar
characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can
dispute their visual similarities.
Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the
absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation
to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to
restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.
The following regimes can be studies in this respect: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain,
Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. They constitute
a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed
the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these
regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and
abuses is possible. Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them
in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are
more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level
One can wonder how many of those are applicable to Bush/McCain. What do you think ?
Propaganda of nationalism and Exceptionalism ("shining city on the hill", beckon
of democracy, etc). Prominent displays of flags and ubiquitous lapel pins. The fervor to show
patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its
frenzy. Pride in the military, and demands for unity are way of expressing this nationalism. It
was usually coupled with a level of suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia
(French fries - Freedom fries).
Disdain for the importance of human rights. Despite "freedom rhetorics" the party
views human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling
elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights
abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious and truth
about gulags is out, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The use of scapegoating
as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures,
and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda
and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the parties would incite “spontaneous” acts against
the target scapegoats, such as Muslims, communists/socialists/liberals, ethnic and racial minorities,
traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.”
Opponents of these party were inevitably labeled as terrorists stooges and dealt with accordingly.
The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites identified closely
with the military. A disproportionate share of national budget is allocated to the military, even
when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an ultimate expression of nationalism,
and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase
the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
Sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture
were male-dominated, the party covertly views women as second-class citizens. Often are both anti-abortion
and homophobic with the cover of religious values. For propaganda reasons those attitudes were
masterfully blended into strong support of the fundamentalist religious sects, thus lending the
party some legitimacy to cover for its abuses.
A controlled mass media. The mass media could be relied upon never to stray from
the party line. Control can be indirect and subtle with formal adoption of slogan about "free
media". Methods included the control of licensing, access to resources, economic pressure, appeals
to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders and owners of the mass media are part of
the power elite. The result is rampant brainwashing, which usually success in keeping
the general public unaware of the party's excesses.
Obsession with national security. A national security apparatus is bend to come
under direct control of the ruling elite. It is used to bypass laws as a direct instrument of
oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the
rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic
or even treasonous.
Abuse of religion. The party attaches itself to the dominant religion of the
country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of religious values. The fact that
the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with those values is swept under the rug. Propaganda
kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents are “godless.”
A perception was manufactured that opposing the party is tantamount to an attack on religion.
Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens
was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was
not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military
production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of
the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality
of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
Power of organized labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was
seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and
its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass,
viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Being poor was considered akin to a vice.
Disdain and suppression of intellectuals.Intellectuals and the inherent freedom
of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these party. Intellectual and academic
freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities
professors come under close scrutiny; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox
ideas or scientific theories, especially economic, are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed.
Obsession with crime and punishment.Draconian systems of criminal justice with
huge prison populations. The police is often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading
to rampant abuse. Criminal charges sometimes are used against political opponents. Fear, and hatred,
of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police
Rampant cronyism and corruption.Those in business circles and close to the power
elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power
elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain
the benefit of government favoritism. With the national security apparatus under control and the
media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general
Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of two candidates representing the same
power elite are usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually
be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining
control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, suppressing
responsibilities for legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the
Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy
with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public
constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises
in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
The most recent debate about the legitimacy of national security state as exists in the USA was sparked
by Edward Snowden revelations. The following are 27 quotes from Edward Snowden about National
Security State modus operandi might send a chill up your spine...
#1 "The majority of people
in developed countries spend at least some time interacting with the Internet, and Governments are
abusing that necessity in secret to extend their powers beyond what is necessary and appropriate."
#2 "...I believe that at
this point in history, the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable
fear of omniscient State powers kept in check by nothing more than policy documents."
#3 "The government has
granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is
people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to."
#4 "...I can't in good
conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people
around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."
#5 "The NSA has built
an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything."
#6 "With this capability,
the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting. If I
wanted to see your e-mails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your
e-mails, passwords, phone records, credit cards."
#7 "Any analyst at any
time can target anyone. Any selector, anywhere... I, sitting at my desk, certainly had the authorities
to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President..."
#8 "To do that, the NSA
specifically targets the communications of everyone. It ingests them by default. It collects them
in its system and it filters them and it analyzes them and it measures them and it stores them for
periods of time simply because that's the easiest, most efficient and most valuable way to achieve
these ends. So while they may be intending to target someone associated with a foreign government,
or someone that they suspect of terrorism, they are collecting YOUR communications to do so."
#9 "I believe that when
[senator Ron] Wyden and [senator Mark] Udall asked about the scale of this, they [the NSA] said it
did not have the tools to provide an answer. We do have the tools and I have maps showing where people
have been scrutinized most. We collect more digital communications from America than we do from
#10 "...they are intent
on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them."
#11 "Even if you're not
doing anything wrong, you're being watched and recorded. ...it's getting to the point where you don't
have to have done anything wrong, you simply have to eventually fall under suspicion from somebody,
even by a wrong call, and then they can use this system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision
you've ever made, every friend you've ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis,
to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life."
#12 "Allowing the
U.S. government to intimidate its people with threats of retaliation for revealing wrongdoing is
contrary to the public interest."
#13 "Everyone everywhere
now understands how bad things have gotten — and they’re talking about it. They have the power to
decide for themselves whether they are willing to sacrifice their privacy to the surveillance state."
#14 "I do not want to
live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded. That is not something I am willing to
support or live under."
#15 "I don't want to live
in a world where there's no privacy, and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."
#16 "I have no intention
of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong."
#17 "I had been looking
for leaders, but I realized that leadership is about being the first to act."
#18 "There are more important
things than money. If I were motivated by money, I could have sold these documents to any number
of countries and gotten very rich."
#19 "The great fear that
I have regarding the outcome for America of these disclosures is that nothing will change. [People]
won't be willing to take the risks necessary to stand up and fight to change things... And in the
months ahead, the years ahead, it's only going to get worse. [The NSA will] say that... because of
the crisis, the dangers that we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more
authority, we need more power, and there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose
it. And it will be turnkey tyranny."
#20 "I will be satisfied
if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world
that I love are revealed even for an instant."
#21 "You can't come up
against the world's most powerful intelligence agencies and not accept the risk."
#22 "I know the media
likes to personalize political debates, and I know the government will demonize me."
#23 "We have got a CIA
station just up the road – the consulate here in Hong Kong – and I am sure they are going to be busy
for the next week. And that is a concern I will live with for the rest of my life, however long that
happens to be."
#24 "I understand that
I will be made to suffer for my actions, and that the return of this information to the public marks
20190116 : Corporatism is the control of government by big business. This is what we have in the USA today. The main difference between corporatism and fascism is the level of repressions against opposition. Corporatism now tales forma of inverted totalitarism and use ostracism instead of phycal repressions ( Jan 16, 2019 , profile.theguardian.com )
"... Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her ..."
"... Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn. ..."
"... The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you should all agree with Gabbard here. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic
cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her. She said:
" We must stand up
against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up
new wars to wage, new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and
hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy, our security, and destroying our
It is too early to formulate a complete opinion on Gabbard, but she has said the right thing
so far. In fact, her record is better than numerous presidents, both past and present.
