Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Contents Bulletin Scripting in shell and Perl Network troubleshooting History Humor

Deep State

News Media-Military-Industrial Complex Recommended Books Recommended Links National Security State / Surveillance State Big Uncle is Watching You  US and British media are servants of security apparatus
 Nation under attack meme Fake News scare and US NeoMcCartyism Trump vs. Deep State Anti Trump Hysteria Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Neoconservatism New American Militarism
Jingoism of the US neoliberal elite American Exceptionalism Corporatism Neo-fascism Inverted Totalitarism Bureaucracies Bureaucracy as a Political Coalition
Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism  The Pareto Law Amorality of neoliberal elite Casino Capitalism Ayn Rand and Objectivism Cult Pluralism as a myth What's the Matter with Kansas
Neoliberal Brainwashing: Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few The Guardian Slips Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment The importance of controlling the narrative  Patterns of Propaganda Corruption of Regulators Two Party System as polyarchy Audacioues Oligarchy and Loss of Trust
Hillary "Warmonger" Clinton - unsuccessful deep state candidate for presidency US Presidential Elections of 2016 as a referendum on neoliberal globalization Swiftboating Trump: Khan gambit against Trump at the Democratic Convention Obama: a yet another Neocon Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Robert Kagan Paul Wolfowitz
Wrecking Crew: Notes on Republican Economic Policy Libertarian Philosophy In Goldman Sachs we trust: classic example of regulatory capture by financial system hackers Groupthink Skeptic Quotations Humor Etc

Introduction


DEEP STATE n. A hard-to-perceive level of government or super-control that exists regardless of elections and that may thwart popular movements or radical change. Some have said that Egypt is being manipulated by its deep state.

A Wordnado of Words in 2013 - NYTimes.com , Dec 21, 2013

"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.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations."

President Harry Truman

"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence - on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

President John_F._Kennedy, speech on April 27, 1961

In a way the concept of  Corporatism and the concept of  "deep state' are very close, almost synonyms. Corporatism presuppose the merger of government and corporations. It can be done openly as was the case in Mussolini Italy or via back door, "revolving door" mechanism as it was done in the USA. In the latter case part of power of 'surface state" is preserved.

But there are agencies that get special status under corporatism. this is so called three-letter agencies (which actually is the backbone of Media-Military-Industrial Complex). Or national security establishment. This is new unelected aristocracy with huge financial resources that stands above law and can't be easily demotes from their positions (J. Edgar Hoover  is an excellent example here).  They now are a new incarnation of "royal court", which can like in old times is able to dismiss a monarch or even kill him.

So in a way the concept of "deep state" -- hypertrophied role of three letter agencies and their brass and certain corporations (aka military industrial complex) in national politics especially in formulating foreign policy is nothing new. But devil is always in details and some features of the USA deep state are different then our analogy predicts.

First of all "surface state" is still keeping some positions and even try to counterattack deep state in certain areas. Second, the merger of interests of three letter agencies like CIA/NSA and Wall Street can never be absolute as they have different worldviews on both the USA foreign policy priorities and methods of achieving them. They only partially coincide.  Also relations between three letter agencies are far from harmonious at all with CIA ('humint") very concerned about recent rise of status and capabilities of NSA ("sigint").  So in certain areas they are more like spiders in the cage with CIA perfectly capable attacking NSA and vise versa, and that gives us some hope. 

Two party system invented by elite of Great Britain proved to be perfect for inverted totalitarism type of regimes, including the US neoliberalism.  But there is second trend here which increase the elite control of the county:  this is dramatic transfer of power to institutions of "deep state", which in certain sense now like TBTF are beyond civil  control. As well as a secret alliance between Wall Street and CIA and other three letter agencies.

All those factors essentially make Presidential and Congress election in the USA truly optional, serving mostly ceremonial, decorative function. Yes elections still continue to exist and sometime provide good theater, within the strict rules of an emasculated "two parties, winner takes all" system, ehich if you think about it is not that different from one party elections in the USSR.

They still have a role in legitimizing the current rulers, although actual rules are not the same as those who were elected. This is especially true about the two recent US Presidents: George W Bush and Brack Obama.  And that explains why Barack Obama foreign policy is essentially a continuation of policy of George W Bush with minor tweaks.  Just the fact that neocon Victoria Nuland who worked for Cheney was promoted to the key role of the  Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs  tells that Obama controls very little in foreign policy area and that 'deep state" is functioning autonomously and without control of "surface state".

The USA political system does not have a single government. It actually has two distinct governments. They are called "surface state" or Madisonians and "deep state" or Trumanites (national security establishment in alliance with selected members of financial oligarchy, media owners and technocrats). The latter term emerged because it was Harry Truman who signed National Security Act of 1947  which created major three letter agencies (CIA, DOD, FBI and NSA).

Simplifying the complex relation between those two US governments (sometimes Madisonians fight back and have Trumanites to make a temporary retreat) we can say that:

Conversion of system of governance to "deep state" which happened in the USA almost immediately after 1947 essentially made elections optional, but they still continue to exist as a ceremonial function for the sake of providing the legitimacy in an emasculated "two parties system" form.  While relationship is more complex then simple dominance, in essence "deep state" is the tail that wag the dog. And JFK assassination (Nov 22, 1963)  meant first of all the triumph of "deep state" over "surface state". In this sense 9/11 was just the last nail in the coffin of democracy.

The term “Deep State” was coined in Turkey (and actually Wikipedia discusses only it) but it is widespread modern phenomenon which can also be found in most other states. The term means a shadow alliance of elements of government. security services, selected top-level figures of financial oligarchy, media and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process. As any elite dominance project it is deeply anti-democratic although it uses fig leaf of democracy for foreign expansion via color revolutions and wars. 

Like in Third Reich this dominance is supported by relentless propaganda and brainwashing with mechanisms polished since Reagan to perfection. There is now no problem to create an "enemy of the people" when the elite wants and it does not matter which country or individual is selected as an enemy. The essence of elite politics in this area was best formulated by Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

In other words this is a hidden set of political actors and powerful institutions that are concealed within the wider, “visible” state which, essentially, took over the functions of traditional state, leaving such organization of Executive branch, President, congress and courts mainly ceremonial role. Such transformation is well explained by the The Iron Law of Oligarchy and in various forms happened in Third Reich, the USSR, Turkey, China and many other countries.

Mike Lofgren: the “deep state” is the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment

Here is how The American Conservative covers this topic:

Steve Sailer links to this unsettling essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the “deep state” — the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment — is a far greater threat to liberty than you think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive agreement.

Excerpts:

These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi’s regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and access to that country’s intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic life.

Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an “establishment.” All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State’s protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.
 

More:

Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.” This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice — certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. [3]

The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus’ expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at theBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.

Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it’s a vital part of the Deep State’s apparatus. More:

The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to “live upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face.”

Read the whole thing.  Steve Sailer says that the Shallow State is a complement to the Deep State. The Shallow State is, I think, another name for what the Neoreactionaries call “The Cathedral,” defined thus:

The Cathedral — The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term coined by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community writers have enumerated the platform of Progressivism as women’s suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage. A defining feature of Progressivism is that “you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that’s left is to work out the details.” Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives, just lagging 10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.

You don’t have to agree with the Neoreactionaries on what they condemn — women’s suffrage? desegregation? labor laws? really?? — to acknowledge that they’re onto something about the sacred consensus that all Right-Thinking People share. I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I’d be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I’m not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I’m only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn’t a conspiracy; it’s in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:

Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called “groupthink,” the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town’s cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it’s 11:00 in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one’s consciousness like pebbles off steel plate: “You mean the number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?” No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one’s surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn’t know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.

When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It’s probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites — political, military, financial — were so genuinely traumatized by the events.

Anyway, that’s just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here’s a final quote, one from the Moyers interview with Lofgren:

BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican, not left or right, what is it?

MIKE LOFGREN: It’s an ideology. I just don’t think we’ve named it. It’s a kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it’s our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.

This can’t last. We’d better hope it can’t last. And we’d better hope it unwinds peacefully.

I, for one, remain glad that so many of us Americans are armed. When the Deep State collapses — and it will one day — it’s not going to be a happy time.

Questions to the room: Is a Gorbachev for the Deep State conceivable? That is, could you foresee a political leader emerging who could unwind the ideology and apparatus of the Deep State, and not only survive, but succeed? Or is it impossible for the Deep State to allow such a figure to thrive? Or is the Deep State, like the Soviet system Gorbachev failed to reform, too entrenched and too far gone to reform itself? If so, what then?

Professor Michael J. Glennon   book “National Security and Double Government.”

The second important thinker in this area is  Professor Michael J. Glennon who wrote the book  “National Security and Double Government.”. The strong point of his views on the subject is that he assumes that there is an internal struggle between those two forms of government, not just passive submission one to nother, but in most cases deep state prevails. This move led the USA "beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy."

The "deep state" (call by Professor Michael J. Glennon) The Trumanites, exersize their power due to alliance with Wall Street, almost unlimited funding (with many hidden sources belong US budget),  higher efficiency, abuse of secrecy, exaggerated threats, peer pressure to conform, and corruption of  the key decision-makers.

Here is how Amazon reviewer Mal Warwick summarized the book in his review written on December 22, 2014

Who makes national security decisions? Not who you think!

Why does Barack Obama's performance on national security issues in the White House contrast so strongly with his announced intentions as a candidate in 2008? After all, not only has Obama continued most of the Bush policies he decried when he ran for the presidency, he has doubled down on government surveillance, drone strikes, and other critical programs.

Michael J. Glennon set out to answer this question in his unsettling new book, National Security and Double Government. And he clearly dislikes what he found.

The answer, Glennon discovered, is that the US government is divided between the three official branches of the government, on the one hand — the "Madisonian" institutions incorporated into the Constitution — and the several hundred unelected officials who do the real work of a constellation of military and intelligence agencies, on the other hand. These officials, called "Trumanites" in Glennon's parlance for having grown out of the national security infrastructure established under Harry Truman, make the real decisions in the area of national security. (To wage the Cold War, Truman created the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA, and the National Security Council.) "The United States has, in short," Glennon writes, "moved beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy. . . . The perception of threat, crisis, and emergency has been the seminal phenomenon that has created and nurtures America's double government." If Al Qaeda hadn't existed, the Trumanite network would have had to create it — and, Glennon seems to imply, might well have done so.

The Trumanites wield their power with practiced efficiency, using secrecy, exaggerated threats, peer pressure to conform, and the ability to mask the identity of the key decision-maker as their principal tools.

Michael J. Glennon comes to this task with unexcelled credentials. A professor of international law at Tufts and former legal counsel for the Senate Armed Services Committee, he came face to face on a daily basis with the "Trumanites" he writes about. National Security and Double Government is exhaustively researched and documented: notes constitute two-thirds of this deeply disturbing little book.

The more I learn about how politics and government actually work — and I've learned a fair amount in my 73 years — the more pessimistic I become about the prospects for democracy in America. In some ways, this book is the most worrisome I've read over the years, because it implies that there is no reason whatsoever to think that things can ever get better. In other words, to borrow a phrase from the Borg on Star Trek, "resistance is futile." That's a helluva takeaway, isn't it?

On reflection, what comes most vividly to mind is a comment from the late Chalmers Johnson on a conference call in which I participated several years ago. Johnson, formerly a consultant to the CIA and a professor at two campuses of the University of California (Berkeley and later San Diego), was the author of many books, including three that awakened me to many of the issues Michael Glennon examines: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Johnson, who was then nearly 80 and in declining health, was asked by a student what he would recommend for young Americans who want to combat the menace of the military-industrial complex. "Move to Vancouver," he said.

Another good summary of the book can be found is review by Bruce Morgan (Shadow Government )

October 28, 2014 | Tufts Now

Elected officials are no longer in charge of our national security—and that is undermining our democracy, says the Fletcher School's Michael Glennon

Michael Glennon in his office

"We are clearly on the path to autocracy," says Michael Glennon. "There's no question that if we continue on that path, [the] Congress, the courts and the presidency will ultimately end up . . . as institutional museum pieces." Photo: Kelvin Ma

Michael Glennon knew of the book, and had cited it in his classes many times, but he had never gotten around to reading the thing from cover to cover. Last year he did, jolted page after page with its illuminating message for our time.

The book was The English Constitution, an analysis by 19th-century journalist Walter Bagehot that laid bare the dual nature of British governance. It suggested that one part of government was for popular consumption, and another more hidden part was for real, consumed with getting things done in the world. As he read, Glennon, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School, where he also teaches constitutional law, saw distinct parallels with the current American political scene.

He decided to explore the similarities in a 30-page paper that he sent around to a number of his friends, asking them to validate or refute his argument. As it happens, Glennon's friends were an extraordinarily well-informed bunch, mostly seasoned operatives in the CIA, the U.S. State Department and the military. "Look," he told them. "I'm thinking of writing a book. Tell me if this is wrong." Every single one responded, "What you have here is exactly right."

Expanded from that original brief paper, Glennon's book National Security and Double Government (Oxford University Press) takes our political system to task, arguing that the people running our government are not our visible elected officials but high-level—and unaccountable—bureaucrats nestled atop government agencies.

Glennon's informed critique of the American political system comes from a place of deep regard. Glennon says he can remember driving into Washington, D.C., in the late spring of 1973, at the time of the Senate Watergate hearings, straight from law school at the University of Minnesota, to take his first job as assistant legislative counsel to the U.S. Senate. Throughout his 20s, he worked in government, culminating in his position as legal counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under Sen. Frank Church from 1977 to 1980. Since entering academic life in the early 1980s, Glennon has been a frequent consultant to government agencies of all stripes, as well as a regular commentator on media outlets such as NPR's All Things Considered, the Today show and Nightline.

In his new book, an inescapable sadness underlies the narrative. "I feel a great sense of loss," Glennon admits. "I devoted my life to these [democratic] institutions, and it's not easy to see how to throw the current trends into reverse." Tufts Now spoke with Glennon recently to learn more of his perspective.

Tufts Now: You've been both an insider and an outsider with regard to government affairs. What led you to write this book?

Michael Glennon: I was struck by the strange continuity in national security policy between the Bush administration and the Obama administration. Obama, as a candidate, had been eloquent and forceful in criticizing many aspects of the Bush administration's national security policies, from drone strikes to Guantanamo to surveillance by the National Security Agency—the NSA—to covert operations. Yet as president, it turned out that he made very, very few changes in these policies. So I thought it was useful to explain the reason for that.

Were you surprised by the continuity?

I was surprised by the extent of it. I knew fundamentally from my own experience that changing national policies is like trying to change the course of an aircraft carrier. These policies in many ways were set long ago, and the national security bureaucracy tends to favor the status quo. Still, I thought that a president like Obama would, with the political wind in his sails and with so much public and congressional support for what he was criticizing, be more successful in fulfilling his promises.

You use the phrase "double government," coined by Walter Bagehot in the 1860s. What did he mean by that?

Walter Bagehot was one of the founders of the Economist magazine. He developed the theory of "double government," which in a nutshell is this. He said Britain had developed two sets of institutions. First came "dignified" institutions, the monarchy and the House of Lords, which were for show and which the public believed ran the government. But in fact, he suggested, this was an illusion.