As we have documented in the past, Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, and she knew what
happened to her fellow soldiers who died for Israel, the Neocon war machine, and the military
industrial complex. She also seems to be aware that the war in Iraq alone will cost American
taxpayers at least six trillion dollars.
 She is almost certainly aware of the fact that at least "360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans may have suffered brain injuries."
Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and
destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the
Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle
East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn.
The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both
parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about
you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that
matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of
the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you
should all agree with Gabbard here.
 Ernesto Londono, "Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion," Washington
Post , March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars," The Nation , March 29,
2013; "Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson
Institute Study," Huffington Post , May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, "The $5 Trillion War
on Terror," Time , June 29, 2011; "Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have
been done?," LA Times , March 18, 2013.
 "360,000 veterans may have brain injuries," USA Today , March 5, 2009.
"We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage, new
places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy,
our security, and destroying our middle class."
"... US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class ..."
...Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the
power of the Israel Lobby to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the
Middle East and West Asia.
US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and
Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the
foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.
Ilhan Omar quickly understood that she had touched a live wire, surrendered, and
recanted. She apologized by Monday afternoon, 18 hours after her original tweet, saying
"Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating
me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my
constituents or Jewish Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and
think through criticism, just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my
identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize."
What does that sound like? A Stalin-era confession? 'I have betrayed the Party. I have
betrayed the Revolution. I humbly request to be sent to Joo-lag.'
The anti Semitism ploy is used to shield the Zionists from any criticism and to place them in
a special place kind of like in Orwell's Animal Farm and in fact the Zionists are in fact in
that special place here in America where they reign above all and none dare call them out for
their genocide of the Palestinians or the fact they did 911 and murdered some 3000 Americans.
So great is the Zionist control of the US government that no congressman who values his
position in congress dares criticize Zionists and goes along with everything that Israel and
the Zionists do, and if fact congress would be more accurately called the lower house of the
Accusations of so-called "anti-Semitism" are used by the JEW/WASP ruling class to cover up
the treasonous activities of the JEW/WASP ruling class.
When CIA Leprechaun Boy Buckley wanted to attack Pat Buchanan because Buchanan was
skeptical of wars that benefited Israel, Buckley the whore called Buchanan an "anti-Semite."
In fact, the CIA Leprechaun scumbag Buckley wrote a whole book screaming about so-called
"anti-Semitism" and Pat Buchanan. Buckley is a disgusting Leprechaun rat who is now roasting
in the hottest pits of fiery Hell!
When disgusting rat whores in the US Congress such as Charles Schumer want to cover the
fact that they are pushing JEW NATIONALISM by pushing to continue to use the US military as
muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel, they accuse those who call them out on their
actions by the swear word of the ruling class: "anti-Semite."
Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the power of the Israel Lobby
to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.
US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and
Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the
foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.
It was manufactured outrage, with political leaders from both parties latching on to a media
frenzy to score points against each other. Even though it is perfectly legitimate for a
Congresswoman on the Foreign Affairs Committee to challenge what AIPAC does and where its money
comes from, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi complained that Omar's "use of anti-Semitic
tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel's supporters" was "deeply offensive." Chelsea
accused Omar of "trafficking in anti-Semitism." President Donald Trump, who
has admitted that his Mideast policy is intended to serve Israeli rather than U.S.
interests, also jumped in, saying "I think she should either resign from congress or she should
certainly resign from the House Foreign Affairs Committee."
Ilhan Omar quickly understood that she had touched a live wire, surrendered, and recanted.
apologized by Monday afternoon, 18 hours after her original tweet, saying "Anti-Semitism is
real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful
history of anti-Semitic tropes. My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish
Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing to step back and think through criticism,
just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity. This is why I
unequivocally apologize." But she also bravely wrote "At the same time, I reaffirm the
problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel
industry. It's gone on too long and we must be willing to address it."
Pelosi approved of the apology. Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota who is
running for president in 2020, chimed in to make sure that everyone knew how much she loves
Israel, saying "I'm glad she apologized. That was the right thing to do. There is just no room
for those kinds of words. I think Israel is our beacon of democracy. I've been a strong
supporter of Israel and that will never change."
Two days later,
a motion sponsored by Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York passed by a 424 to 0 vote. It was
specifically intended to serve as a rebuke to Omar. It
stated that "it is in the national security interest of the United States to combat
anti-Semitism around the world because there has been a significant amount of anti-Semitic and
anti-Israel hatred that must be most strongly condemned."
Congressional votes professing love for Israel notwithstanding, the fact is that there is a
, generously funded effort to corrupt America's government in favor of Israel. It is
euphemistically called the Israel Lobby even though it is overwhelmingly Jewish and it boasts
fairly openly of its power when talking with its closest friends about
how its money influences the decisions made on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Its
combined budget exceeds one billion dollars per year and it includes lobbying powerhouses like
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) which alone had $229 million
in income in 2017, supporting more than 200 employees. It exists only to promote Israeli
interests on Capitol Hill and throughout the United States with an army of lobbyists and its
activities include using questionably legal all expenses paid "orientation" trips to Israel for
all new congressmen and spouses.
McCarthy and the other stooges in Congress deliberately sought to frame the argument in
terms of Ilhan Omar having claimed that he personally was receiving money from pro-Israel
sources and that money influenced his voting. Well, the fact is that such activity does take
place and was documented three years ago by the respected Foreign
Policy Journal , which published a piece entitled "The Best Congress AIPAC can Buy" as well
as more recently in an al-Jazeera investigative expose using a concealed camera.
And Kevin McCarthy does indeed receive money from Israel PACs –
$33,200 in 2018 . The amount individual congressmen receive is dependent on their actual or
potential value to Israel. Completely corrupt and enthusiastically pro-Israel Senator Robert
Menendez of New Jersey received
$548,507 in 2018 . In the House, Beto O'Rourke of Texas received $226,690. The numbers do
not include individual contributions of under $200, which are encouraged by AIPAC and can be
considerable. In general, congressmen currently receive over $23,000 on
average from the major pro-Israel organizations while Senators get $77,000.
But, of course, direct donations of money are not the whole story. If a congressman is
unfriendly to Israel, money moves in the other direction, towards funding an opponent when
re-election is coming up. Former Rep. Brian Bard has observed that "Any
member of Congress knows that AIPAC is associated indirectly with significant amounts of
campaign spending if you're with them, and significant amounts against you if you're not with
them." Lara Friedman, who has worked on the Hill for 15 years on Israel/Palestine, notes how
congressmen and staffs of "both parties told me over and over that they agreed with me but
didn't dare say so publicly for fear of repercussions from AIPAC."
A good example of how it all worked involves one honest congressman, Walter Jones of North
Carolina, who recently passed away. In 2014, "Wall Street billionaires, financial industry
lobbyists, and neoconservative hawks" tried to unseat Jones by bankrolling
his primary opponent . The "dark money" intended to defeat him came from a PAC called "The
Emergency Committee for Israel," headed by leading neoconservative Bill Kristol. Jones' war
views, including avoiding a war with Iran, were clearly perceived as anti-Israel.
And one should also consider contributions directly to the political parties. Israeli/U.S.
dual nationals Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are the largest single donors to the GOP and to
the Democrats, having contributed
$82 million and
$8,780,000 respectively in the 2016 presidential campaign. Both have indicated openly that
Israel is their top priority.
If they have demonstrated fealty to Israel while in office, many Congressmen also find that
loyalty pays off after retirement from government with richly remunerated second careers in
Jewish dominated industries, like financial services or the media. And there are hundreds of
Jewish organizations that contribute to Israel as charities, even though the money frequently
goes to fund illegal activity, including the settlements. Money also is used to buy newspapers
and media outlets which then adhere to a pro-Israel line, or, where that does not work, to buy
advertising that is conditional on being friendly to Israel. So the bottom line is indeed "the
Benjamins" and the corruption that they buy.
Karen Pollock of the Holocaust Education Trust
said in January that "One person questioning the truth of the Holocaust is one too many."
That is nonsense. Any, and all, historical events should be questioned regularly, a principle
that is particular true regarding developments that carry a lot of emotional baggage. The
Israel Lobby would have all Americans believe that any criticism of Israel is motivated by
historic hatred of Jews and is therefore anti-Semitism. Don't believe it. When the AIPAC crowd
screams that linking Jews and money is a classic anti-Semitic trope respond by pointing out
that Jews and money are very much in play in the corruption of congress and the media over
Israel. Terrible things are being done in the Middle East in the name of Jews and of Israel and
it all comes down to those Benjamins and the silence they buy by accusing all critics of
anti-Semitism. Just recall what the Israeli minister admitted, "It's a trick, we always use
Israel has a population of approximately 8.7 million, roughly equal to the state of New
Jersey. It is among the world's most affluent nations, with a per capita income slightly
below that of the European Union. Israel's unemployment rate of 4.3% is better than
America's 4.4%, and Israel's net trade, earnings, and payments is ranked 22nd in the world
while the US sits in last place at a dismal 202nd.
Yet, Israel receives more of America's foreign aid budget than any other nation. The US
has, in fact, given more aid to Israel than it has to all the countries of sub-Saharan
Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean combined – which have a total population of
over a billion people.
And foreign aid is just one component of the staggering cost of our alliance with
Given the tremendous costs, it is critical to examine why we lavish so much aid on
Israel, and whether it is worth Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. But first, let's take a
look at what our alliance with Israel truly costs.
Here's Nancy Pelosi on what's most important about America.
"I have said to people when they ask me, if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the
one thing that would remain would be our commitment to our aid, I don't even call it our aid,
our cooperation with Israel. That's fundamental to who we are."
Aurelius Tarkus If you watch Al Jazeera's The Lobby you would obviously be pleased to
learn that the lobbyists are lamenting the falling effectiveness of the anti-Semitism
accusation. It stands to reason that under 30s do not have the reliably implanted mindset
about the shame of antisemitism that the, say, over 55s are likely to have.
A lot of pro-Israel pressure comes from some decidedly un-Jewish sources. Namely, the
"Rapture Ready" crowd among evangelical Christians. They support Israel because they think
Israel's existence is a precondition for Jesus' return. They want to go to Heaven, but don't
want to die, and think that the "Rapture" is a way around that.
Rashida Tlaib believes that US States must be banned from making geopolitical considerations
a part of which companies they do business with. She calls it a free speech issue.
On the other hand, she also believes that States, and the Federal Government, must
discriminate in favour of companies not owned by white people. She calls that an
She often calls into question all manner of other people's loyalties, while she is also
endlessly talking about Palestine, and how Israel must become majority Palestinian.
In a one off piece of consistency, she also supports the same thing for America though, as
she want to abolish immigration enforcement. Which would obviously directly lead to
abolishing America itself.
Meanwhile, Philip Giraldi pretends that he thinks $23,000 of campaign contributions will
buy a US Congressman. In which case, Jezz Bezos could have bought 10 literally every
single minute with the money he made in 2018.
People disagree with you. They have reasons. Cluelessly implying it is because they are
all bought by the Jews makes you look dumb, especially to them.
Israel came into being because Britain needed to get America into the WW1, and the American
leadership were glad of the the PR/ Media and political wherewithal of Jews to help get the
USA in. Even Germany felt it had to match the Balfour Declaration. The Jewish community has
not declined in influence since WW1.
If the US had nothing better to worry about they could, and would, deal with the
subjugation of the whole political system on the issue, but the fact is the priorities lie
elsewhere. The Israel Lobby are an opponent best avoided, and the West has to concentrate on
If one were to read the U.S. mainstream media one would think that there has been a
dramatic increase in anti-Semitism worldwide, but that claim is incorrect. What has been
taking place is not hatred of Jews but rather a confluence of two factors
As well as the factors you mention -- Israeli behaviour and broadening the definition of
anti-Semitism -- the Internet has enabled millions of gentiles to become 'Jew woke', which
inevitably leads to a rise in what Jews perceive as anti-Semitic comment.
The Irish Savant recently blogged about a
lecture by Rabbi David Bar-Hayim: 'He sees Jews as having no moral obligations to us
[gentiles] at all, we're there to be robbed, exploited and, where possible, physically
Memo to Jews: Has it crossed your minds that anti-Semitism is your fault?
I'd always reckoned myself soundly philo-semitic, based mainly on my father's dealings with
British Jews, backed up by my own acquaintanceships amongst them.
I've cooled in the last few years. That's because two or three times one website comment
threads I've made factual remarks about Palestine that have led to vituperative responses
from commenters who have presumably been Jewish, perhaps Israelis.
I'm not so daft as to think that a few internet nutters or crooks should outweigh personal
experience but it has made me a little more sensitive to institutionalised bullying on behalf
of Israel. An example was the pressure recently put on the (British) Labour Party to adopt
Israel's favoured definition of anti-semitism. I accept, of course, that there are lots of
disgusting anti-semites in that party but I'm damned if I see why a whole political party
should be expected to swallow uncritically some other buggers' definition of
In Warsaw, Pompeo urges Poland to pass Holocaust restitution law Poland is the only EU member without comprehensive legislation to return, or provide
compensation for, private property confiscated by the Nazis
14 Feb 2019
As part of his remarks, Pompeo called on the Polish government to resolve outstanding
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo raised the issue of Holocaust-era property restitution
during his first official visit to Poland.
"We also appreciate the importance of resolving outstanding issues of the past, and I
urge my Polish colleagues to move forward with comprehensive private property restitution
legislation for those who lost property during the Holocaust era," he said.
Gideon Taylor, chair of operations for the World Jewish Restitution Organization, said
he welcomed Pompeo's "expression of his commitment to securing justice for Holocaust
survivors and their families. This is a powerful affirmation of the importance of this
issue to the United States."
His first state visit and he makes this the key issue.
1. stop blaming Jews for your own stupidity, corruption, greed & whoredom
2. Jews, as a national collective, have some unpleasant traits, among them, recently,
emotional blackmail misusing the shoah to extort money from most white/Euro-derived nations.