These dignified institutions generate legitimacy, but it was a second set of institutions, which he called Britain's "efficient" institutions, that actually ran the government behind the scenes. These institutions were the House of Commons, the Cabinet and the prime minister. This split allowed Britain to move quietly from a monarchy to what Bagehot called a "concealed republic."

The thesis of my book is that the United States has also drifted into a form of double government, and that we have our own set of "dignified" institutions—Congress, the presidency and the courts. But when it comes to national security policy, these entities have become largely for show. National security policy is now formulated primarily by a second group of officials, namely the several hundred individuals who manage the agencies of the military, intelligence and law enforcement bureaucracy responsible for protecting the nation's security.

What are some components of this arrangement?

The NSA, the FBI, the Pentagon and elements of the State Department, certainly; generally speaking, law enforcement, intelligence and the military entities of the government. It's a diverse group, an amorphous group, with no leader and no formal structure, that has come to dominate the formation of American national security policy to the point that Congress, the presidency and the courts all defer to it.

You call this group the "Trumanite network" in your book. What's the link to Harry Truman?

It was in Truman's administration that the National Security Act of 1947 was enacted. This established the CIA and the National Security Council and centralized the command of the U.S. military. It was during the Truman administration as well that the National Security Agency [NSA] was set up, in 1952, although that was a secret and didn't come to light for many years thereafter.

In contrast to the Trumanites you set the "Madisonians." How would you describe them?

The Madisonian institutions are the three constitutionally established branches of the federal government: Congress, the judiciary and the president. They are perceived by the public as the entities responsible for the formulation of national security policy, but that belief is largely mistaken.

The idea is driven by regular exceptions. You can always point to specific instances in which, say, the president personally ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden or Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution. But these are exceptions. The norm is that as a general matter, these three branches defer to the Trumanite network, and that's truer all the time.

So the trend is toward increased power on the Trumanite side of the ledger.

Correct.

If that's true, why has there not been a greater outcry from the public, the media—all the observers we have?

I think the principal reason is that even sophisticated students of government operate under a very serious misunderstanding. They believe that the political system is self-correcting. They believe the framers set up a system of government setting power against power, and ambition against ambition, and that an equilibrium would be reached, and that any abuse of power would be checked, and arbitrary power would be prevented.

That is correct as far as it goes, but the reality is that's only half the picture. The other half is that Madison and his colleagues believed that for equilibrium to occur, we would have an informed and engaged citizenry. Lacking that, the entire system corrupts, because individuals are elected to office who do not resist encroachments on the power of their branches of government, and the whole equilibrium breaks down.

What role, if any, have the media played?

The media have pretty much been enablers. Although there are a handful of investigative journalists who have done a heroic job of uncovering many of the abuses, they are the exception, for a number of reasons. Number one, the media are a business and have a bottom line. It takes a huge amount of money to fund an investigative journalist who goes about finding sources over a period of years. Very few newspapers or television concerns have those sorts of deep pockets.

Second, access for the press is everything. There is huge incentive to pull punches, and you don't get interviews with top-ranking officials at the NSA or CIA if you're going to offer hard-hitting questions. Look, for example, at the infamous 60 Minutes puff piece on the NSA, a really tragic example of how an otherwise respectable institution can sell its soul and act like an annex of the NSA in order to get some people it wants on the TV screen.

What is the role of terror in this environment?

The whole transfer of power from the Madisonian institutions to the Trumanite network has been fueled by a sense of emergency deriving from crisis, deriving from fear. It's fear of terrorism more than anything else that causes the American people to increasingly be willing to dispense with constitutional safeguards to ensure their safety.

Madison believed that government has two great objects. One object of a constitution is to enable the government to protect the people, specifically from external attacks. The other great object of a constitution is to protect the people from the government. The better able the government is to protect the people from external threats, the greater the threat posed by the government to the people.

You've been involved with the U.S. government for 40 years. How has your view of government changed?

Double government was certainly a factor in the 1970s, but it was challenged for the first time thanks to the activism stemming from the civil rights movement, Vietnam and Watergate. As a result, there were individuals in Congress—Democrats and Republicans like William Fulbright, Frank Church, Jacob Javits, Charles Mathias and many others—who were willing to stand up and insist upon adherence to constitutionally ordained principles. That led to a wave of activism and to the enactment of a number of pieces of reform legislation.

But there is no final victory in Washington. Those reforms have gradually been eaten away and turned aside. I think today we are in many ways right back where we were in the early 1970s. NSA surveillance is an example of that. The Church Committee uncovered something called Operation Shamrock, in which the NSA had assembled a watch list of antiwar and civil rights activists based upon domestic surveillance. Church warned at the time that NSA capabilities were so awesome that if they were ever turned inward on the American people, this nation would cross an abyss from which there is no return. The question is whether we have recently crossed that abyss.

To what degree are we still a functioning democracy? I'm sure you know that President Jimmy Carter told a German reporter last year that he thought we no longer qualified as a democracy because of our domestic surveillance.

We are clearly on the path to autocracy, and you can argue about how far we are down that path. But there's no question that if we continue on that path, America's constitutionally established institutions—Congress, the courts and the presidency—will ultimately end up like Britain's House of Lords and monarchy, namely as institutional museum pieces.

Bruce Morgan can be reached at bruce.morgan@tufts.ed

Here is how Christopher Bellavita in Homeland Security Watch summarize an interesting discussion at Cato think tank which I highly recommend to watch:

Why has American national security policy changed so little from the Bush administration to the Obama

That’s the question Michael J. Glennon asks in his book “National Security and Double Government.”

His answer: national security policy is determined largely by “the several hundred managers of the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who are responsible for protecting the nation and who have come to operate largely immune from constitutional and electoral restraints.” The president, congress and the courts play largely a symbolic role in national security policy, Glennon claims.

You can read a Harvard National Security Journal article that outlines Glennon’s argument at this link: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf.  The paper is not an especially easy read, but I found it to be well researched and – for  me – persuasive.

His book adds more analysis to the argument, using (from Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision) the rational actor model, the government politics model, and the organizational behavior model. Glennon extends that framework by discussing culture, networks, and the myth of alternative competing hypotheses.  The book is richer, in my opinion.  But the core of Glennon’s position is in the paper.

This link takes you to a video of Glennon talking about his book at the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/events/national-security-double-government (the talk starts at the 5:20 mark).

From the Cato site:

In National Security and Double Government, Michael Glennon examines the continuity in U.S. national security policy from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. Glennon explains the lack of change by pointing to the enervation of America’s “Madisonian institutions,” namely, the Congress, the presidency, and the courts. In Glennon’s view, these institutions have been supplanted by a “Trumanite network” of bureaucrats who make up the permanent national security state. National security policymaking has been removed from public view and largely insulated from law and politics. Glennon warns that leaving security policy in the hands of the Trumanite network threatens Americans’ liberties and the republican form of government.

Some blurb reviews:

I’ve spoken to three people I consider to be members of the “shadow national security state.”   One person said Glennon’s argument is nothing new.  The second told me he’s got it exactly right.  The third said it’s even worse.

Professor Peter Dale Scott book and articles

If Michael Glennon conseed defeat but still has some hope, here we enter perfect Danter hell picture along the lines "Leave all hopes those who dare to enter"

Professor Peter Dale Scott book and article represent probably the most comprehensive coverage, especially his book. But the article in the Asia-Pacific journal represents fair summary of his views on the subject (The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld (Updated March 13, 2014):

In the last decade it has become more and more obvious that we have in America today what the journalists Dana Priest and William Arkin have called

two governments: the one its citizens were familiar with, operated more or less in the open: the other a parallel top secret government whose parts had mushroomed in less than a decade into a gigantic, sprawling universe of its own, visible to only a carefully vetted cadre – and its entirety…visible only to God.1

And in 2013, particularly after the military return to power in Egypt, more and more authors referred to this second level as America’s “deep state.”2 Here for example is the Republican analyst Mike Lofgren:

There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.3

At the end of 2013 a New York Times Op-Ed noted this trend, and even offered a definition of the term that will work for the purposes of this essay:

DEEP STATE n. A hard-to-perceive level of government or super-control that exists regardless of elections and that may thwart popular movements or radical change. Some have said that Egypt is being manipulated by its deep state.4

The political activities of the deep state are the chief source and milieu of what I have elsewhere called “deep politics:” “all those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged.”5

Others, like Tom Hayden, call the deep state a “state within the state,” and suggest it may be responsible for the failure of the Obama administration to follow the policy guidelines of the president’s speeches:

We have seen evidence of a "state within the state" before, going back as far as the CIA's operations against Cuba. In Obama's time, the president correctly named the 2009 coup in Honduras a "coup", and then seemed powerless to prevent it.6

This development of a two-level or dual state has been paralleled by two other dualities: the increasing resolution of American society into two classes – the “one percent” and the “ninety-nine percent” – and the bifurcation of the U.S. economy into two aspects: the domestic, still subject to some governmental regulation and taxation, and the international, relatively free from governmental controls.7 All three developments have affected and intensified each other – particularly since the Reagan Revolution of 1980, which saw American inequality of wealth cease to diminish and begin to increase.8 Thus for example we shall see how Wall Street – the incarnation of the “one percent” – played a significant role in increasing the deep state after World War Two, and how three decades later the deep state played a significant role in realigning America for the Reagan Revolution.

In earlier books I have given versions of this America-centered account of America’s shift into empire and a deep state. But another factor to be mentioned is the shift of global history towards an increasingly global society dominated by a few emergent superpowers. This trend was accelerated after the Industrial Revolution by new technologies of transport, from the railroad in the 19th century to the jet plane and space travel in the 20th.9

In the fallout from this rearrangement we must include two world wars, as a result of which Britain ceased to act as the dominant superpower it had been since Napoleon. Not surprisingly, the Soviet Union and the United States subsequently competed in a Cold War to fill the gap. It  was not however predetermined that the Cold War would be as thuggish and covertly violent as for decades it continued to be. For that we should look to more contingent causes on both sides of the Iron Curtain – starting with the character of Stalin and his party but also including the partly responsive development of the American deep state.

The Deep State, The Shadow Government and the Wall Street Overworld

The “deep state” was defined by the UK newsletter On Religion as “the embedded anti-democratic power structures within a government, something very few democracies can claim to be free from.”10 The term originated in Turkey in 1996, to refer to U.S.-backed elements, primarily in the intelligence services and military, who had repeatedly used violence to interfere with and realign Turkey’s democratic political process. Sometimes the definition is restricted to elements within the government (or “a state-within-the state”), but more often in Turkey the term is expanded, for historical reasons, to include “members of the Turkish underworld.”11 In this essay I shall use “deep state” in the larger sense, to include both the second level of secret government inside Washington and those outsiders powerful enough, in either the underworld or overworld, to give it direction. In short I shall equate the term “deep state” with what in 1993 I termed a “deep political system:” “ one which habitually resorts to decision-making and enforcement procedures outside as well as inside those publicly sanctioned by law and society.”12

Like myself, Lofgren suggests an ambiguous symbiosis between two aspects of the American deep state:

1)  the Beltway agencies of the shadow government, like the CIA and NSA, which have been instituted by the public state and now overshadow it, and

2)  the much older power of Wall Street, referring to the powerful banks and law firms located there.

In his words,

It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee.13

I shall argue that in the 1950s Wall Street was a dominating complex. It included not just banks and oil firms but also the oil majors whose cartel arrangements were successfully defended against the U.S. Government by the Wall Street law firm Sullivan and Cromwell, home to the Dulles brothers. This larger complex is what I mean by the Wall Street overworld.

The Long History of the Wall Street Overworld

Lofgren’s inclusion of Wall Street is in keeping with Franklin Roosevelt’s observation in 1933 to his friend Col. E.M. House that “The real truth … is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”14

FDR’s insight is well illustrated by the efficiency with which a group of Wall Street bankers (including Nelson Rockefeller’s grandfather Nelson Aldrich and Paul Warburg) were able in a highly secret meeting in 1910 to establish the Federal Reserve System – a system which in effect reserved oversight of the nation’s currency supply and of all America’s banks in the not impartial hands of its largest.15 The political clout of the quasi-governmental Federal Reserve Board (where the federal Treasury is represented but does not dominate) was clearly demonstrated in 2008, when Fed leadership secured instant support from the successive administrations of a Texan Republican president, followed by a Midwest Democratic one, for public money to rescue the reckless management of Wall Street banks: banks Too Big To Fail, and of course far Too Big To Jail, but not Too Big To Bail.16

Wall Street and the Launching of the CIA

Top-level Treasury officials, CIA officers, and Wall Street bankers and lawyers think alike because of the “revolving door” by which they pass easily from private to public service and back. In 1946 General Vandenberg, as Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), recruited Allen Dulles, then a Republican lawyer at Sullivan and Cromwell in New York, "to draft proposals for the shape and organization of what was to become the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947." Dulles promptly formed an advisory group of six men, all but one of whom were Wall Street investment bankers or lawyers.17 Dulles and two of the six (William H. Jackson and Frank Wisner) later joined the agency, where Dulles proceeded to orchestrate policies, such as the overthrow of the Arbenz regime in Guatemala, that he had previously discussed in New York at the Council on Foreign Relations.18

There seems to be little difference in Allen Dulles’s influence whether he was a Wall Street lawyer or a CIA director. Although he did not formally join the CIA until November 1950, he was in Berlin before the start of the 1948 Berlin Blockade, “supervising the unleashing of anti-Soviet propaganda across Europe.”19 In the early summer of 1948 he set up the American Committee for a United Europe (ACUE), in support of what became by the early 1950s “the largest CIA operation in Western Europe.”20

The Deep State and Funds for CIA Covert Operations

Wall Street was also the inspiration for what eventually became the CIA’s first covert operation: the use of “over $10 million in captured Axis funds to influence the [Italian] election [of 1948].”21 (The fundraising had begun at the wealthy Brook Club in New York; but Allen Dulles, still a Wall Street lawyer, persuaded Washington, which at first had preferred a private funding campaign, to authorize the operation through the National Security Council and the CIA.)22

Dulles’s friend Frank Wisner then left Wall Street to oversee an enlarged covert operations program through the newly created Office of Policy Co-ordination (OPC). Dulles, still a lawyer, campaigned successfully to reconstruct Western Europe through what became known as the Marshall Plan.23 Together with George Kennan and James Forrestal, Dulles also “helped devise a secret codicil [to the Marshall Plan] that gave the CIA the capability to conduct political warfare. It let the agency skim millions of dollars from the plan.”24

This created one of the earlier occasions when the CIA, directly or indirectly, recruited local assets involved in drug trafficking. AFL member Irving Brown, the assistant of AFL official Jay Lovestone (a CIA asset), was implicated in drug smuggling activities in Europe, at the same time that he used funds diverted from the Marshall Plan to establish

a "compatible left" labor union in Marseilles with Pierre Ferri-Pisani. On behalf of Brown and the CIA, Ferri-Pisani (a drug smuggler connected with Marseilles crime lord Antoine Guerini), hired goons to shellack striking Communist dock workers.25

An analogous funding source for the CIA developed in the Far East: the so-called

"M-Fund," a secret fund of money of enormous size that has existed in Japan [in 1991] for more than forty years. The Fund was established by the United States in the immediate postwar era for essentially the same reasons that later gave rise to the Marshall Plan of assistance by the U.S. to Western Europe, including the Federal Republic of Germany….. The M-Fund was used not only for the building of a democratic political system in Japan but, in addition, for all of the purposes for which Marshall Plan funds were used in Europe.26