This behavior, similar to divorced women's scheming, should be publicly exposed &
denounced. OK guys, you suffered, we admit, but others suffered too, so to hell with this
3. US political system, Jews & Gentiles, is too plutocratic, with all these PACs, big
donors, super PACs & whatnot. This should be reformed because the very system perpetuates
corruption & suicidal policy at all levels
Thus, is there a significant difference, ethical or otherwise between being bought by
the NRA, the health insurers, the organised aged, the arms industry, the
sugar/biofuels/cattle lobbies, trial lawyers etc as compared with Israel?
Well wiz, while it's true that the arms industry and Big Sugar, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma
and others, are responsible for the deaths of millions of people, including Americans,
there's no evidence that they deliberately murdered Americans in cowardly and treacherous
acts of war, as Israel has done repeatedly, as with the cowardly and treacherous attack on
the USS Liberty, and the cowardly and treacherous false flag attack on 9/11.
So as to your query over the ethical question of extorting Americans to lavish lucre on an
enemy state with the blood of thousands of Americans on its hands, this question should
Why are Americans looted to fund an enemy state that murders Americans with fiendish glee,
as the "dancing Israelis" so egregiously demonstrates.
It's like the people of Iraq being taxed to pay for Tony Blair or Dubya's new private jet.
Forcing the victims of war crimes to fund their abusers.
Lobbyists for Big Tobacco are saints by comparison.
American mass media is especially two faced when it comes to outing intolerance. A good
deal has been made over over Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's comments on the influence
of AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee). The anti-Russian establishment hack
journalist Julia Ioffe tweeted her belief that Omar's comments are "anti-Semitic"
(anti-Jewish). I'm not too familiar with what Omar has said about Jews over the course of
time. I doubt that it['s more repugnant than what Ioffe has stated about Russians.
There has been no letting up with Ioffe. In one recent mass media TV appearance, she
said (in a joking tone) that a relaxation of Russian gun laws isn't a good idea because
Russians drink too much. In another prominent TV segment, Ioffe stated that when the
Russians call someone corrupt, that person must be pretty bad.
Some generalizations are hypocritically more acceptable than others. A good number of
Western reared Russians see thru this gross hypocrisy. On the subject of Russia, these
individuals regularly get limited coverage in Western mass media.
A lot of pro-Israel pressure comes from some decidedly un-Jewish sources. Namely, the
"Rapture Ready" crowd among evangelical Christians. They support Israel because they
think Israel's existence is a precondition for Jesus' return. They want to go to Heaven,
but don't want to die, and think that the "Rapture" is a way around that.
Aaahhh the beauty of religion ..a very old method for controlling people.
This is Protestantism, which was a Jewish revolutionary movement.
1. stop blaming Jews for your own stupidity, corruption, greed & whoredom
Who's blaming them for that?
Here's what they get the blame for
"Goyim [non-Jews] were born only to serve us." Explaining why God allowed non-Jews long
lives, he added: "Imagine that your donkey would die, you'd lose your income. [The donkey]
is your servant. That's why he [the gentile] gets a long life, to work well for the
This summer, Yosef Elitzur and Yitzhak Shapira, who head an influential seminary in the
West Bank settlement of Yitzhar, published The King's Torah, a 230-page guide to how Jews
should treat non-Jews.
The two rabbis concluded that Jews were obligated to kill anyone who posed a danger,
immediate or potential, to the Jewish people, and implied that all Palestinians were to be
considered a threat. On these grounds, the pair justified killing Palestinian civilians and
even their babies.
Oz'If you watch Al Jazeera's The Lobby you would obviously be pleased to learn that
the lobbyists are lamenting the falling effectiveness of the anti-Semitism accusation. It
stands to reason that under 30s do not have the reliably implanted mindset about the shame of
antisemitism that the, say, over 55s are likely to have.'
The epithet 'anti-semitic' continues to have a lot of clout. Measuring this in the most
accurate way -- how effectively it cows one into silence -- I've realized it's quite
Islamophobes feel entirely free to publically walk their dog these days. Speaking for
myself, I feel entirely free to express my opinions about blacks, and frequently do. I'd do
the same with respect to other groups if I felt strongly enough.
But to be labelled anti-semitic? I'll caught myself hesitating to click 'publish' when I
notice that my post could reasonably be read as 'anti-semitic.'
The United States of America must have political leaders who will stop the JEW/WASP ruling
class rats from using accusations of so-called "anti-Semitism" to stop debate on policy
issues. The rats who screech about so-called "anti-Semitism" must be ignored!
With all the dirty cash swirling around the Swamp, it's almost hard to believe that Kevin
McCarthy can be bought for $33,200. Seems to me the figure has to be much higher,
probably in the mid 6 figures per year. Those sub-$200 donations need to be reported, with
names attached. I wonder how many of them are precisely $198, since the Saturday people love
gifts that are a multiple of 18. Funny since 18 is also the alphanumeric code for a famous
Marco Rubio is a treasonous rat whore for Israel First Jews.
Marco Rubio puts the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States. Jew billionaires pay Marco Rubio to put the interests of Israel over the interests of the
The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire will screech on about so-called
"anti-Semitism" if you call Marco Rubio a treasonous rat whore for Israel First Jew
They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power,
Empire and war. That they really care about.
I disagree. Empire is always dominated by a group, and US empire is dominated by Jews. If
the US is merely after Empire, why not cook up excuses to sanction, invade, and destroy
Israel? After all, the world community has condemned Israel many times over for its myriad
crimes. Also, why not invade and smash Saudi Arabia as well? If US is just after empire and
more wars, why not wage war on Israel and Saudis? More bucks for the military industrial
In truth, the US empire is selective. It is not empire for empire's sake but empire for
Zion's sake. That is why US empire targets Russia, Syria, and Iran while hailing Israel and
protecting Saudi Arabia. US empire is premised on the biases and hatreds of its ethnic
super-elites. "Is it great for the Jews?"
"Sometimes [two and two are four], Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are
three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become
One of the key themes from George Orwell's dystopic novel 1984 is that the Party can do and
say whatever it wants.
And more importantly, you must believe it, with all your heart. No matter how absurd.
That's doublethink . It is impossible for two plus two to equal three, four, and five
simultaneously. But if the Party says it is so, it is so.
If you can't make yourself believe two contradictory facts simultaneously, that makes you a
thought criminal– an enemy of the Party.
Thoughtcrime is thinking any thought that contradicts the Party.
Facecrime is when you have the wrong expression on your face. For instance, if captured
enemy soldiers are being paraded through the streets, looking sympathetic is a facecrime.
Newspeak is the language of the Party–one that has painstakingly been removed of
unnecessary words, or words that might contradict the Party's ideals.
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end
we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to
During daily two minutes hate , citizens shout and curse whatever enemies the Party shows
And the face of the Party, Big Brother , is watching you. He helps you be a better
This isn't just some random literature lesson. Understanding Orwell's 1984 will help you
understand 2019 America.
For instance, one California state senator is working on her own version of Newspeak.