For at least two decades the CIA lavishly subsidized right-wing parties in countries including Japan and Indonesia, possibly still using captured Axis funds.27 (One frequently encounters the claim that the source of the M-fund was gold looted by Japan during World War Two (“Yamashita’s gold”).28

As a general rule the CIA, rather than assimilating these funds into its own budget, appears to have left them off the books in the hands of cooperative allied powers – ranging from other U.S. agencies like the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA. set up in 1948 to administer the Marshall Plan) to oil companies to powerful drug kingpins.29

The CIA never abandoned its dependency on funds from outside its official budget to conduct its clandestine operations. In Southeast Asia, in particular, its proprietary firm Sea Supply Inc., supplied an infrastructure for a drug traffic supporting a CIA-led paramilitary force, PARU.30 The CIA appears also to have acted in coordination with slush funds from various U.S. government contracts, ranging from the Howard Hughes organization to (as we shall see) the foreign arms sales of U.S. defense corporations like Lockheed and Northrop.31

Lockheed Payoffs and CIA Clients: the Netherlands, Japan, Italy, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia

 

 

Kodama Yoshio, war criminal, drug trafficker, and purveyor of deep state US funds to Japanese politicians

Through the 1950s payouts from the M-fund were administered by Kodama Yoshio, “probably the CIA's chief asset in Japan;” while ”All accounts say that after the end of the occupation, the fund's American managers came from the CIA.”32  Kodama also received and distributed millions of funds from Lockheed to secure military contracts – an operation the CIA knew about but has never admitted involvement in.33 Lockheed’s system of payoffs was world-wide; and one sees CIA involvement with it in at least four other countries: the Netherlands, Italy, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. (Lockheed, the builder of the U-2, was a major CIA-cleared contractor.)34

The beneficiary in the Netherlands was Prince Bernhard, a close friend of CIA directors Walter Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles, and the organizer of the Bilderberg Group.35 In the case of Italy, payments were handled through a contact (“Antelope Cobbler”) who turned out to be whoever was the Italian Prime Minister of the moment (always from one of the parties subsidized earlier by the CIA).36

In the revealing instance of Indonesia, Lockheed payments were shifted in May 1965, over the legal objections of Lockheed's counsel, to a new contract with a  company set up by the firm's long-time local agent or middleman, August Munir Dasaad.86 This was just six months after a secret U.S. decision to have the CIA covertly assist

“individuals and organizations prepared to take obstructive action against the PKI [Indonesian Communist Party].” Over the longer term this meant identifying and keeping tabs on “anti-regime elements” and other potential leaders of a post-Sukarno regime.37

Although Dasaad had been a long-time supporter of Sukarno, by May 1965 he was already building connections with Sukarno’s eventual successor, Gen. Suharto, via a family relative, General Alamsjah, who knew Suharto and was the beneficiary of the new Lockheed account.38 After Suharto replaced Sukarno, Alamsjah, who controlled certain considerable funds, at once made funds available to Suharto, earning him the gratitude of the new President.39

In July 1965, furthermore, at the alleged nadir of U.S.-Indonesian aid relations, Rockwell-Standard had a contractual agreement to deliver two hundred light aircraft (Aero-Commanders) to the Indonesian Army (not the Air Force) in the next two months. Once again the commission agent on the deal, Bob Hasan or Hassan, was a political associate (and eventual business partner) of Suharto. More specifically, Suharto and Bob Hasan established two shipping companies to be operated by the Central Java army division, Diponegoro. This division, as has long been noticed, supplied the bulk of the personnel on both sides of the Gestapu coup drama in September 1965 -- both those staging the coup attempt, and those putting it down.40

While this was happening, Stanvac (a joint venture of the Standard companies known later as Exxon and Mobil) increased payments to the army's oil company, Permina, headed by an eventual political ally of Suharto, General Ibnu Sutowo. Alamsjah is said to have been allied with Ibnu Sutowo in plotting against Sukarno, along with a well-connected Japanese oilman, Nishijima Shigetada.41 After Suharto's overthrow of Sukarno, Fortune wrote that "Sutowo's still small company played a key part in bankrolling those crucial operations, and the army has never forgotten it."42

We shall deal later with the special case of Lockheed kickbacks to Saudi Arabia, which were far greater than those to Japan. It is important to note, however, the linkage between Middle East oil and arms sales: as U.S. imports of Middle East oil increased, the pressure on the U.S. balance of payments was offset by increased U.S. arms sales to the region. “In the period 1963-1974, arms sales to the Middle East went from 10 per cent of global arms imports to 36 per cent, half of which was supplied by the United States.”43

Iran in 1953: How an Oil Cartel Operation Became a Job for the CIA

The international lawyers of Wall Street did not hide from each other their shared belief that they understood better than Washington the requirements for running the world. As John Foster Dulles wrote in the 1930s to a British colleague,

The word “cartel” has here assumed the stigma of a bogeyman which the politicians are constantly attacking.  The fact of the matter is that most of these politicians are highly insular and nationalistic and because the political organization of the world has under such influence been so backward, business people who have had to cope realistically with international problems have had to find ways for getting through and around stupid political barriers.44

This same mentality also explains why Allen Dulles as an OSS officer in 1945 simply evaded orders from Washington forbidding him to negotiate with SS General Karl Wolff about a conditional surrender of German forces in Italy – an important breach of Roosevelt’s agreement with Stalin at Yalta for unconditional surrender, a breach that is regarded by many as helping lead to the Cold War.45 And it explains why Allen, as CIA Director in 1957, dealt summarily with Eisenhower’s reluctance to authorize more than occasional U-2 overflights of the USSR, by secretly approving a plan with Britain’s MI-6 whereby U-2 flights could be authorized instead by the UK Prime Minister Macmillan.46

This mentality exhibited itself in 1952, when Truman’s Justice Department sought to break up the cartel agreements whereby Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) and four other oil majors controlled global oil distribution. (The other four were Standard Oil Company of New York, Standard Oil of California or Socony, Gulf Oil, and Texaco; together with Royal Dutch Shell and Anglo-Iranian, they comprised the so-called Seven Sisters of the cartel.) Faced with a government order to hand over relevant documents, Exxon’s lawyer Arthur Dean at Sullivan and Cromwell, where Foster was senior partner, refused: “If it were not for the question of national security, we would be perfectly willing to face either a criminal or a civil suit. But this is the kind of information the Kremlin would love to get its hands on.”47

 

 

Wall Street, the former headquarters of both Sullivan and Cromwell and the J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation

At this time the oil cartel was working closely with the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC, later BP) to prevent AIOC’s nationalization by Iran’s Premier Mossadeq, by instituting, in May 1951, a successful boycott of Iranian oil exports.

In May 1951 the AIOC secured the backing of the other oil majors, who had every interest in discouraging nationalisation.... None of the large companies would touch Iranian oil; despite one or two picturesque episodes the boycott held.48

As a result Iranian oil production fell from 241 million barrels in 1950 to 10.6 million barrels in 1952.

This was accomplished by denying Iran the ability to export its crude oil. At that time, the Seven Sisters controlled almost 99% of the crude oil tankers in the world for such export, and even more importantly, the markets to which it was going.49

But Truman declined, despite a direct personal appeal from Churchill, to have the CIA participate in efforts to overthrow Mossadeq, and instead dispatched Averell Harriman to Tehran in a failed effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution of Mossadeq’s differences with London.50

 

 

 

Allen and John Foster Dulles, pillars of both the state and the deep state

All this changed with the election of Eisenhower in November 1952, followed by the appointment of the Dulles brothers to be Secretary of State and head of CIA. The Justice Department’s criminal complaint against the oil cartel was swiftly replaced by a civil suit, from which the oil cartel eventually emerged unscathed.51

Eisenhower, an open friend of the oil industry…changed the charges from criminal to civil and transferred responsibility of the case from the Department of Justice to the Department of State – the first time in history that an antitrust case was handed to State for prosecution. Seeing as how the Secretary of State was John Foster Dulles and the defense counsel for the oil cartel was Dulles’ former law firm (Sullivan and Cromwell), the case was soon as good as dead.52

Thereafter

Cooperative control of the world market by the major oil companies remained in effect, with varying degrees of success, until the oil embargo of 1973-74. That the cooperation was more than tacit can be seen by the fact that antitrust regulations were specifically set aside a number of times during the 1950-1973 period, allowing the major companies to negotiate as a group with various Mideastern countries, and after its inception [in 1960], with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC.53

Also in November 1952 CIA officials began planning to involve CIA in the efforts of MI6 and the oil companies in Iran54 -- although its notorious Operation TP/AJAX to overthrow Mossadeq was not finally approved by Eisenhower until July 22, 1953.55

The events of 1953 strengthened the role of the oil cartel as a structural component of the American deep state, drawing on its powerful connections to both Wall Street and the CIA.56  (Another such component was the Arabian-American Oil Company or ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia, which increased oil production in 1951-53 to offset the loss of oil from Iran. Until it was fully nationalized in 1980, ARAMCO maintained undercover CIA personnel like William Eddy among its top advisors.)57 The five American oil majors in particular were also strengthened by the success of AJAX, as Anglo-Iranian (renamed BP) was henceforth forced to share 40 percent of the oil from its Iran refinery with them.

Nearly all recent accounts of Mossadeq’s overthrow treat it as a covert intelligence operation, with the oil cartel (when mentioned at all) playing a subservient role. However the chronology, and above all the belated approval from Eisenhower, suggest that it was CIA that came belatedly in 1953 to assist an earlier oil cartel operation, rather than vice versa. In terms of the deep state, the oil cartel or deep state initiated in 1951 a process that the American public state only authorized two years later. Yet the inevitable bias in academic or archival historiography, working only with those primary sources that are publicly available, is to think of the Mossadeq tragedy as simply a “CIA coup.”

The CIA, Booz Allen Hamilton, and the Wall Street Overworld

The “revolving door” also circulates top-level intelligence officials and the chiefs of the cleared contractors referred to by Mike Lofgren as part of the deep state. Tim Shorrock revealed in 2007 that “about 70 percent of the estimated $60 billion the government spends every year on…intelligence” is outsourced to private intelligence contractors like Booz, Allen & Hamilton (now Booz Allen Hamilton) and SAIC.58 For example Mike McConnell “went from being head of the National Security Agency under Bush 41 and Clinton directly to Booz Allen, one of the nation’s largest private intelligence contractors, then became Bush’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI), then went back to Booz Allen, where he is now Executive Vice President.” Intelligence officers in government write the non-competitive contracts for the private corporations that they may have worked for and may work for again.59 And over the years the “revolving door” has also exchanged personnel between Booz Allen and the international oil companies served by the firm.

The original firm of Booz, Allen, & Hamilton split in 2008 into Booz Allen Hamilton, focused on USG business, and Booz & Company in New York, assuming the old company’s commercial and international portfolio. Booz Allen Hamilton is majority owned by the private equity firm the Carlyle Group, noted for its association with political figures like both presidents Bush.60

 

 

 

Booz Allen Hamilton Headquarters

Lofgren points to the deep state importance of Booz Allen Hamilton, 99 percent of whose business dependent on the U.S. government.61 Booz Allen has been linked in the media to NSA ever since its employee Edward Snowden decamped with NSA records. But Booz Allen, one of the oldest and largest of the “cleared contractors,” has been intertwined with the CIA’s covert operations since Allen Dulles became CIA Director in 1953.62 In the same year, Booz Allen began “to take on several overseas assignments…: a land-registration system in the Philippines, a restructuring of Egypt’s customs operations and textile industries, and work for Iran’s national oil company.”63 All three assignments overlapped with CIA covert ops in 1953, including the Philippine land distribution program which Edward Lansdale promoted in order to fight a Huk insurrection, and the CIA’s operation TP/AJAX (with Britain’s MI6) to rescue the Anglo-Iranian oil company (later BP).64

 

 

Miles Copeland, Jr., ex-CIA, ex-Booz Allen & Hamilton, ex-Khashoggi’s private CIA

But the most important CIA-Booz Allen cooperation may have been in Egypt. In March 1953 Miles Copeland, having resigned from the CIA to join Booz-Allen, “returned to Cairo under what was, for all practical purposes, a joint CIA-BA&H mission.”65 In addition to offering management advice to the Egyptian government in general, and to a private textile mill, Miles also gave Nasser advice on establishing his intelligence service (the Mukhabarat), and “soon became his closest Western advisor” (as well as his top channel to the USG, more important than either the local US ambassador or CIA chief)66

Copeland’s role with Nasser did not make him a shaper of U.S. policy; his pro-Nasser views were largely subordinated to the pro-British anti-Nasserism of the Dulles brothers. But they did establish a bond between Copeland and the Eisenhower White House. By 1967, when Nixon was preparing to run for president, Copeland had taken a leave of absence from Booz Allen to become a prestigious and well-paid consultant for oil companies.

The CIA, Miles Copeland, and Adnan Khashoggi

In 1966 Copeland, while technically on leave from Booz Allen, made close contact with Adnan Khashoggi, a young Arab who was in the course of becoming both a “principal foreign agent” of the U.S. and also extremely wealthy on the commissions he earned from Lockheed and other military firms on arms sales to Saudi Arabia.67 (“To give some sense of the size of the business, the company acknowledged in the mid-1970s that it had provided $106 million in commissions to Khashoggi between 1970 and 1975, more than ten times the level of payments made to the next most important connection, Yoshi [sic] Kodama of Japan.”68

 

 

 

Adnan Khashoggi, shadowy backer of politicians (Time, Jan. 19, 1987)

By Copeland’s own account in 1989, this encounter with Khashoggi “put the two of us on a ‘Miles-and-Adnan’ basis that has lasted for more than twenty years of business, parties, and a very special kind of political action.”69 Copeland adds that

Adnan and I, separately had been called on by our respective friends in Langley [i.e., CIA] to… have an official [sic], off-the-record exchange of ideas on the emerging crisis in the Middle East, and come up with suggestions that the tame bureaucrats would like to have made but couldn’t.70

Copeland almost immediately flew to Cairo and immersed himself in a series of high-level but ultimately unsuccessful efforts to forestall what soon became the 1967 Six Day Egyptian-Israeli Six Day War. By his account, his mission, though unsuccessful, gave a “tremendous boost” to his reputation, enabling him “to accelerate the attempt I had already started to establish a ‘private CIA’ by use of confidential arrangements with politically astute members of the client companies.”71

Copeland’s self-promoting claims are controversial, and a number of establishment writers have described his books as “unreliable.”72 But eyewitness Larry Kolb corroborates that Copeland was close to Khashoggi, and that the two of them

had written a white paper… proposing that… rich countries, including not only the United States but also the Arab oil states, should establish a “Marshall Plan” for all the needy countries of the Middle East, including Israel.

Rewritten with Kolb’s assistance after consultation with the Reagan White House, the plan would be backed by a “Mideast Peace Fund” to which “Adnan was pledging a hundred million dollars of his own money.”73

The proposal failed, partly because of the Middle East’s resistance to negotiated solutions, but also partly because by the 1980s Khashoggi was no longer as rich and influential as he had once been. His function as an agent of influence in the Middle East and elsewhere had been sharply limited after the United States, by the Corrupt Federal Practices Act of 1978, outlawed direct payments by US corporations to foreign individuals. Henceforward the function of bestowing money and sexual favors on client politicians passed primarily from Khashoggi to another CIA connection, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).74 A major shareholder in BCCI was Saudi intelligence chief Kamal Adham, Khashoggi’s friend and business partner and (according to the Senate BCCI Report) “the CIA's former principal contact in the Arab Middle East.”75

What the story of the failed “Mideast Peace Fund” reveals is first, that Khashoggi (like BCCI after him) was of interest to Washington because of his ability to negotiate with both Israel and Arab countries; and second, that Copeland and what Copeland called his “private CIA,”76 was in a commanding position as lead adviser to Khashoggi, while still on unpaid leave from Booz Allen Hamilton.

Khashoggi, the CIA’s Asset Edward K. Moss, and Political Corruption

A powerful connection was formed by combining Copeland’s political contacts with Khashoggi’s millions. Copeland may have been responsible for Khashoggi’s inspired choice of the under-recognized Edward K. Moss, another man with CIA connections, as his p.r. agent in Washington.77

Back in November 1962, the CIA, as part of its planning to get rid of Castro, decided  to use Moss for the Political Action Group of the CIA’s Covert Action (CA) staff.78 This was more than a year after the FBI had advised the CIA that Moss’s mistress Julia Cellini and her brother Dino Cellini were alleged to be procurers, while “the Cellini brothers have long been associated with the narcotics and white slavery rackets in Cuba.”79

This FBI report suggests an important shared interest between Moss and Khashoggi: sexual corruption. Just as his uncle Yussuf Yassin had been a procurer of women for King Abdul-Aziz, so Khashoggi himself was said to have “used sex to win over U.S. executives.” The bill for the madam who supplied girls en masse to his yacht in the Mediterranean ran to hundreds of thousands of dollars.80 Khashoggi made a practice of supplying those he wished to influence with dollars as well as sex.

 

 

 

Khashoggi’s Superyacht Kingdom 5KR, now owned by Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal

The CIA of course was forbidden to use sex and money in this way in the United States, or to make in the United States the payments to right-wing politicians that characterized its behavior in the rest of the world. But no such prohibition applied to Khashoggi. According to Anthony Summers,

Khashoggi had courted Nixon in 1967 by putting a plane at his disposal to tour the Middle East after the Six-Day War. Soon afterward, using a proxy, he opened an account at Rebozo’s [Bebe Rebozo, Nixon’s close confidante] in Florida. He did so, he explained to Watergate prosecutors, hoping to “curry favor with Rebozo,” to get an entrée to the man who might become president, and to pursue business deals.81

Khashoggi in effect served as a “cutout,” or representative, in a number of operations forbidden to the CIA and the companies he worked with. Lockheed, for one, was conspicuously absent from the list of military contractors who contributed illicitly to Nixon’s 1972 election campaign. But there was no law prohibiting their official representative, Khashoggi, from cycling $200 million through the bank of Nixon’s friend Bebe Rebozo.82

(Pierre Salinger heard from Khashoggi that in 1972 he had donated $1 million to Nixon, corroborating the often-heard claim that Khashoggi had brought it in a briefcase to Nixon’s western White House in San Clemente, and then “forgotten” to take it away.)83

Khashoggi of course did not introduce such corruption to American politics; he merely joined a milieu where defense companies had used money and girls for years to win defense contracts in Washington and Las Vegas.84 Prominent in this practice was Howard Hughes, whom Khashoggi soon joined in international investments. (After a Senate investigator on Khashoggi’s trail registered at the Hughes-owned Sands Hotel in Las Vegas, a blonde came unexpectedly to his hotel room, and said, “I’m here for your pleasure.”)85

But Khashoggi’s corruption channels and targets overlapped with those of others with CIA connections. In 1972 it was alleged that funds from the Paradise Island casino in the Bahamas were being secretly carried to Nixon and his friend Bebe Rebozo, by a casino employee. This was Seymour (Sy) Alter, who was both “a friend of Nixon and Rebozo since 1962” and also an associate of Edward Moss’s brother-in-law Eddie Cellini, the casino manager at Paradise Island. 86 The funds came from the Paradise Island Bridge Company, a company partly owned by an officer of Benguet International, a firm represented in America by Paul Helliwell.87 It is likely that Nixon himself had a hidden interest in the Bridge Company, which might explain the revelation through Operation Tradewinds that a “Richard M. Nixon” (not otherwise identified) had an account at Helliwell’s Castle Bank.88

Three facts point to a deep state interest in what might otherwise seem a matter of personal corruption. The first is that Paul Helliwell had set up two companies for the CIA  -- CAT Inc. (Later Air America) and SEA Supply Inc. in Bangkok -- that became the infrastructure of the CIA’s covert operations with drug-trafficking armies in Southeast Asia.89 The second is that Paul Helliwell’s banking partner, E.P. Barry, had been the postwar head of OSS Counterintelligence (X-2) in Vienna, which oversaw the recovery of SS gold in Operation Safehaven.90 The third is that for over four decades persons from Booz Allen Hamilton have been among the very small group owning the profitable Paradise Island Bridge Company. (A recent partner in the Paradise Island Bridge Company is Booz Allen Senior Vice-President Robert Riegle.)91

 

 

 

The Safari Club today, now the Fairmont Mount Kenya Safari Club

Moss, Khashoggi, the Safari Club, and the International Overworld

The power exerted by Khashoggi and Moss was not limited to Khashoggi’s access to funds and women. By the 1970s, Moss was chairman of the elite Safari Club in Kenya, where he invited Khashoggi in as majority owner.92 The exclusive property became the venue for an alliance between intelligence agencies that wished to compensate for the CIA’s retrenchment in the wake of President Carter’s election and Senator Church’s post-Watergate reforms.93

As former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal once told Georgetown University alumni,

In 1976, after the Watergate matters took place here, your intelligence community was literally tied up by Congress. It could not do anything. It could not send spies, it could not write reports, and it could not pay money. In order to compensate for that, a group of countries got together in the hope of fighting Communism and established what was called the Safari Club. The Safari Club included France, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Iran.94

Prince Turki’s candid remarks– “your intelligence community was literally tied up by Congress. …. In order to compensate for that, a group of countries got together … and established what was called the Safari Club.” – made it clear that the Safari Club, operating at the level of the deep state, was expressly created to overcome restraints established by political decisions of the public state in Washington.

Obviously the property owned by Khashoggi and Moss in Kenya should not be confused with the intelligence operation of the same name. But it would be wrong also to make a radical separation between the two: the two men Khashoggi and Moss would appear to be part of this supranational intelligence milieu.

Specifically Khashoggi’s activities of corruption by sex and money, after they too were somewhat curtailed by Senator Church’s post-Watergate reforms, appear to have been taken up by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), a bank where Khashoggi’s friend and business partner Kamal Adham, the Saudi intelligence chief and Safari Club member, was a part-owner.95

 

 

 

BCCI on the cover of Time, July 6, 1991.

The Deep State, the Safari Club, and BCCI

The usual account of this super-agency’s origin is that it was

the brainchild of Count Alexandre de Marenches, the debonair and mustachioed chief of France’s CIA. The SDECE (Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage)…. Worried by Soviet and Cuban advances in postcolonial Africa, and by America’s post-Watergate paralysis in the field of undercover activity, the swashbuckling Marenches had come to Turki’s father, King Faisal, with a proposition…. [By 1979] Somali president Siad Barre had been bribed out of Soviet embrace by $75 million worth of Egyptian arms (paid for… by Saudi Arabia)….96

However the well-informed Mahmood Mamdani sees it as the product of Washington’s search for new proxies after the debacle of the U.S.- South African debacle in Angola in the mid-1970s:

Apartheid South Africa was confirmed to be a political liability. The recognition only aggravated the search for proxies. Its first success was a regional alliance called the Safari Club, put together with the blessing of Henry Kissinger.97

As Kissinger was still Secretary of State when the Safari Club was founded, this would suggest that it was an authorized, not a deep state creation. So would the Club’s early successes that Mamdani cites, especially when

it helped bring about the historic rapprochement between two strategic American Allies, Egypt and Israel, laying the ground for Anwar al-Sadat’s pathbreaking November 1977 visit to Jerusalem. The suggestion for the meeting was first made in a letter from Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to President Sadat, carried by the Moroccan representative in the club.98

But after Carter was elected, according to Trento, the Safari Club allied itself with Richard Helms and Theodore Shackley against the restrained intelligence policies of Jimmy Carter. In Trento’s account, the dismissal by William Colby in 1974 of CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton,

combined with Watergate, is what prompted the Safari Club to start working with [former DCI Richard] Helms [then U.S. Ambassador to Iran] and his most trusted operatives outside of Congressional and even Agency purview. James Angleton said before his death that “Colby destroyed counterintelligence. But because Colby was seen by Shackley and Helms as having betrayed the CIA to Congress, they simply began working with outsiders like Adham and Saudi Arabia. The traditional CIA answering to the president was an empty vessel having little more than technical capability.”99

Joseph Trento adds that “The Safari Club needed a network of banks to finance its intelligence operations,… With the official blessing of George Bush as the head of the CIA, Adham transformed…  the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), into a worldwide money-laundering machine.”100

Trento claims also that the Safari Club then was able to work with some of the controversial CIA operators who were then forced out of the CIA by Turner, and that this was coordinated by perhaps the most controversial of them all: Theodore Shackley.

Shackley, who still had ambitions to become DCI, believed that without his many sources and operatives like [Edwin] Wilson, the Safari Club—operating with [former DCI Richard] Helms in charge in Tehran—would be ineffective. …  Unless Shackley took direct action to complete the privatization of intelligence operations soon, the Safari Club would not have a conduit to [CIA] resources. The solution: create a totally private intelligence network using CIA assets until President Carter could be replaced.101

Kevin Phillips has suggested that Bush on leaving the CIA had dealings with the bank most closely allied with Safari Club operations: the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). In Phillips’ words,

After leaving the CIA in January 1977, Bush became chairman of the executive committee of First International Bancshares and its British subsidiary, where, according to journalists Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin in their 1992 book ‘False Profits’ [p. 345], Bush ‘traveled on the bank’s behalf and sometimes marketed to international banks in London, including several Middle Eastern institutions.’102

It is clear moreover that BCCI operations, like Khashoggi’s before them, were marked by the ability to deal behind the scenes with both the Arab countries and also Israel.103

Khashoggi, Copeland, BCCI, and the Iran-Contra Scandal

Joseph Trento adds that through the London branch of this bank, which Bush chaired, “Adham’s petrodollars and BCCI money flowed for a variety of intelligence operations”104 It is clear moreover that BCCI operations, like Khashoggi’s before them, were marked by the ability to deal behind the scenes with both the Arab countries and also Israel.105

Khashoggi and BCCI together, moreover, with the assistance of Miles Copeland, initiated what we remember as the Iran-Contra arms scandal. According to Theodore Draper, in his exhaustive study of Iran-Contra,

A chance encounter between Adnan Khashoggi and Manucher Ghorbanifar effectively set the Iran affair in motion. As Khashoggi told the story to the French writer Michel Clerc, the meeting took place in Hamburg in April 1985.

Draper notes furthermore that the deal soon involved three Israelis, Yaacov Nimrodi, Adolph (Al) Schwimmer, and David Kimche, for whom “Khashoggi was no newcomer.”Together with Israeli Defense Minister Sharon, the three had “met with President Nimeiri of the Sudan [in May 1982] at a safari resort in Kenya owned by Khashoggi”—i.e., the Safari Club.106 But Khashoggi’s connection to Schwimmer went even further back: the two men had been introduced in Las Vegas by Schwimmer’s partner in gun-running to the infant state of Israel, Hank Greenspun.107

Draper’s account of the Hamburg meeting fails however to note that Miles Copeland and his assistant Larry Kolb were (according to their own accounts) also present. Copeland writes that he and Khashoggi met with the Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, after which Copeland wrote up an Iran arms sales proposal. Copeland claims this had nothing to do with either Contras or hostages, but was intended as a “second paper to McFarlane…as an appendix to the ‘Marshall Plan’ paper. So far as [Khashoggi} was personally concerned, he was attracted to [Ghorbanifar’s] proposal only to the extent to which it could be tied into plans for over all Middle Eastern peace.”108

Copeland’s aide Larry Kolb agrees that he, Copeland, Khashoggi, and Schwimmer were all present with Ghorbanifar and others at the 1985 Hamburg meeting. There, according to Kolb, Khashoggi

said that in recent meetings in Washington, he’d been told that if the American government was going to participate in this venture…it would have to be structured in such a way that there would be no trail of arms… leading from the United States to Iran. So, Adnan said… it had been arranged that the actual goods could come from the Israeli government… and be transported directly from Israel to Iran….

But arms trading and spare parts and hostages took up very little of the conversation that day. Most of the time was spent thinking, and talking,… about a strategic opening between the United States and Iran – as a means of blunting Soviet attempts to dominate the world’s third largest oil producer.109

Later he and Copeland wrote up the meeting in a paper “titled ‘Adnan Khashoggi’s Views on the Possibilities of a Strategic Initiative Between the United States and Iran’,” that “wasn’t about an arms deal.” They gave it to Khashoggi to present to McFarlane.

We had no idea then that… months later a wild-ass Marine colonel would force the whole thing out into the open by stealing Adnan [Khashoggi]’s fifteen-million-dollar bridge loan which funded the sale and sending the money to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels.110

The Congressional investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair agrees with Kolb that “Khashoggi suggested that Ghorbanifar try to develop access to the United States and its arms through Israel.”111 And the Senate investigation of BCCI also reports:

Both Saudi businessman Adnan Khashoggi and Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar were central agents of the United States in selling arms to Iran in the Iran/Contra affair. According to the official chronologies of the Iran/Contra committees, Khashoggi acted as the middleman for five Iranian arms deals for the United States, financing a number of them through BCCI …. According to his own and other published accounts, he provided some $30 million in loans altogether…. Both Khashoggi and Ghorbanifar banked at BCCI's offices in Monte Carlo, and for both, BCCI's services were essential.112

Both Ghorbanifar and Khashoggi have been presented as mavericks interested in arms sales for their own individual profit. However the participation of Copeland  suggests that, once again,  what Copeland called “friends in Langley” may have been interested in engaging them in an operation to which both the Secretaries of State and of Defense were resolutely opposed.