She has banned the members of her committee from using gender pronouns, such as he, she,
her, and him. Instead they must use "they and them" to respect non-binary gender choices.
So Billy Joel's famous song "She's always a woman" would become "They're always a non-binary
gender. . ." Somehow that just doesn't ring with the same sweetness.
Last month a high school student famously committed a facecrime when he stood, apparently
smirking, while a Native American activist beat a drum in his face.
The 16-year-old was then subjected to "two minutes hate" by the entire nation. The Party
labeled him an enemy, and Twitter obliged.
Of course when I reference the 'Party', I don't mean to imply that all these Orwellian
developments are coming from a single political party.
They've ALL done their parts to advance Orwellian dystopia and make it a reality.
Senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders want to
limit corporate stock buybacks and share payouts. But the tax code already has the
accumulated profits tax, which punishes corporations for NOT engaging in stock buybacks and
It's like doublethink you have to simultaneously pay and not pay out dividends.
In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:
Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and
the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump
Okay, in theory, a third option is possible (never say never!) but I see that as highly unlikely: Tulsi Gabbard follows in the
footsteps of Trump and gets elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House
she does what Trump failed to do and appeals directly to the people of the USA to back her in a ruthless campaign to "drain the swamp"
(meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially, when he came to power,
by the way. Frankly, for all her very real qualities she does not strike me as a "US Putin" nor does she have the kind of institutional
and popular backing Putin had. So while I will never say never, I am not holding my breath on this one
Finally, if Gabbard truly is "for real" then the Deep State will probably "Kennedy" her and blame Russia or Iran for it.
Still, while we try to understand what, if anything, Tulsi Gabbard could do for the world, she does do good posting messages like
I don't know about you, but I am rather impressed!
At the very least, she does what "Occupy Wall Street" did with its "1%" which was factually wrong. The actual percentage is much
lower but politically very effective. In this case, Gabbard speaks of both parties being alike and she popularizes concepts like
" warmongers in ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage and new places for people to die ". This is all very good and useful
for the cause of peace and anti-imperialism because when crimethink concepts become mainstream, then the mainstream is collapsing
The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't give a
damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans"
or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they
really care about.
Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are hell bent on power, empire and war. They
also will stop at nothing to prevent the USA from (finally!) becoming a "normal" country and they couldn't care less about the fate
of the people of the USA. All they want is for us all to become their serfs.
All of this is hardly big news. But this hysterical reaction to Gabbard's candidacy is a very powerful and useful proof of the
fact that the USA is a foreign-occupied country with no real sovereignty or democracy. As for the US media, it would make folks like
Suslov or Goebbels green with envy. Be it
the ongoing US aggression
against Venezuela or the reaction to the Tulsi Gabbard phenomenon, the diagnostics concur and we can use the typical medical
euphemism and say with confidence: "the prognosis is poor".
In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:
– Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign
– Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump
I think it is unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard caves in so soon. The way she has started her campaign, she is certainly aware that
she has cut off herself from the normal donors of Democrats, and the way she talks shows that she is not afraid of alienating
them even more because she won't get money from them, anyway. The plan is to do the same like Bernie Sanders 2016 and raise small
donations. Many Democratic candidates now say they don't take PAC money, but there are different ways of getting money from big
donors – Tulsi Gabbard is probably one of those who are more serious about avoiding reliance on big donors. It could work. In
2016, during the primaries, Hillary Clinton regularly had to interrupt her campaign in order to attend dinners with superrich
donors, while Bernie Sanders asked people to donate as a part of his campaign on social media, and Sanders regularly outraised
Clinton. Of course, 2016, we just saw that for the primaries, but it might also work for the general election (and numbers are
not everything, Hillary Clinton spent far more than Donald Trump and still lost, so even if small donations would lead to a somewhat
lower sum, she could still win with a popular message). And not only could it work, I think it would be the only way for Tulsi
Gabbard to succeed because she has probably already been too outspoken about some things to ever gain back the trust of the neocons
and their allies in the media and the billionaire donor class.
Of course, if Tulsi Gabbard advances in the primaries, she will be attacked most viciously in the media. I am not so sure what
the effect will be. On one hand, Trump's victory in the primaries and the general election showed that being hated by mainstream
media does not have to be an obstacle that cannot be surmounted, and as long as there are so many primary candidates, such vicious
attacks can also make her seem more interesting to some people. On the other hand, her main hurdle are probably the Democratic
primaries, and, according to polls, Democrats have lost trust in the mainstream media to a lesser degree than the general public.
But then again, vilifying her too much in the liberal media (as it has already started) is also a certain risk for them because
it could become too obvious to see that the decisive feature that leads to such attacks is that someone is not seen as reliably
pro-neocon, and that could also lead to doubts about the media in leftists who readily accepted the attacks on Trump because they
hated him for other reasons. Therefore, I think the main hope of the establishment is that Tulsi Gabbard can be treated as a „minor
candidate" and won't get far, in case she becomes a serious contender for the nomination, they are in trouble.
If Tulsi Gabbard wins the nomination, we can almost be certain that the pro-neocon establishment will a) see a re-election
of Trump as the lesser evil and b) they will support a pro-establishment third party candidate (already last time, Michael Bloomberg
threatened to run if the two major candidates are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, now Howard Schultz seems to have positioned
himself that way, though I think he is too ridiculous and ineffective and will be replaced by someone else if the establishment
needs a third party candidate because they lose the Democratic primaries). Such a third party candidate probably increases the
chances of Trump's re-election (probably a desired side-effect, many of these liberal oligarchs probably prefer Trump to Gabbard
and Sanders by far, but it would be difficult for them to support Trump in public, supporting a third party candidate is much
easier), but a populist campaign against both Trump and that third party candidate as representatives of a corrupt billionaire
class might well be successful.
Then, if Tulsi Gabbard is elected, she certainly runs the risk of ending like JFK, but the fact that so many people now already
talk and write about this risk might also protect her to some degree – the danger is so obvious that many people won't believe
theories about a lonewolf terrorist easily (and blaming Russia and Iran after Tulsi Gabbard had been vilified as an Assadist and
Russian trolls' favorite candidate would also be difficult, if for some reasons relations with Saudi Arabia are not seen as so
important any more, the more realistic option of blaming Saudi terrorists may be chosen). Another option would be to impeach her,
though that could also be a big risk for the establishment, and depending on who would be her VP, it would not be enough. Of course,
there could be bipartisan agreement about blocking all of her initiatives.
Even if she is extremely smart and tough, alone against the united forces of the deep state, establishment media and the bipartisan
war party, Tusli Gabbard probably could not achieve very much – of course, she would still be commander in chief and probably
could prevent new wars, and she could open some people's eyes about who really holds power, but she could hardly achieve very
much. The question is whether she still might get some institutional support like Putin when he became president. I think that
is not so unlikely because there are indications that the deep state is internally divided (one small example is that the communications
of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were published) and that the neocons' grip on power is far from total. Therefore, it does not seem
impossible that with a combination of support in the general public (and she certainly has the potential of becoming very popular)
and the support of parts of the deep state that have not been subdued by the neocons, she might be successful – it would be a
very harsh power struggle.