The Deep State and the BCCI Cover-Up

It is clear that for years the American deep state in Washington was both involved with and protected BCCI. Acting CIA director Richard Kerr acknowledged to a Senate Committee “that the CIA had also used BCCI for certain intelligence-gathering operations.”113

Later, a congressional inquiry showed that for more than ten years preceding the BCCI collapse in the summer of 1991, the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, the Customs Service, and the Department of Justice all failed to act on hundreds of tips about the illegalities of BCCI’s international activities.114

Far less clear is the attitude taken by Wall Street banks towards the miscreant BCCI. The Senate report on BCCI charged however that the Bank of England “had withheld information about BCCI’s frauds from public knowledge for 15 months before closing the bank.”115

Of course the scope and influence of BCCI reflected changes in the global superstructure of finance since the oil price hikes of the 1970s. A recent study of the dangerously unstable concentration of ownership in the world showed only four recognizable Wall Street institutions among the top twenty: JPMorgan Chase & Co, the Goldman Sachs Group, Bank of New York Mellon Corp, and Merrill Lynch.116 Of these, Bank of New York, the bank heavily involved in the 1990s looting of Russia, interlocked with BCCI through the Swiss banking activities of the international banker Bruce Rappaport, “thought to have ties to US and Israeli intelligence.” (Alfred Hartmann, a board member of BCCI, was both vice-chairman of Rappaport's Swiss bank, Bank of New York-Intermaritime, and also head of BCCI’s Swiss subsidiary, the Banque de Commerce et de Placements).117 The mysterious E.P. Barry, the OSS veteran who had overseen the recovery of SS gold in Operation Safehaven before becoming the banking partner of Paul Helliwell, was also a major stockholder in Rappaport’s Inter Maritime Bank.)118

The collapse of BCCI in 1991 did not see an end to systematic Saudi-financed political corruption in the U.S. and elsewhere. After a proposed major arms sale in the 1980s met enhanced opposition in Congress from the Israeli lobby, Saudi Arabia negotiated a multi-billion pound long-term contract with the United Kingdom – the so-called al-Yamamah deal. It developed much later that overpayments for the purchased weapons were siphoned off into a huge slush fund for political payoffs, including “hundreds of millions of pounds to the ex-Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar bin Sultan."119 According to Robert Lacey, the payments to Prince Bandar were said to total one billion pounds over more than a decade, including “a suitcase containing more than $10 million” that went to a Vatican priest for the CIA’s long-time clients, the Christian Democratic Party.120 The money went through a Saudi Embassy account in the Riggs Bank, Washington; according to Trento, the Embassy’s use of the Riggs Bank dated back to the mid-1970s, when, in his words, “the Saudi royal family had taken over intelligence financing for the United States.”121

As we saw earlier. the CIA had “laundered over $10 million in captured Axis funds to influence the [Italian] election [of 1948].”122 These practices, in other words, survived the legal efforts to end them.

Conclusion: A Supranational Deep State

The complex milieu of Khashoggi, the BCCI, and the Safari Club can be characterized as a supranational deep state, whose organic links to the CIA may have helped consolidate it. It is clear however that decisions taken at this level by the Safari Club and BCCI were in no way guided by the political determinations of those elected to power in Washington. On the contrary, Prince Turki’s candid remarks revealed that the Safari Club (with the alleged participation of two former CIA Directors, Bush and Helms) was expressly created to overcome restraints established by political decisions in Washington.

A former Turkish president and prime minister once commented that the Turkish deep state was the real state, and the public state was only a “spare state,” not the real one.123 A better understanding of the American deep state is necessary, if we are to prevent it from assuming permanently the same role.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here.

Recommended Citation: Peter Dale Scott, "The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 12, Issue 10, No. 5, March 10, 2014.

Notes

1 Dana Priest and William Arkin, Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State (New York: Little Brown, 2011), 52.

2 E.g. Marc Ambinder and D.G. Grady, Deep State: Inside the Government Secrecy Industry (New York: Wiley, 2013); cf. John Tirman, “The Quiet Coup: No, Not Egypt. Here,” HuffingtonPost, July 9, 2013: “Now we know: the United States of America is partially governed by a deep state, undemocratic, secret, aligned with intelligence agencies, spying on friend and foe, lawless in almost every respect.”

3 Mike Lofgren, “A Shadow Government Controls America,” Reader Supported News, February 22, 2014.

4 Grant Barrett, “A Wordnado of Words in 2013,” New York Times, December 21, 2013.

5 Peter Dale Scott, Deep politics and the death of JFK (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 7.

6Tom Hayden discussing the crisis in Venezuela,” Tikkun, February 25, 2014.

7 To take a single telling example, six of Sam Walton's heirs are now reportedly wealthier than the bottom 30% of Americans, or 94.5 million people (Tim Worstall, “Six Waltons Have More Wealth Than the Bottom 30% of Americans,” Forbes, December 14, 2011). Cf. the devastating picture of a disintegrating America in George Packer, The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2013).

8 See Kevin Phillips, The politics of rich and poor: wealth and the American electorate in the Reagan aftermath (New York: HarperCollins, 1991). Cf. John T. Stinson, The Reagan Legacy (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2009), 146; Timothy Noah, The great divergence: America's growing inequality crisis and what we can do about it (New York: Bloomsbury, 2012).

9 For the impact of railroads on expanded social awareness, see Benedict Anderson, Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (London: Verso, 1991).

10What is the Deep State?” On Religion [2013].

11 Gareth Jenkins, “Susurluk and the Legacy of Turkey’s Dirty War,” Terrorism Monitor, May 1, 2008; quoted in Peter Dale Scott, “9/11, Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics," Global Research, June 11, 2008. For the Susurluk incident, see also Scott, American War Machine, 19-20, etc.

12 Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, xi-xii.

13 Lofgren, “ A Shadow Government Controls America.”

14 Quoted in Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America, 1.

15 Forbes magazine founder Bertie Charles Forbes wrote six years later: “Picture a party of the nation's greatest bankers stealing out of New York on a private railroad car under cover of darkness, stealthily riding hundred[s] of miles South, embarking on a mysterious launch, sneaking onto an island [the appropriately named Jekyll Island] deserted by all but a few servants, living there a full week under such rigid secrecy that the names of not one of them was once mentioned, lest the servants learn the identity and disclose to the world this strangest, most secret expedition in the history of American finance. I am not romancing; I am giving to the world, for the first time, the real story of how the famous Aldrich currency report, the foundation of our new currency system, was written (B.C. Forbes, Leslie’s Weekly, October 19, 1916; in T. Cushing Daniel, Real money versus false money-bank credits; the most important factor in civilization and least understood by the people [Washington, D.C., The Monetary educational bureau, 1924], 169; cf. B.C. Forbes, Men who are making America [New York: Forbes Publishing Co., 1922], 398; cf. G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve [Westlake Village, CA: American Media, 1994]). Paul Warburg later wrote that “Though eighteen years have since gone by, I do not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference, concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy” (Paul Warburg, The Federal Reserve System: Its Origin and Growth [New York, Macmillan, 1930], ZZ).

16 Congress was persuaded to provide perfunctory support of the bailout, under an alleged mysterious threat of martial law. See Peter Dale Scott, “Martial Law, the Financial Bailout, and War,” Global Research, January 8, 2009; reprinted in  Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, eds., The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century (Montreal, Global Research Publishers. Centre for Research on Globalization, 2010), 219-40; Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., “Sen. Inhofe: [Henry] Paulsen [Secretary of the Treasury and former Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs] Threatened Martial Law To Pass Bailout,” LewRockwell.com, November 20, 2008.

17 Richard Helms with William Hood A look over my shoulder: a life in the Central Intelligence Agency (New York: Random House, 2003), 82-83. Cf. Scott, American War Machine, 26-28.

18 Laurence H Shoup and William Minter, Imperial brain trust: the Council on Foreign Relations and United States foreign policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977).

19 Gordon Thomas, Secret Wars: One Hundred Years of British Intelligence Inside MI5 and MI6 (New York: Thomas Dunne Books/ St. Martin’s Press, 2009), 98. This may have occurred during Dulles’s visit to Europe in the spring of 1947 (James Srodes, Dulles: Master of Spies [Washington: Henry Regnery, 1999], 392).

20 Richard Aldrich, The Hidden Hand: Britain, America, and Cold War secret intelligence (Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 2001), 343. Dulles also chaired the executive committee of the companion National Committee for a Free Europe (behind the Iron Curtain), whose legal affairs were handled by Sullivan and Cromwell (Wilson D. Miscamble, George F. Kennan and the Making of American Foreign Policy, 1947-1950 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 204.

21 Amy B. Zegart, Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1999), 189; citing Christopher Andrew, For the President’s Eyes Only (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 172; see also Church Committee, Final Report, Book 4, 28-29.

22 David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, The Espionage Establishment (New York: Random House, 1967), 166; Scott, Road to 9/11, 13.

23 “In January 1946 Dulles outlined in some detail a reconstruction plan that is one of the earliest notions of what would, a year later, be known as the Marshall Plan” (Srodes, Allen Dulles: Master of Spies, 374).

24 Tim Weiner, Legacy of ashes: the history of the CIA (New York: Doubleday, 2007), 28.

25 Douglas Valentine, “The French Connection Revisited: The CIA, Irving Brown, and Drug Smuggling as Political Warfare,” Covert Action.

26 Norbert Schlei, “Japan's ‘M-Fund’ Memorandum, January 7, 1991,“ JPRI [Japan Policy Research Institute] Working Paper No. 11: July 1995: “Incident to the revision of the Security Treaty [in 1960], Vice President Nixon agreed to turn over exclusive control of the M-Fund to Japan. It has been alleged that this action by Nixon was part of a corrupt political bargain, whereby it was agreed that if Japan would assist him to become President of the United States, Nixon would agree to release control of the Fund to Japan and, if he became President, would return Okinawa to Japan.”

27 "C.I.A. Spent Millions to Support Japanese Right in 50's and 60's," New York Times, October 9, 1994. Cf. Scott, American War Machine, 93-94, 298-99; citing Chalmers Johnson, “The 1955 System and the American Connection: A Bibliographic Introduction,” JPRI [Japan Policy Research Institute] Working Paper No. 11: July 1995.

28 Sterling Seagrave and Peggy Seagrave, Gold warriors: America's secret recovery of Yamashita's gold (London: Verso, 2003). Cf. Richard Hoyt, Old Soldiers Sometimes Lie (New York: Forge, 2002), 80.

29 Scott, American War Machine, 94, etc.

30 Scott, American War Machine,

31 Norman Mailer, “A Harlot High and Low: Reconnoitering Through the Secret Government,” New York, August 16, 1976 (Hughes); Michael Schaller, Altered states: the United States and Japan since the occupation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 294 (Lockheed).

32 Johnson, “The 1955 System and the American Connection.”

33  David E. Kaplan and Alec Dubro, Yakuza: Japan's Criminal Underworld (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 89-90. Cf. Jonathan Marshall, in William O. Walker, III, ed., Drug control policy: essays in historical and comparative perspective (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 108:

“Yoshio Kodama’s fortune, built of profits from tungsten and opium, established the party that today rules Japan…. Kodama contributed to the pervasive corruption of Japanese politics by steering huge corporate contributions into the coffers of favored LDP members. This pattern culminated in the Lockheed scandal, which revealed that multi-million-dollar payoff by American aerospace firms had swayed key procurement decisions by Japan’s national airline and defense establishment and raised the possibility that the CIA had used Kodama and corporate funds to influence Japanese politics. The money-laundering channel used for Lockheed’s bribes was favored both by the CIA and international drug traffickers.”

34 Thomas Fensch, ed. The C.I.A. and the U-2 Program: 1954-1974 (The Woodlands, TX: New Century Books, 2001).

35 William D. Hartung, Prophets of war: Lockheed Martin and the making of the military-industrial complex (New York: Nation Books, 2011), 121; David Boulton, The Grease Machine (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 97 (friends).

36 Andrew Feinstein, The shadow world: inside the global arms trade (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011), 265; Anthony Sampson, The Arms Bazaar (New York: Viking, 1977), 135-36.

37 Bradley R. Simpson, Economists with guns: authoritarian development and U.S.-Indonesian relations, 1960-1968  (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008), 142;

quoting from CIA, “Political Action Project,”, November 19, 1964; FRUS, 1964-1968, 26:181-84.

38 In addition there was “a US deal to deliver 200 light aircraft to the Indonesian Army in July 1965.” The aircraft went to the army’s Diponegoro division, which “ as well as supplying the bulk of the  [September 30] “coup” personnel in Java, … also provided the bulk of the personnel for its suppression” (Nathaniel Mehr, Constructive bloodbath' in Indonesia: the United States, Britain and the mass killings of 1965-66 [Nottingham: Spokesman Books, 2009], 36).

39 Peter Dale Scott, “The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno, 1965-1967,” Pacific Affairs, 58, Summer 1985; citing

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations, Multinational corporations and United States foreign policy, hearings before the Subcommittee on Multinational Corporations (Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1973-1976), Part 12, 937-65.

40 Scott, “The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno.”

41 Masashi Nishihara, The Japanese and Sukarno's Indonesia: Tokyo-Jakarta relations, 1951-1966 (Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, 1976), 171, 194, 202; Scott, “The United States and the Overthrow of Sukarno.”

42 Fortune, July 1973, 154, cf. Wall Street Journal, April 18, 1967.

43 John Dumbrell and Axel R Schäfer (eds.), America's 'special relationships’: foreign and domestic aspects of the politics of alliance (London: Routledge, 2009), 187.

44 John Foster Dulles to Lord McGowan, Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries; in Nancy Lisagor and Frank Lipsius, A law unto itself: the untold story of the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell (New York: Morrow, 1988), 127.

45 Charles T. O'Reilly, Forgotten Battles: Italy's War of Liberation, 1943-1945 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 288; Peter Dale Scott, "How Allen Dulles and the SS Preserved Each Other," Covert Action Information Bulletin, 25 (Winter 1986), 4-14.  Dulles’s plans to use SS resources in post-war Germany cab be seen as part of a successful plan to frustrate the implementation of Roosevelt’s so-called Morgenthau Plan to deindustrialize Germany.

46 Stephen Dorril, MI6, 659-660.

47 Ovid Demaris, Dirty Business: The Corporate-Political Money-Power Game (New York: Avon, 1974), 213-14.

48 J.P.D. Dunbabin, International relations since 1945 : a history in two volumes

(London: Longman, 1994), Vol 2, 344. The boycott is denied without argumentation in Exxon’s corporate history (Bennett H. Wall et al., Growth in a changing environment: a history of Standard Oil Company (New Jersey), Exxon Corporation, 1950-1975 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988), Vol. 4, 476: “Despite oft-printed statements to the contrary, the oil majors did not conspire to boycott NIOC oil.”

49 Robert Palmer Smith, Darkest truths of black gold: an oil industry executive breaks the industry's code of silence (New York: iUniverse, 2007), 256. In July 1952 Mossadeq attempted to break the embargo by contracting to sell oil to a small private Italian oil firm. The manoeuver was frustrated by the British Royal Navy, which in July 1952 intercepted the Italian tanker Rose Mary and redirected it to Aden. The news dissuaded other tankers from trying to reach Abadan (Mary Ann Heiss, Empire and Nationhood: The United States, Great Britain, and Iranian Oil, 1950-1954 [New York: Columbia University Press, 1997], 130; Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah's men: an American coup and the roots of Middle East terror [Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003], 136).

50 Mostafa Elm, Oil, Power, and Principle: Iran's Oil Nationalization and Its Aftermath (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1992), 198-99 (Churchill); Robert Moskin, American Statecraft: The Story of the U.S. Foreign Service (New York: Thomas Dunne Books/ St. Martin's Press, 2013), 627-28 (Harriman).

51 Demaris, Dirty Business, 214-25: “The incoming Eisenhower Administration… quickly dropped the criminal case. The civil suit that was instituted alleged that the five American oil companies violated the Sherman Antitrust and the Wilson Tariff Acts by conspiring to divide and control foreign production and distribution…. An inadequate staff was assigned to the case and the action finally petered out a decade later with a couple of meaningless consent decrees.”

52 Robert Sherrill, The oil follies of 1970-1980: how the petroleum industry stole the show (and much more besides) (Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1983), 221).

53  William R. Freudenburg and Robert Gramling,     Oil in troubled waters: perceptions, politics, and the battle over offshore drilling (Albany : State University of New York Press, 1994); 17; citing Shukri Mohammed Ghanem, OPEC, the Rise and Fall of an Exclusive Club (London : KPI, 1986); Mira Wilkins, “The Oil Companies in Perspective,” in Raymond Vernon (ed.), The Oil Crisis (New York: Norton, 1976).

54 William Roger Louis, “Britain and the Overthrow of Mossadeq,” in Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne (eds.), Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 coup in Iran (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2004), 168. Cf. William R. Clark, Petrodollar warfare: oil, Iraq and the future of the dollar (Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers, 2005), 125: “[T]he Dulles brothers had already conceived a plot when Eisenhower became president in January 1953.”

55 Scot Macdonald, Rolling the iron dice : historical analogies and decisions to use military force in regional contingencies (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000), 98. Cf. Richard H. Immerman, John Foster Dulles: Piety, Pragmatism, and Power in U.S. Foreign Policy (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1999), 67. Allen Dulles played a personal role in TP/AJAX, by flying to Italy and persuading the frightened Shah to return to Tehran.

56 In the past, wishing to dissociate the term “deep state” from organizational connotations, I have written of the American “deep state” as “a milieu both inside and outside government with the power to steer the history of the public state and sometimes redirect it” (“William Pawley, the Kennedy Assassination, and Watergate,” Global Research, November 29, 2012. But because there are extra-governmental structural components to the deep state, it might be better to think of it as not just a milieu, but more analogous to an oligopolistic market.

57 See Chalmers A Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004), 218-19; Timothy Mitchell, Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil (New York: Verso Books, 2011), 212.

58 Tim Shorrock, Spies for Hire (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008), 6.

59 Glenn Greenwald, “Mike McConnell, the WashPost & the dangers of sleazy corporatism,” Salon, March 29, 2010.

60 George H. W. Bush was an adviser to Carlyle, which in its early days “backed a management-led buyout of Caterair and appointed George W Bush to the board” (Jamie Doward, “Bush Sr's Carlyle Group Gets Fat On War And Conflict,” The Observer, March 25, 2003.)

61 Lofgren, “ A Shadow Government Controls America.”

62 Booz Allen Hamilton’s headquarters is now in McLean, Virginia, close to the HQ of the CIA.

63 Art Kleiner, Booz Allen Hamilton: Helping Clients Envision the Future, (Old Saybrook, CT: Greenwich Publishing, 2004), 43.

64 John Prados, Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006.), 139. Cf. Christine N. Halili, Philippine History (Manila: Rex Book Store, 2004), 258 (Philippines land distribution).

65 Miles Copeland, The Game Player: the confessions of the CIA's original political operative (London: Aurum Press, 1989), 158.

66 Ephraim Kahana and Muhammad Suwaed, Historical dictionary of Middle Eastern intelligence (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009), 65 {“advisor”); Jack O'Connell, King's Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, (New York : W.W. Norton & Co., 2011), 20 (channel).

67 The BCCI Affair: BCCI, the CIA and Foreign Intelligence, Report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by John Kerry and Hank Brown, December 1992; 102nd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Print 102-140 (“agent”).

68 William D. Hartung, Prophets of war: Lockheed Martin and the making of the military-industrial complex (New York: Nation Books, 2011), 126.

69 Copeland, The Game Player, 231.

70 Copeland, The Game Player, 233.

71 Copeland, The Game Player, 239.

72 E.g. Evan Thomas, The Very Best Men: Four Who Dared: The Early Years of the CIA

 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 380.

73 Larry J. Kolb, Overworld: The Life and Times of a Reluctant Spy [New York: Riverhead/Penguin, 2004], 237-38. Cf. Copeland, The Game Player, 230, 262-63; Ronald Kessler, The Richest Man in the World: The Story of Adnan Khashoggi (New York: Warner Books), 300-01: “[O]n May 17, 1983, [Khashoggi] submitted to President Reagan a confidential ‘yellow paper’ [which] proposed an economic aid program similar to the 1949 Marshall Plan developed by the U.S. for Europe. Called a Peace Fund, it would provide up to $300 billion in regional economic aid from the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to Israel and any Arab country that signed a peace treaty with it.”

74 Peter Dale Scott, “Deep Events and the CIA's Global Drug Connection,” 911truth.org, October 12, 2008; American War Machine, 160-65.

75The BCCI Affair.” Khashoggi’s status had declined, but by no means vanished. As late as 2003, Khashoggi was negotiating with Richard Perle, a member of the Cheney-Rumsfeld clique who at the time was still Chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, to invest considerable Saudi money in Perle's company Trireme (Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, 3/17/03).

76 Copeland, Game Player, 239; cf. 2128.

77 Kessler, The Richest Man in the World, 84, 188, etc.; Scott, American War Machine, 158-62.

78 “Moss, Edward K. #172 646,” CIA Memo of 19 April 1967, NARA #104-10122-10006; CIA Inspector General’s Report on CIA-Mafia Plots to Assassinate Fidel Castro, NARA # 104-10213-10101, p. 38. Cf. memo of 7 November 1962 in CIA’s Edward K. Moss folder, p. 26, NARA #1994.05.03.10:54:53:780005.

79 “Manuel Antonio Varona,” FBI Memorandum of January 16, 1961 to A. H. Belmont, p. 2, 105-76826-20; NARA #124-90055-10139. Cf. “Moss, Edward K. #172 646,” CIA Memo of 14 May 1973, in Meyer Lansky Security File, p. 9, NARA #1993.08.13.17:42:12:560059; CIA letter of 16 December 1960 to FBI, FBI file 105-76826-18; NARA #124-90055-10133. The CIA itself had notified the FBI on December 16, 1960, that Julia “Cellino” had advised that her brothers “have long been associated in the narcotics and white slavery rackets in Cuba (CIA letter of 16 December 1960 to Director, FBI, FBI File 105-76826-18; NARA #124-90055-10133; apparently no copy of this letter has been released from CIA files).

80 Kessler, Richest Man in the World, 29 (Yassin), 275–78 (Khashoggi). A friend of Khashoggi’s, Larry Kolb, reports that Khashoggi himself essentially corroborated the story that Khashoggi and John Kennedy had a friendship in the 1950s that “evolved primarily out of whoring together” (Larry J. Kolb, Overworld: The Life and Times of a Reluctant Spy [New York: Riverhead/Penguin, 2004], 236). The woman who destroyed the presidential aspirations of Senator Gary Hart in 1987 was one of Khashoggi’s many girls.

81 Anthony Summers with Robbyn Swan, The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon (New York: Viking, 2000), 283. Cf. Kessler, The Richest Man in the World, 171: Khashoggi told the prosecutors “that he churned millions through the tiny [Rebozo] bank to win favor with the president.”

82 Investigative reporter Jim Hougan reports the incredulity of congressional investigators that Lockheed was the only large corporation not to have made a contribution to Nixon’s 1972 election campaign (Hougan, Spooks, 457–58.

83 Scott, Road to 9/11, 35; citing Summers, Arrogance of Power, 283; Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil (New York: Crown, 2003), 43. (Baer reports the year of the briefcase as 1968, not 1972.) Kolb (“unequivocally, and from personal experience”) denies the briefcase story (Overworld, 299).

84 Scott, Deep politics and the death of JFK, 234-39.

85 Kessler, Richest Man in the World, 129, 160-61. When Hughes flew from Las Vegas to the Paradise Island casino in the Bahamas (where Edward Moss’s brother-in-law Eddie Cellini was casino manager, he did so on a Khashoggi plane. (Kessler, Richest Man, 149-50).

86 Summers with Swan, The Arrogance of Power, 242, 252; Jim Hougan, Spooks, 398. Cf. Denny Walsh, New York Times, January 21, 1974; Gerth, in Government by Gunplay, 137-39.

87 Block, Masters of Paradise, 94-96; Summers with Swan, The Arrogance of Power, 244-45. Benguet Mines have also been associated with Yamashita’s gold (Seagrave, Gold Warriors, 147; Scott, American War Machine, 322n15).

88 Summers with Swan, The Arrogance of Power, 244-45, 253-54.

89 Scott, American War Machine, 71-72. Cf. Wall Street Journal, April 18, 1980: “In 1951, Mr. Helliwell helped set up and run Sea Supply Corp., a concern controlled by the CIA as a front. For almost 10 years, Sea Supply was used to supply huge amounts of weapons and equipment to 10,000 Nationalist Chinese [KMT] troops in Burma as well as to Thailand’s police.”

90 In the course of Operation Safehaven, the U.S. Third Army took an SS major “on several trips to Italy and Austria, and, as a result of these preliminary trips, over $500,000 in gold, as well as jewels, were recovered” (Anthony Cave Brown, The Secret War Report of the OSS [New York: Berkeley, 1976], 565-66).

91 Who's who in Finance and Industry, Marquis Who's Who, 1979, 568.

92 Kessler, Richest Man in the World, 238-41; Scott, American War Machine, 161-62.

93 The operation kept the name “Safari Club” even after moving from Khashoggi’s Club to a permanent headquarters in Cairo.

94 Ibrahim Warde, The price of fear: the truth behind the financial war on terror (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 133. Cf. Lacey, Inside the Kingdom, 66, 72, 76.

95 Christopher Byron, "The Senate look at BCCI,” New York Magazine, October 28, 1991, 20–21.

96 Lacey, Inside the Kingdom, 66. Cf. John Cooley, Unholy Wars (London: Pluto Press, 1999), 24-27.

97 Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, bad Muslim:  America, the Cold War, and the roots of terror (New York: Pantheon Books 2004), 84.

98 Mamdani, Good Muslim, bad Muslim, 85.

99 Joseph J. Trento, Prelude to terror: the rogue CIA and the legacy of America's private intelligence network (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2005), 61.

100 Trento, Prelude to terror, 104-05. Kevin Phillips also notes that  “Bush cemented strong relations with the intelligence services of both Saudi Arabia and the shah of Iran. He worked closely with Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence” (Kevin Phillips, “The Barrelling Bushes,” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2004).

101 Trento, Prelude to terror, 113-14.

102 Phillips, “The Barrelling Bushes,” Los Angeles Times, January 11, 2004.

103 There is no published evidence that Copeland was involved in the Safari Club covert operations. But it may be significant that Copeland’s activity of advising the Egyptian Army became after the creation of the Safari Club a franchise of a “private” U.S. firm, J.J. Cappucci and Associates, owned by Theodore Shackley (Trento, Prelude to Terror, 150, 247).

104 Trento, Prelude to Terror, 139.

105 There is no published evidence that Copeland was involved in the Safari Club covert operations. But it may be significant that Copeland’s activity of advising the Egyptian Army became after the creation of the Safari Club a franchise of a “private” U.S. firm, J.J. Cappucci and Associates, owned by Theodore Shackley (Trento, Prelude to Terror, 150, 247).

106 Theodore Draper, A Very Thin Line (New York: Hill and Wang, 1991), 129, 131. Cf. Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, Every spy a prince: the complete history of Israel's intelligence community (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1990), 261; Mayn Katz, Song of Spies (Heliographica Press, 2005) 136-37.

107 Samuel Segev ; translated by Haim Watzman, The Iranian triangle : the untold story of Israel's role in the Iran-Contra (New York: The Free Press, 1988), 10. For the collaboration of Greenspun, Schwimmer and Meyer Lansky in gun-running, see Leonard Slater, The Pledge (New York, Simon and Schuster, 1970). Paul Helliwell may have been part of this operation; see Scott, American War Machine, 71, 164.

108 Copeland, The Game Player, 263.

109 Kolb, Overworld, 246.

110 Kolb, Overworld, 247.

111 Iran-Contra Affair, Report of the congressional committees investigating the Iran-Contra Affair (U.S. Congress, H. Rept. No. 100-433, S. Rept. No. 100-216), 164.

112 Kerry-Brown Report, Part 11, “BCCI, the CIA and Foreign Intelligence.”

113 Kerry-Brown Report, Part 11, “BCCI, the CIA and Foreign Intelligence.”

114 Dan Bawley, Corporate Governance and Accountability: What Role for the Regulator, Director, and Auditor? (Westport, CT: Quorum, 1999). 37.

115 Bawley, Corporate Governance and Accountability, 37.

116Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world.” New Scientist, October 24, 2011.

117 Scott, American War Conspiracy, 163; quoting from Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin, False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, the World’s Most Corrupt Financial Empire (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 384 (“ties”).

118 Alan A. Block and Constance A. Weaver, All is clouded by desire: global banking, money laundering, and international organized crime (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 36-37.

119Saudi prince 'received arms cash',” BBC, June 7, 2007. It is unclear whether payments continued after 2001, when the UK signed the OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention, making such overpayments illegal.

120 Robert Lacey, Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Modernists, Terrorists, and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia (New York: Penguin Books, 2009), 108.

121 Trento, Prelude to Terror, 102.

122 Amy B. Zegart, Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1999), 189; citing Christopher Andrew, For the President’s Eyes Only (New York: HarperCollins, 1995), 172; see also Church Committee, Final Report, Book 4, 28-29.

123 Former Turkish President and Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel commented that “In our country… there is one deep state and one other state…. The state that should be real is the spare one, the one that should be spare is the real one” (Jon Gorvett, “Turkey’s ‘Deep State’ Surfaces in Former President’s Words, Deeds in Kurdish Town,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January/February 2006); quoted in Scott, American War Machine, 24.


Top updates

Bulletin Latest Past week Past month
Google Search


NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

The Deep State 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015

[Aug 21, 2017] The Future Of The Third World

Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

The Future Of The Third World Zero Hedge Tyler Durden Aug 20, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES Authored by Jayant Bhandari via Acting-Man.com, Decolonization

The British Empire was the largest in history. At the end of World War II Britain had to start pulling out from its colonies. A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech, and other liberties offered by the empire.

The colors represent the colonies of various nations in 1945, and the colonial borders of that time – click to enlarge.

After the departure of the British ! as well as the French, German, Belgians, and other European colonizers ! most of the newly "independent" countries suffered rapid decay in their institutions, stagnant economies, massive social strife, and a fall in standards of living. An age of anti-liberalism and tyranny descended on these former colonies. They rightly became known as third-world countries.

An armchair economist would have assumed that the economies of these former colonies, still very backward and at a very low base compared to Europe, would grow at a faster rate. Quite to the contrary, as time went on, their growth rates stayed lower than those of the West.

Socialism and the rise of dictators were typically blamed for this ! at least among those on the political Right. This is not incorrect, but it is a merely proximate cause. Clarity might have been reached if people had contemplated the reason why Marxism and socialism grew like weeds in the newly independent countries.

Was There a Paradigm Shift in the 1980s?

According to conventional wisdom, the situation changed after the fall of the socialist ringleader, the USSR, in the late 1980s. Ex-colonized countries started to liberalize their economies and widely accepted democracy, leading to peace, the spread of education and equality, the establishment of liberal, independent institutions. Massive economic growth ensued and was sustained over the past three decades. The "third world" was soon renamed "emerging markets."

Alas, this is a faulty narrative. Economic growth did pick up in these poor countries, and the rate of growth did markedly exceed that of the West, but the conventional narrative confuses correlation with causality. It tries to fit events to ideological preferences, which assume that we are all the same, that if Europeans could progress, so should everyone else, and that all that matters are correct incentives and appropriate institutions.