As far as caving in to Israel is concerned, Tulsi Gabbard has never been too critical of Israel – there was some relatively
mild criticism of attacks on Gaza (in a way that is fairly common among progressives), but in general, she has not been too critical
of Israel and has also had some friendly contacts with the pro-Israel lobby. So, while she is very strong and consistent in rejecting
neocons and their regime change wars, as far as Israel and Palestinians' rights are concerned, people should probably not expect
too much from her. But if she is serious about fighting the neocons and limiting the power of the military-industrial complex
and still could win an election, that would already be a big achievement.
After witnessing the temper tirades and the teeth gnashing of the deep states media minions after the anti-war-lite Donald Trump
got elected, I'm guessing Tulsi Gabbard is in for one of two things:
1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom
to most debates.
I don't think American Democracy(AKA Empire) is in any mood for another spoiler
She is very photogenic. So is Kamala Harris.
Projecting an anti-war position against promoting the bonafides of her army service will be quite the balancing act of cognitive
dissonance, but opposite the hyper-masculine affect a candidate like Trump or Hillary must emote to neutralize an absence of military
experience in their résumé.
Then there's that first husband and her family's political machine.
But damn, Tulsi and Kamala photograph impeccably well from every angle.
What are the chances outside of India that three potential presidential candidates of the female persuasion all share a common
ethnic background, Nimrata Haley, Tulsi and Kamala? No coincidence there.
Finding all this information below takes less time than burning a cigarette.
United Christians for Israel, founded and led by pastor John Hagee, have millions of members and call themselves "the largest
pro-Israel charity in the United States." The organization was an important factor in the decision of US President Donald Trump
in 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to transfer the US embassy there.
Zionism and Islamophobia Gabbard have gained recognition and support from all kinds of unpalatable characters – like right-wing
billionaire and Zionist Sheldon Adelson, who loudly declared that "all Muslims are terrorists".
In addition to Israel's loyal defender, Gabbard has also proved to be a credible servant of Adelson's business interests. Introduced
regulations against online gambling to protect the casino's empire from competition on the Internet. Adelson thanked her, giving
her the Champion of Freedom award. http://time.com/3695948/sheldon-adelson-online-gambling/
Her prejudices against Islam directly stem from her Hindu fundamentalism. Gabbard became one of the main American political
supporters of Narendra Modi, the leader of the Hindu sectarian party Bharatiya Janata (BJP) and the current Prime Minister of
Being the main minister of the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002, Modi helped spark a pogrom against Muslims, in which they killed
2,000 people and displaced over 200,000 people in the ethnic cleansing campaign. Since his victory in the 2014 elections, Modi
has been a decidedly pro-Israeli Indian politician and has strong relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the invitation of Modi, Gabbard traveled through India for three weeks during which various Hindu fundamentalists greeted
her as their American master. In probably the worst part of the tour, the India Foundation, a formation tuned to the Hindu fascist
group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), hosted Gabbard to discuss the future of Indian-American relations. After the reactionary
lovefest, the Indian newspaper Telegraph called it "the American Sangha mascot" https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/sangh-finds-a-mascot-in-american-tulsi/cid/1579985
After returning to the USA, Gabbard defended Modi against any criticism. She was one of the few democrats who spoke against
the federal government's decision to refuse a Modi visa in 2014 because of his abolition of religious freedom
As with other leading liberal democrats, Gabbard's alleged progressive values do not extend to the Palestinian struggle for
freedom. While she may support the resistance of Indian Native at Standing Rock, she will not support the indigenous people of
Palestine and her struggle for self-determination against Israeli colonialism. http://socialistworker.org/2014/08/13/liberal-champions-of-apartheid
Yawn. Tulsi, Bernie, Corbyn – doesn't matter. The ruling elites have the power to co-opt, demonize or kill them. And, that regime
is desperate enough to do this.
We are all waiting for the tectonic impact of some external shocks. Because the system is fragile, over-ripe. Collapse of debt
bubbles, an infectious disease epidemic, a rogue general fires off some nukes. Whatever. Just passes the Global Tipping Point,
then, everything disintegrates. The centre cannot hold. And at that point the tensions release and people go nuts. The regime
divides against itself; the roof falls in. The whole world is waiting, expecting this to happen in some way or form.
Go and max out your credit card, get hard stuff, don't pay, stop buying anything. A few millions doing that. Empty your bank
account. Stop paying your mortgage and car loan. Make them chase you. Work to precipitate the Big One. Help tear the fabric beyond
its tensile strength. Do your bit.
Don't expect to see Tulsi on your side of the barricades.
Nimrata Randhawa Haley is of Punjabi Sikh ancestry on both sides, genetically closer to southern Europeans than to most Indians.
Kamala Harris is descended from South Indian brahmins on her mother's side. You can't get more Aryan than that – look up the
word. And she is Jamaican on her father's side. I haven't seen a picture of him but I imagine he's about as black as fellow Jamaican
Colin Powell. An octoroon to use that old-fashioned term. But Negro blood was considered so polluting that just a smidgeon put
you with the lower race. It's still working like that, but in victim politics less is more.
Tulsi Gabbard had a WASP mother who became a member of Swami Bhaktivedanta's Krishna devotees. Her father was Polynesian. There's
no genes from India. It's a mistake to think of her religion as Hindu, but it's her mistake as well as that of many Indians. Hinduism
is not *a* religion because Hinduism is the liberating realization that the idea of *a* religion is very shallow. It is a pleasure
to see Tulsi, in videos, going about her devotions.
.. "drain the swamp" (meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially,
when he came to power, by the way.
a good article, overall.
USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism and war; folks who
don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside the USA
and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
Apparently, US public figures like Gabbard and Trump still don't understand the simple fact that NO amount of grovelling
will EVER appease the Neocons or the Ziolobby
the so-called "liberals" don't give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities,
don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what
they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they really care about.
It's interesting to see the prompt  Democrat party oppo based on the "right-wing Indian agent" smear. It's exactly analogous
to Democrat/CIA attack on "Russian puppet" Trump, when Democrats had absolutely nothing to offer in lieu of a famous loathsome
TV asshole they hand-picked to beat like a drum and then lost to.
If it were the case that Tulsi were an Indian fifth-column traitor, like Rubio is a Israeli fifth-column traitor, So what?
Objective indicators of world-standard state responsibilities show that the state of India is more developed, more legitimate,
and more entitled to responsible sovereignty than the US government. India exceeds US performance on most of the top-level human
You can see for yourself, in whatever level of detail you desire, with NGO input exhaustively compiled by elected independent
international experts acting in their personal capacity.
Tulsi's exposure to superior Indian human-rights compliance is likely to build her capacity in terms of Responsibility to Protect
Pillar 2. She will have a better understanding of rights and rule of law than provincial goober candidates with no international
exposure. That will necessarily influence her evolving stance on systematic and widespread Israeli extermination of Palestinian
Hope is such a frail and tenuous emotion.