The beginning and end of the Soviet communist era in newspaper headlines. The overthrow of Kerensky's interim government was the start of Bolshevik rule. To be precise, the Bolsheviks took over shortly thereafter, when they disbanded the constituent assembly in in early 1918 and subsequently gradually did the same to all non-Bolshevik Soviets that had been elected. A little more than seven decades later, the last Soviet Bolshevik leader resigned. It is worth noting that by splitting the Russian Federation from the Ukraine and Belorussia, Yeltsin effectively removed Gorbachev from power – the latter was suddenly president of a country that no longer existed and chairman of a party that was declared illegal in Russia. [PT] – click to enlarge.

The claimed liberalization in the "emerging markets" after the collapse of the USSR did not really happen. Progress was always one step forward and two steps back. In some ways, government regulations and repression of businesses in the "emerging markets" have actually gotten much worse. Financed by increased taxes, governments have grown by leaps and bounds ! not for the benefit of society but for that of the ruling class ! and are now addicted to their own growth.

The ultimate underpinnings of the so-called emerging markets haven't changed. Their rapid economic progress during the past three decades ! a one-off event ! happened for reasons completely different from those assumed by most economists. The question is: once the effect of the one-off event has worn off, will emerging markets revert to the stagnation, institutional degradation, and tyranny that they had leaped into soon after the European colonizers left?

The One-Off Event: What Actually Changed in the 1980s

In the "emerging markets" (except for China) synchronized favorable economic changes were an anomaly. They resulted in large part from the new, extremely cheap telephony that came into existence (a result of massive cabling of the planet implemented in the 1980s) and the subsequent advent of the new technology of the internet. The internet enabled instantaneous transfer of technology from the West and as a consequence, unprecedented economic growth in "emerging markets."

Meanwhile, a real cultural, political, and economic renaissance started in China. It was an event so momentous that it changed the economic structure not just of China, but of the whole world. Because China is seen as a communist dictatorship, it fails to be fully appreciated and respected by intellectuals who are obsessed with the institution of democracy.

But now that the low-hanging fruit from the emergence of the internet and of China (which continues to progress) have been plucked, the "emerging markets" (except, again, for China) are regressing to their normal state: decay in their institutions, stagnant economies, and social strife. They should still be called the "third world."

There are those who hold China in contempt for copying Western technology, but they don't understand that if copying were so easy, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia would have done the same. They were, after all, prepared for progress by their colonial history.

European colonizers brought in the rule of law and significantly reduced the tribal warfare that was a matter of daily routine in many of the colonies ! in the Americas, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Britain and other European nations set up institutional structures that allowed for the accumulation of intellectual and financial capital. Western-style education and democracy were initiated. But this was helpful in a very marginal way.

What is Wrong with the Third World

For those who have not traveled and immersed themselves in formerly colonized countries, it is hard to understand that although there was piping for water and sewage in Roman days, it still isn't available for a very large segment of the world's population. The wheel has existed for more than 5,000 years, but a very large number of people continue to carry water in pots on their heads.

Lead piping supplying water to homes already existed in Roman days, 2000 years ago.

The Ljubljana Marshes Wheel, which is more than 5,000 years old

There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel, even if they went to school. It is not the absence of technology or money that is stopping these people from starting to use some basic forms of technology. It is something else.

Sir Winston Churchill, the war-time Prime Minister of Britain, talking about the future of Palestine said:

"I do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race has come in and taken their place."

Cigar-puffing British war-time PM Winston Churchill was as politically incorrect as they come. If he were alive today, he would probably be labeled the newest Hitler by the press and spend 90% of his time apologizing. Perhaps we shouldn't mention this, but there are many Churchill monuments dotted across Europe and one can be found in Washington DC as well (alert readers will notice that a decidedly non-triggered Washington Post fondly remembered Churchill as an "elder statesman" a mere 10 months ago; rest assured that won't stop the social justice warrior brigade if they decide to airbrush him out of history). Just to make this clear, your editor is not exactly the biggest fan of the man who traded away half of Europe to Stalin because he felt he could "trust the Soviet communist government" and who was clearly a tad too enamored of war, a characteristic Robert Kaplan described in his strident, amoral pro-war screed Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos as follows: "Churchill's unapologetic warmongering arose not from a preference for war, but from a breast-beating Victorian sense of imperial destiny " Neither the breast-beating nor the sense of imperial destiny are really our thing, but we tip our hat to the man's utter lack of political correctness and his associated willingness to offend all and sundry with a nigh Trumpian alacrity and determination. [PT]

On Islam, he said:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist "

Talking about India he famously said:

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

A remark often attributed to Churchill, although this remains unverified, has certainly stood the test of time so far:

"If independence is granted to India, power will go to the hands of rascals, rogues, freebooters; all Indian leaders will be of low caliber and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight amongst themselves for power and India will be lost in political squabbles. A day will come when even air and water will be taxed in India."

Europeans of that time clearly knew that there was something fundamentally different between the West and the rest, and that the colonies would not survive without the pillars and the cement European management provided.

With the rise of political correctness this wisdom was erased from our common understanding – but it is something that may well return to haunt us in the near future, as the third world fails to fulfill expectations, while people who immigrate to Europe, Canada, Australia and the US from there fail to assimilate.

The Missing Underpinnings: Reason And All That Depends On It

Until now, the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn't have been more wrong.

The cart has been put in front of the horse. It is institutions that emerge from the underlying culture, not the other way around. And cultural change is a process taking millennia, perhaps even longer. As soon as Europeans quit their colonies, the institutional structures they left started to crumble.

Alas, it takes a Ph.D. from an Ivy League college and a quarter of a million dollar salary at the World Bank or the IMF to not understand what the key issue with development economics and institutional failures is: the missing ingredient in the third world was and is the concept of objective, impartial reason – the basis of laws and institutions that protect individual rights.

This concept of reason took 2,500 years to develop and get infused into the culture, memes, and genes of Europeans ! a difficult process that, even in Europe, was never fully completed. European institutions were at their root products of this concept.

A justly famous quote by Thomas Paine (a prolific writer with a side job as a founding father and revolutionary). Paine was deeply suspicious of self-anointed authorities, both of the secular and clerical variety, who in turn regarded him as dangerous. His writings inter alia provoked a so-called "pamphlet war" in Britain (it would be best if all wars were conducted via pamphlets). [PT]

Despite massive efforts by missionaries, religious and secular, and of institutions imposed on poor countries, reason failed to get transmitted. Whatever marginal improvement was achieved over 200 to 300 years of colonization is therefore slowly but surely undone.

Without reason, subsidiary concepts such as equality before the law, compassion and empathy won't operate. Irrational societies simply cannot maintain institutions representing the rule of law and fairness. The consequence is that they cannot evolve or even maintain institutions the European colonizers left behind.

Any institutions imposed on them ! schools, armies, elections, national executives, banking and taxation systems ! must mutate to cater to the underlying irrationality and tribalism of the third world.

Western Institutions Have Mutated

Education has become a dogma in "emerging markets", not a tool; it floats non-assimilated in the minds of people lacking objective reason. Instead of leading to creativity and critical thinking, it is used for propaganda by demagogues.

Without impartial reason, democracy is a mere tribal, geographical concept, steeped in arrogance. All popular and "educated" rhetoric to the contrary, I can think of no country in the non-western world that did well after it adopted "democracy."

The spread of nationalism (which to a rational mind is about the commonality of values) has created crises by unifying people along tribal lines. The most visible example is provided by events in the Middle East, but the basic problem is the same in every South Asian and African country and in most of South America.

India, the geographical entity I grew up in, was rapidly collectivized under the flag and the national anthem. It has the potential to become the Middle East on steroids, once Hindutava (Hindu nationalism) has become deeply rooted in society.

Assessing the Current Predicament

In Burma, a whiff of democracy does not seem to have inhibited a genocide perpetrated by Buddhists against the Muslim Rohingya. Thailand (which was not colonized in a strictly political sense) has gone silent, but its crisis continues.

Turkey and Malaysia, among the better of these backward societies, have embarked on a path of rapid regression to their medieval pasts. South Africa, which not too long ago was considered a first-world country, got rid of apartheid only to end up with something even worse.

The same happened with Venezuela, which was among the richer countries of the world in the not-too-distant past. It is ready to implode, a fate that may befall Brazil as well one day. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and East Timor are widely acknowledged to be in a mess, and are getting worse by the day.

Indonesia took a breather for a few years and is now once again in the thrall of fanaticism. India is the biggest democracy, so its problems are actively ignored by the Western press, but they won't be for long, as India continues to evolve toward a police state.

Botswana was seen as one of the countries with the fastest and longest-lasting economic growth. What was ignored was the fact that this rather large country has a very small population, which benefited hugely from diamonds and other natural resources. The top political layer of Botswana is still a leftover from the British. The local culture continues to corrode what was left by them, and there are clear signs that Botswana is past its peak.

Part of the central business district in Gaborone, Botswana. Long time readers may recall an article we posted about 2.5 years ago: " Botswana – Getting it Right in Africa ". We are not sure if much has changed since then, but it is worth recalling that Botswana started out as the third-poorest country in Africa when it became independent in 1966 and is today one the richest. The very small population (by African standards) combined with the large income the country obtains from diamond mining no doubt played a role in this, but being rich in natural resources means very little per se . Botswana never fell for Marxism. When the country gained independence, its political leadership adopted democracy and free markets and never looked back. Botswana is a very homogenous society in terms of religious and tribal affiliations, which differentiates the country from most other former colonial territories in Africa. From our personal – admittedly by now a bit dated – experience, we can state that Botswana is the only African country in which one is unlikely to encounter any corruption – not even the lowliest government minion will ask for bribes as far as we could tell (in many African countries, officials begin demanding bribes the moment one wants to cross the border). Considering all that, we are slightly more hopeful about Botswana, but it is not an island. Deteriorating conditions in neighboring countries may well prove contagious at some point. [PT]

Papua New Guinea was another country that was doing reasonably well before the Australians left. It is now rapidly regressing to its tribal, irrational, and extremely violent norms, where for all practical purposes rape is not even considered a crime.

Conclusion: A Vain Hope

The world may recognize most of the above, but it sees these countries' problems as isolated events that can be corrected by further impositions of Western institutions, under the guidance of the UN or some such international (and therefore "non-colonialist") organization.

Amusingly, our intellectual climate ! a product of political correctness ! is such that the third world is nowadays seen as the backbone of humanity's future economic growth. Unfortunately, so-called emerging markets are probably headed for a chaotic future. The likeliest prospect is that these countries will continue to cater to irrational forces, particularly tribalism, and that they will consequently cease to exist, disintegrating into much smaller entities.

As the tide of economic growth goes out with the final phase of plucking the free gift of internet technology nearing its end, their problems will resurface rapidly – precisely when the last of those who were trained under the colonial system are sent to the "dustbin of history".

your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:06 PM

Its all about ideas-and which ones are adopted by society.

The USA has a very poor prognosis-has yet to shed its 20th century Bolshevick Baggage.

Occident Mortal -> doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:17 PM

It's mostly down to culture.

Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.

If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to improve things, if you believe the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important stuff or when your locale was more prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to hoarde meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure.

Oracle of Kypseli -> Occident Mortal , Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM

I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are starving for resources and will invest in these countries in exchange. This will change the trend into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes but perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.

The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of political correcteness and feel good predisposition.

DjangoCat -> Oracle of Kypseli , Aug 20, 2017 10:15 PM

The history of western investment in third world resources does not make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just in the last months of a major silver mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.

The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and British, and Canadian industrial, infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and the people get nothing but a degraded environment and mammoth debt.

The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at cut rate prices. This is nothing but mass rape and pillage.

Wake up.

Unknown User -> DjangoCat , Aug 20, 2017 10:54 PM

England never freed its colonies. It simply changed the means of enslavement from physical to financial.

Eeyores Enigma -> DjangoCat , Aug 21, 2017 12:38 AM

Too true DC but that truth doesn't work well with "American Exceptionalism" so we get articles like this one.

Ayreos -> Eeyores Enigma , Aug 21, 2017 3:57 AM

"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the British. And there's nothing wrong with it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly. They have all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they now complain that the Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,

Son of Thor -> Ayreos , Aug 21, 2017 6:43 AM

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jobproplan.com%3A68UoF1LgzM-Yo3S...

Diatom -> DjangoCat , Aug 21, 2017 8:53 AM

John Perkins books people...

Crazy Or Not -> Occident Mortal , Aug 21, 2017 5:38 AM

True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult period of creating that change. (eg Gandhi, US independence etc).

...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...

This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted in Pacific war region and a decisive factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial rule, using US leverage to oust Brit influence.

edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwj1SmPF5w

...and other jingoistic bollocks ;)

Omen IV -> Occident Mortal , Aug 21, 2017 9:10 AM

"institutions emerge from the underlying culture, not the other way around"

There is no solution to an average IQ of 70 and the culture that results from that fact.

The only solution is $1,000 in return for a tubal ligation or vasectomy - 1,000,000 per day until completed

Oh regional Indian -> doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:19 PM

That zionist bastard churchill was not prognosticating about india, he was merely telling the world what they were going to do, ie., leave the country in the hands of rouges and rascals.... who have ruled and looted and destroyed India for their city of london masters ever since.

It's the joos who hate indians and of course churchill wasa closet joo...

https://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/whither-india/

SethPoor -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 20, 2017 9:50 PM

Are closet Jews circumcised?

Koba the Dread -> SethPoor , Aug 21, 2017 1:41 AM

If they remain in the closet, they are certainly circumspect.

buttmint -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 12:41 AM

...all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do philosophy."

This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical capital in Chennai (old Madraas) is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop. In many ways, India will lead the West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians love to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than USA's 535 idiots and grifters that make up the US Congress.

My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the world squirms.....

Koba the Dread -> buttmint , Aug 21, 2017 1:45 AM

Hunches are like hunchbacks: I don't want either one of them to ring my bells. After over fifty years of visiting and doing business in India, I go no more. While I love the people there, the country has become an abyss I no longer wish to stare into.

Oh regional Indian -> Koba the Dread , Aug 21, 2017 2:54 AM

Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....

Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this a hotch-potch of a rending screech of a marriage between east and west....

Ayreos -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 3:51 AM

Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist Gandhi, but Indians neither want nor understand the concept of moving forward.

Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia.

Kobe Beef -> Ayreos , Aug 21, 2017 5:20 AM

Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there would never have been any civilization on the Indian Subcontinent.

The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than the coming century.

The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is huge amount of paper profits to be derived from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still have people arguing that culture is somehow separate from biology.

But back to the topic at hand..

Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.

misnomer00 -> Kobe Beef , Aug 21, 2017 7:09 AM

Aryan is a word found only in sanskrit and no other indo euro language so you can go and suck some aryan dick

Kobe Beef -> misnomer00 , Aug 21, 2017 10:17 AM

Yes, Sanskrit is an Aryan language. There are a whole host of others, owing to The White Man's far-ranging conquest of primitive hominids. Or homos, in your case, cocksucker. Maybe your great great 15 grandmother appeared human enough to serve as a concubine.

And the Buddha had blue eyes.

Yet here you are trying to insult a White Man,

on the White Man's tech,

in the White Man's language.

Bixnood, faggot. You don't matter, and never did.