That said, l'm investing some of my dwindling reserves of hope in Tulsi. Your comments are very considered, and l share your concerns
for peace with the current play of Theo-politics. Modi is an unapologetic Hindu chauvinist who has successfully incited brutal
communalism for electoral gain. But my personal loathing of him has ameliorated over time (I shock myself!) because he has steered
a pretty independent course for India, maintaining friendly relations with China for example,despite U.S. pressure to use India
as a wedge. His Hinduva ideology appears to be a domestic political tool. This is a cunning but pragmatic approach and is distinct
from a religious ideology with global ambitions. The latter is the province of Zionism which is not really a religion but has
(other) religious affiliations or "allies",including Hinduism but most importantly Christian zionism (or evangelicism or dispensationalism
et al). It seems to me that a lot of what Trump is doing re. "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is to appease the Christian
Zionists who comprise a large chunk of his support base, and not American Jewry.(They are democrats as a foregone conclusion).There
is great irony in this if you follow the fantastical narrative of the Christian evangelical apocalypse.
Political ambitions are the scourge of religion.I attend an Anglican Church,very traditional, because my preferred form of worship
is hymn singing-the sung mass for Eucharist.I do this in contradistinction(!) to evangelicism. Unfortunately Islam too undergone
a political makeover in recent history which has led to un utter corruption of prophet Mohammad's words.It's apogee is Wahhabism,
a fad made manifest through money and power and war. Shia is also Islam, but not according to Wahhabis,who do not even relate
to Shia as "self-hating Moslems."And do not imagine that the Moslem brotherhood is any better for all the acceptable styling.
Sunnism needs to detach itself from ideology.God is in the poetry and not the small print.
Thanks for your patience with my digression. The Saker suggests we examine the Tulsi phenomenon as a diagnostic tool.
This may be useful. But Tulsi as a Hindi wooden horse?
She cannot be anti war without being anti Israel. Her candidacy is going nowhere.
It would be nice to have an anti war voice in the debates but Gabbard will be adrift in a sea of idiots. How many candidates
will there be for the Democratic nomination? Twenty? Eighty? All of them competing for who hates whitey the most. Featuring as
a side show Biden and Bernie expressing their shame at their skin color.
If Gabbard wants to be heard she should switch parties and primary Trump. Let him defend his Israel first foreign policy.
She is the only prominent politician in the commander-in-chief discussion who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is there a poll
on her standing with the military demographic? An argument can be made that her credibility on fighting more war or fighting less
war is an order of magnitude higher than a dozen Trumps, Clintons, et al all put together.
She has seen firsthand the pointlessness of the waste of blood and treasure. How can you root against Gabbard? She is near
the only elected official to get any positive press at anitwar.com.
I have a somewhat contrary analysis although admittedly, it's not based on much.
Tulsi's speech patterns closely resemble Hillary Clinton's. I put this down to various leadership classes they attended which
likely have a common source. I think we are seeing a divergence of opinion in the Deep State with some wanting Globalism, while
others are unwilling to accept the destruction of the United States as a price for Globalism. Call them the Fortress America
wing of the Deep State. They want to rebuild America and preserve its wealth and autonomy while moving toward a world government.
In other words, Tulsi could emerge as the candidate of the MAGA section of the Deep State.
As for Trump, he is waist deep in the Swamp fighting for his life against pretty much everybody. If Omar had her way he would
be impeached. Trump's support among Republicans is the only thing keeping from being impeached. His partisan attacks are probably
designed to signal his willingness to lead the fight for Republicans, hoping they will defend him in return.
You make such a convincing case that you've painted yourself into a corner. Your point is that the Ziocons or whatever you call
them are so bent on war and empire that they'll destroy anyone who tries to get in their way.
To be credible, because your claim is so extreme, you'd need to explain the abnormal psychology that drives this will to domination.
Can you do that? If not, your article -- and a number of your others -- come off as routine Jew- and liberal-bashing. The bashing
may or may not be deserved depending on your point of view. But that would be all it is: standard prejudice and bigotry in what
you seem to take as a good cause.
We see from where we've been. I supported Ron Paul. He was ignored, and then cheated.
Voting for Washington wannabes is like watching just the "good programs" on TV, or patronizing the non-disgusting movies that
manage to emerge from Hollywood. Those doing so endorse and prop up the tottering, rotten Establishment.
A media blackout of Tulsi will only work if people continue to get their information from the boob tube and newspapers. Why is
anyone still expecting to get the truth from the MSM? Anyone with half a brain and an internet connection should be able to follow
her. Tell all of your grandparents, uncles, and other old fogies to throw away CNN, NYT, Fox, WaPo, NBC, etc. and find the truth
sheete The Anti-federalist's never had a chance, nor would Aloha Tulsi. The Boston tea party itself was a false flag attempting
to pass blame on to the Indians. How typically American. Lexington was caused by the that same Sam Adams and his free masons from
the green dragon, who were firing at both the British and the Militia's, just like they did in Maidan 5 years ago. The US revolution
in 1776 was just another Masonic color revolution on behalf of the Rothschild's. These are the same guys who killed Kennedy and
pulled off 9/11. Now they have Trump 100% corralled and black balled, and he is one of them anyway.
That was when Wonder Woman Tulsi came surfin' into the Washington swamp, all ready to drain it.
True – "The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't
give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking
our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire
and war. That they really care about. Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are
hell bent on power, empire and war."
The average Liberal voter thinks that Conservatives love Empire while Liberals oppose empires. Likewise, the average Middle
American Republican voter thinks America is anything but the new British Empire and that America is always fighting against those
bad empires and so must be very active globally to do good and prevent even worse bad.
True – "As for the US media, it would make folks like Suslov or Goebbels green with envy."
The Anglo-Zionist Empire: the inherent fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism that was not stopped dead in its tracks.
It will get worse before it can get better. It cannot be corrected without a rejection of WASP culture, which is replaced with
an authentically Christian culture.
Tulsi Gabbard presents bill to stop Trump from pulling out of INF treaty
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has introduced a bill to Congress which would prevent President Donald Trump
from withdrawing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).
Speaking at a press conference on Friday morning, Gabbard said that Trump's decision to pull out of the 1988 treaty was
"reckless," was "exacerbating a new Cold War" with Russia, and could spark another arms race.
"Walking away from this agreement doesn't solve our problems, it makes them worse. It doesn't bring us closer to peace,
it moves us closer to war," she said.
I am hoping that Gabbard is the next president because it would mean Hindus beat Jews to the White House, and if she serves a
full term she will be the first nonprotestant* president to serve a full term, take that Catholics. She will be sworn in with
her hand on the Bhagavad Gita, bah ha hah ha. The Evangelicals will go berserk (I hope). She declared herself Hindu as a teen,
was she baptized?
* Jimmy Carter was 'born again' so he might be the first non main line Protestant or even nonProtestant.
I think both the anti-war Left and anti-war Right are sizeable and growing. Speaking of the Dissident Right, which I am more in
tune with, we just need a courageous leader to rally around. Right now the Dissident Right is more reliably anti-war than any
But, really, the dissident right is not doctrinaire right at all as they are against Big Business and reject Libertarianism.
Tulsi probably doesn't even want the open support of the dissident right (very few are racist white supremacists, although the
media has tarred us all with that brush)...
@Biff1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom
to most debates.
But what about social media? The MSM mostly ignored Bernie Sanders but he got a huge boost.
I think the real problem with Tulsi is she comes across as too calm for politics. She's not low-energy like Jeb, but she lacks
Also, I'm not sure most progs would be interested in her anti-war platform. They liked Bernie because his message was mostly
domestic: Free Stuff!
Americans are anti-war only when too many Americans are getting killed overseas. In the Obama yrs, the US perfected a new way
of Open Borders War where US uses proxies to destroy other nations. So, most Americans don't care.
Bruce It's the same 'bait and switch' strategy, that occurs every 4 years. Why change a strategy when the old one works so
well? To date, Trump holds the record for fooling the largest number of people, with anti-war candidate, John Kerry coming in
a distant 2nd.
I suppose there is also a fourth option: Tulsi Gabbard keeps her no-war stance, and follows in the footsteps of Trump and gets
elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House she does what Trump did
"President Trump continued to condemn the Saturday shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh that killed at least
"The hearts of all Americans are filled with grief following the monstrous killing of Jewish Americans at the Tree of Life
Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pa., you've all seen it, you've been watching it, it's horrible," he said at a rally in Murphysboro,
"This evil anti-Semitic attack is an attack on all of us, it is an assault on humanity. It will require all of us working together
to extract the hateful poison of anti-Semitism from our world. This was an anti-Semitic attack at its worst," Trump added. "The
scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored, cannot be tolerated, and it cannot be allowed to continue It must be confronted and
condemned everywhere it rears its very ugly head."
Through the centuries, the Jews have endured terrible persecution And those seeking their destruction, we will seek their destruction.
And when you have crimes like this, whether it's this one or another one on another group, we have to bring back the death penalty,"
he said.[the audience exploded in wild ovations].
Trump is a recipient of the 'The Tree of Life Award' "the highest humanitarian award the Jewish National Fund* presents to
one individual or family each year in appreciation of their outstanding community involvement, their dedication to the cause of
American-Israeli friendship, and their devotion to peace and the security of human life".
*The Jewish National Fund (Hebrew: קֶרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, Keren Kayemet LeYisrael, previously הפונד הלאומי, Ha Fund
HaLeumi) was founded in 1901 to buy and develop land in Ottoman Palestine (later the British Mandate for Palestine, and subsequently
Israel and the Palestinian territories) for Jewish settlement.
Well, as we all saw, the putatively "liberal" legacy Ziomedia hates Tulsi Gabbard with a passion. Maybe not as much as that legacy
Ziomedia hates Trump or Putin, but still – the levels of hostility against her are truly amazing. This may seem bizarre until you
realize that, just like Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard has said all the right things about Israel, but that this was not nearly "enough"
to please the US Ziolobby. Check out the kind of discussions about Gabbard which can be found in the Israeli and pro-Israeli press:
This is just a small sample of what I found with a quick search. It could be summed up "Gabbard is not pro-Israel enough". But
is that really The Main Reason for such a hostility towards her? I don't think so. I believe that Gabbard's real "ultimate sin" is
that she is against foreign wars of choice. That is really her Crime Of Crimes!
The AngloZionists wanted to tear Syria apart, break it up into small pieces, most of which would be run by Takfiri crazies and
Tulsi Gabbard actually dared to go and speak to "animal Assad", the (latest) "New Hitler", who "gasses his own people". And this
is an even worse crime, if such a thing can even be imagined! She dared to disobey her AngloZionist masters.
So, apparently, opposing illegal wars and daring to disobey the Neocons are crimes of such magnitude and evil that they deserve
the hysterical Gabbard-bashing campaign which we have witnessed in recent times. And even being non-Christian, non-White, non-male
and "liberal" does not in any way compensate for the heinous nature of "crimes".
What does this tell us about the real nature of the US society?
It is also interesting to note that the most vicious (and stupid) attacks against Gabbard did not come from "conservative" media
outlets or journalists. Not at all! Most of the attacks, especially the more vicious ones, came from supposedly "liberal" sources,
which tell us that in 2019 USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism
and war; folks who don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside
the USA and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
"... The report accuses Mark Zuckerberg , Facebook's co-founder and chief executive, of contempt for parliament in refusing three separate demands for him to give evidence, instead sending junior employees unable to answer the committee's questions. ..."
Company broke privacy and competition law and should be regulated urgently, say
deliberately broke privacy and competition law and should urgently be subject to statutory
regulation, according to a devastating parliamentary report denouncing the company and its
executives as "digital gangsters".
final report of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee's 18-month
investigation into disinformation and fake news accused Facebook of purposefully obstructing
its inquiry and failing to tackle attempts by Russia to manipulate elections.
"Democracy is at risk from the malicious and relentless targeting of citizens with
disinformation and personalised 'dark adverts' from unidentifiable sources, delivered through
the major social media platforms we use every day," warned the committee's chairman, Damian
The report accuses Mark Zuckerberg , Facebook's
co-founder and chief executive, of contempt for parliament in refusing three separate demands
for him to give evidence, instead sending junior employees unable to answer the committee's
Warns British electoral law is unfit for purpose and vulnerable to interference by
hostile foreign actors, including agents of the Russian government attempting to discredit
democracy. Calls on the British government to establish an independent investigation into
"foreign influence, disinformation, funding, voter manipulation and the sharing of data" in the
2014 Scottish independence referendum, the 2016 EU referendum and the 2017 general election.
"... The turning point may well have been John F Kennedy's assassination in November 1963. After that event - which some say was organized by various individuals and groups, of which Mossad and the Israeli government may have been two co-conspirators -- a great deal changed. ..."
>if we say fly mentally back to early nineteen sixties, the admiration>
> for America was still very strong, even in the USSR.
> Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Feb 16, 2019 1:34:44 PM | 38
My uncle was in the US Navy in the early sixties. He made many ports of call in the
Mediterranean basin, where he and his mates were warmly greeted. Not so much now, I'm
Some here might recall that Ike was extremely pissed off at the British, French, and
Israelis for attacking Egypt and creating the 1956 Suez crisis. He threatened to dump UK
bonds and crash their financial system. That's pretty serious stuff!
So how did the Israelis manage to shift US policy 180 degrees, like a parasite taking over
the host's brain? Perhaps the answer to that could yield clues as to how to remove said
parasite without killing the host. Although the host is already brain-dead, so maybe it
The turning point may well have been John F Kennedy's assassination in November 1963.
After that event - which some say was organized by various individuals and groups, of which
Mossad and the Israeli government may have been two co-conspirators -- a great deal changed.
The US began to escalate its war in Vietnam and the cost of pursuing that war eventually led
to the US government in 1971 taking the US dollar off the gold standard and allowing it to
create fiat money.
Something must have happened well before 1967 when the USS Liberty was strafed by Israeli
fighter jets in the intent to destroy it and all its crew and the incident blamed on the
Egyptians in an effort to draw the US into the Six Day War.