Another regiona... -> Kobe Beef , Aug 21, 2017 1:05 PM

Sanskrit is an aryan language? Then explain to me one thing. The rig veda (the oldest agreed upon text written in sanskrit) is centered around worshipping the river saraswati. And the river saraswati dried upon before/around 1900 B.C and aryans 'came' to india in 1700 B.C. Second....if sanskrit was foreign in origin, why havent we found anything equivalent to sanskrit in the 'aryan' nazi homelands? Indus valley civilisation had indoor plumbing, flush toilets, planned streets, sewage systems that took sewage away from individual homes out of the city. No civilisation that i am aware of had that at that time. Dont believe me? Read up about indus valley civilisation. They had it right until 'aryans' came. And then india went back to mud huts and shitting on streets.

As for buddha having blue eyes. turquoise was used to represent ancient famous people as it could be used to represent 'eyes' as it looked like 'eyes'. Thats why torqouise was used. And torqoise only comes in blue and white not in black and white even if it does its very rare. Blue and white is more easily available. That is why it was used. So it doesnt necessairly mean buddha or other famouse people's pictures or statues who had blue torqoise representing their eyers.....had blue eyes in real life.

asstrix -> Ayreos , Aug 21, 2017 5:21 AM

The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources. Once the resources are gone, they have to find a new place to plunder, in order to again move forward.

The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature. Their way is more about trade and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.

Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in peace with nature. My only hope is that the easterners have enough of the western values already in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.

Another regiona... -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 4:16 AM

Have you read the email i sent you?

Another regiona... -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 21, 2017 2:50 AM

I sent a very important email to your email address 66zoltan, read it. Trust me its worth your time.

Tallest Skil -> doctor10 , Aug 20, 2017 9:40 PM

Reminder that Europe (((gave up))) the entire colored portion of the map above because Germany wanted a land corridor to East Prussia.

Radical Marijuana -> doctor10 , Aug 21, 2017 12:08 AM

The main obstacle to adopting superior memes is that those require Superior murder systems to back them up ...

Son of Captain Nemo , Aug 20, 2017 9:32 PM

"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn't have been more wrong..."

Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World Bank in the 60s and 70s and who I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism and means to exploit the gold fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's best to get the multinationals in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of all their ownership for worthless "shit paper"!... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern oil.

John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...

Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him!

DemandSider -> Son of Captain Nemo , Aug 21, 2017 1:05 AM

I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book,

'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains that better. He does explain how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.

The Cooler King , Aug 20, 2017 9:23 PM

"There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel"

But they can balance a mean jug of water on their head, which makes make them perfect candidates to GET RICH buying cryptos!

Moe Hamhead -> The Cooler King , Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM

Obummer removed Churchill's bust from the Oval office! He was offended by his graven image. I recall that it has since been brought back.

DjangoCat -> The Cooler King , Aug 20, 2017 10:06 PM

Read em and weep.

Advoc8tr -> The Cooler King , Aug 21, 2017 12:40 AM

Make that a billion + 1 ... cryptos are the new wheel, pipe, internet.

Rebelrebel7 , Aug 20, 2017 9:31 PM

It looks like someone put the teachers in charge of Wikipedia! It used to be a very accurate source of information! I have recently been finding extreme errors on it and never have until about a month ago! I believe that universities feel threatened by It! This info please chart is correct and the Wikipedia chart is incorrect!

https://www.infoplease.com/history-and-government/us-government/composit...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses

Haitian Snackout -> Rebelrebel7 , Aug 20, 2017 10:34 PM

It is and always has been a front. But like many other things, it contains the lie and the truth together. The lie at the top of the page and the truth at the bottom. See if you can take it from there. That's the only clue I will offer today. Best of luck!

Rebelrebel7 -> Haitian Snackout , Aug 20, 2017 11:25 PM

Well, it wasn't that way previously, however, the lie on top and truth on the bottom would be congruent with the way that the establishment and media operate, without question!

Koba the Dread -> Rebelrebel7 , Aug 21, 2017 1:50 AM

Pal, if you never found errors in Wikipedia until a month ago, I must presume that you started to learn to read about a month ago.

Question: If one is dead dumb stupid and ignorant, how would one know whether a Wikipedia article is true or false?

Farmerz , Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM

I'm making over 7k a month selling new lead free head jugs to turd worlders.

Jason T , Aug 20, 2017 9:49 PM

WOW... excellent post!

TuPhat -> Jason T , Aug 20, 2017 11:20 PM

I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non productive and eventually a drain on any economy.

Koba the Dread -> TuPhat , Aug 21, 2017 1:53 AM

How can you say that. Some toad earlier in the comments said he is making 7k a month from the internet. Doubting him is like doubting a Wikipedia article.

Entitled_TD , Aug 20, 2017 9:56 PM

Patronizing views on these "3rd world" areas or whatever you may call them...Whatever you say and no matter if you are 100% right about the differences in culture, there is no escaping the fact that these people were "fine" before europeans came along and fucked them up. Cultural relativism is 100% true in this case. Doesn't matter if they were raping babies or whatever, that is their culture and has nothing to do with ours. It was our bullshit christianity and culture that gave us the bullshit rationale to destroy whatever existing cultures we found. So what if they wouldn't have come up with the wheel, plumbing, or the internet - that gave europeans no right to do whatever they wanted wherever they wanted. Hard truth for you pos ZHers to swallow, but no way around it. And the funny thing is now you have the gall to say that these other cultures are destroying ours! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Payback is a Bitch!

armageddon addahere -> Entitled_TD , Aug 20, 2017 11:27 PM

So you must be happy we corrected the error by leaving, more than 50 years ago. And now they have gone back to being "fine".

Advoc8tr -> Entitled_TD , Aug 21, 2017 12:49 AM

How do you figure that conclusion ? In THEIR cultures 'might makes right' so by invading and subjugating "we" were playing by their rules. It is hypocritical on our part but only because we deny our history and the reality of superiority (in terms of industrialisation and military strength etc) in preference for politically correct feel-good lies.

Yen Cross , Aug 20, 2017 9:59 PM

Hopefully Bill Gates fossilizes in his doomsday bunker.

DjangoCat , Aug 20, 2017 10:02 PM

Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"

This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling of debt with a side of mandated privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets, followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the ever climbing debt.

This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.

I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??

Koba the Dread -> DjangoCat , Aug 21, 2017 2:00 AM

Well said, Cat! The occupying nations left a cadre of native criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native criminals take their cut and pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence"! Sort of like what happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.

Scanderbeg , Aug 20, 2017 10:28 PM

Of course he omits the most important reason. It doesn't need to be this complicated.

They are simply dumber than whites and E. Asians. Inbreeding is common in ME countries and Pakistan for example has an average IQ of around 70. In Sub Saharan Africa it is only 65 which means they are effectively retarded.

I read a story recently that a tanker overturned on the road in Pakistan and several hundred people were blown up while trying to siphon the gas.

Now that's fucking stupid. Something like that would never happen in a Western country.

Every presumption of SJW's is based on insane lie that all groups and races are intrinsicly equal intellectually. This is clearly not the case though of course there are some exceptions.

The left wanted to crucify the geneticist James Watson merely for suggesting this was the case.

Oh regional Indian -> Scanderbeg , Aug 20, 2017 10:40 PM

You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of highly advanced concepts that were stolen from the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great kowledge, astrology, astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (ZEro came from India)......

Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.

Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world and humans. All of them, including your "medicine"....

Scanderbeg -> Oh regional Indian , Aug 20, 2017 11:08 PM

We don't need any tips from people who are still figuring out how to poo in the loo dindu. Come back and complain about western medicine when you have a real problem and you'll be begging for it. The third world is lucky we humor them. The insane population growth is because of bleeding hearts supplying food and medicine to places like Africa. The west has been dominating the world and international trade since the late 1400's. Most technology is spread through diffusion and the west proved to be the best and most open society to synthesize new ideas. That being said western culture is based in the Greco Roman intellectual tradition and Christianity. It has nothing to do with the your barbaric country which the British defeated and colonized easily.

IQ differences by race and region are a scientific fact and that data is easily available. Even India which is considered "smart" by most laymen is around 80 where as the average on Western countries is around 100.

[Aug 21, 2017] Bannon Firing Proves Trump is Winging It by Robert W. Merry

To a certain extent Bannon firing was the sacrifices that converted Trump into Bush II. Globalist coalition won but this is a Pyrrhic victory. the problem that brought Trump to the White house -- crisis of neoliberalism and first of all neoliberal globalization is unsolvable within the neoliberal framework. And Trump administration has now nothing but his bastard version of neoliberal and deregulation and all that staff. And to this "Javanka" problem and Trump looks doomed to be failure.
Notable quotes:
"... He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far. ..."
"... In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville. ..."
"... What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers. ..."
"... It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected. ..."
"... But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it. ..."
"... ...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech... ..."
"... The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal ..."
"... "There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel" ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com August 21, 2017

In the wake of Stephen Bannon's firing, it has become almost inconceivable that President Trump can avoid a one-term fate. This isn't because he sacked Bannon but because of what that action tells us about his leadership. In celebrating Bannon's dismissal, The Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial: "Trump can't govern with a Breitbart coalition. Does he see that?" True enough. But he also can't govern without the Breitbart constituency -- his core constituency -- in his coalition. The bigger question is: Does he see that ?

It's beginning to appear that Trump doesn't see much of anything with precision or clarity when it comes to the fundamental question of how to govern based on how he campaigned. He is merely a battery of impulses, devoid of any philosophical coherence or intellectual consistency.

Indeed, it's difficult to recall any president of recent memory who was so clearly winging it in the Oval Office. Think of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, both of whom made huge mistakes that cost them the White House. But both knew precisely what they wanted to accomplish and how to go about accomplishing it. The result was that both accomplished big things. Ronald Reagan propelled himself into governing mode from campaign mode as if he had shot himself out of a cannon. Even Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush, who stumbled into one-term diminishment, demonstrated more leadership coherence than the current White House occupant.

Trump's political challenge on Inauguration Day was simple but difficult. He had to galvanize his political base and build from there to fashion a governing coalition that could give propulsion to his agenda. Further, that agenda had to give a majority of Americans a sense that the economy was sound and growing, that unnecessary foreign wars would be avoided, that domestic tranquility would prevail, that the mass immigration of recent years would be curtailed, that the health care mess would be fixed, and that infrastructure needs would be addressed.

He has made little or no progress on any of it. And now, with Bannon banished from the White House, the president even seems to be taking a cavalier attitude toward his core constituency, America's white working class, beset by sluggish economic growth, the hollowing out of America's industrial base, unfair competitive practices by U.S. trading partners, unchecked immigration, the opioid crisis, and a general malaise that accompanies a growing sense of decline.

Trump became president because he busted out of the deadlock crisis that had gripped America for years, with both parties rigidly clinging to shopworn nostrums that fewer and fewer Americans believed in but which precluded any fresh or original thinking on the part of the party establishments. Consider some of the elements of conventional wisdom that he smashed during the campaign.

  1. Immigration: Conventional thinking was that a "comprehensive" solution could emerge as soon as officials convinced voters that they would, at some point soon, secure the border, and then the 11 million illegals in the country could be granted some form of amnesty. After all, according to this view, polls indicated solid support for granting illegals a path to citizenship or at least legal residence. Thus the issue was considered particularly hazardous to Republicans. But Trump demonstrated that voter concerns about the magnitude of immigration -- both legal and illegal -- were more widespread and intense than the political establishment wanted to believe. He transformed the dynamics of the issue.
  2. Foreign Policy: Trump railed against George W. Bush's Iraq invasion, the ongoing and seemingly pointless war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama's actions to help overthrow Libya's President Muammar Qaddafi, and the previous administration's insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must leave office even though his toughest enemies, ISIS and al-Nusra, were also our enemies. He sought to sooth the tensions then gaining momentum between the United States and Russia, and he did so in the face of widespread hostility from most of the foreign policy establishment. In all this he signaled that, as president, he would formulate an entirely new grand strategy designed to align U.S. policy with U.S. power and avoid foreign wars with little connection to U.S. vital interests.
  3. Trade: Trump took on the establishment view that globalized free trade provided an automatic benefit to the U.S. economy and U.S. workers, even when big trading partners, particularly China, imposed non-tariff trade barriers that slammed America's waning industrial core and the country's working classes. Here again he demonstrated a strong body of political sentiment that had been ignored or brushed aside by the country's economic and financial elites.

The important point about these issues is that they all cut across partisan lines. That's what allowed Trump to forge a nontraditional coalition that provided him a slim margin of victory -- but only in the Electoral College. His challenge was to turn this electoral coalition into a governing one.

He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far.

In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville.

What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers.

And now Stephen Bannon is gone. The rustic and controversial White House strategist represented Trump's most direct and compelling tie to his political base, the people who flocked to his rallies during the campaign, who kept him alive when his political fortunes waned, who thrilled to his anti-establishment message, and who awarded him the states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. As the Journal says, Trump can't govern only with this electoral base. But if his support among these people wanes or dissipates, he will have no base from which to build -- and no prospect for successful governance.

It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected.

But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in November.

doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:06 PM Its all about ideas-and which ones are adopted by society.

The USA has a very poor prognosis-has yet to shed its 20th century Bolshevick Baggage. Occident Mortal doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:17 PM It's mostly down to culture.

Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.

If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to improve things, if you believe the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important stuff or when your locale was more prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to hoarde meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure. Oracle of Kypseli Occident Mortal Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are starving for resources and will invest in these countries in exchange. This will change the trend into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes but perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.

The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of political correcteness and feel good predisposition.

DjangoCat Oracle of Kypseli Aug 20, 2017 10:15 PM

The history of western investment in third world resources does not make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just in the last months of a major silver mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.

The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and British, and Canadian industrial, infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and the people get nothing but a degraded environment and mammoth debt.

The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at cut rate prices. This is nothing but mass rape and pillage.

Wake up.

Unknown User DjangoCat Aug 20, 2017 10:54 PM

England never freed its colonies. It simply changed the means of enslavement from physical to financial.

Eeyores Enigma DjangoCat Aug 21, 2017 12:38 AM

Too true DC but that truth doesn't work well with "American Exceptionalism" so we get articles like this one.

Ayreos Eeyores Enigma Aug 21, 2017 3:57 AM

"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the British. And there's nothing wrong with it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly. They have all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they now complain that the Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,

Crazy Or Not Occident Mortal Aug 21, 2017 5:38 AM

True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult period of creating that change.
(eg Gandhi, US independence etc).

...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...

This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted in Pacific war region and a decisive factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial rule, using US leverage to oust Brit influence.

edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwj1SmPF5w

...and other jingoistic bollocks ;)

buttmint Oh regional Indian Aug 21, 2017 12:41 AM ...

all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do philosophy."

This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical capital in Chennai (old Madraas) is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop. In many ways, India will lead the West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians love to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than USA's 535 idiots and grifters that make up the US Congress.

My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the world squirms.....

Oh regional Indian Koba the Dread Aug 21, 2017 2:54 AM

Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....

Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this a hotch-potch of a rending screech of a marriage between east and west....

Ayreos Oh regional Indian Aug 21, 2017 3:51 AM

Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist Gandhi, but Indians neither want nor understand the concept of moving forward.

Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia. Kobe Beef Ayreos Aug 21, 2017 5:20 AM Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there would never have been any civilization on the Indian Subcontinent.

The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than the coming century.

The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is huge amount of paper profits to be derived from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still have people arguing that culture is somehow separate from biology.

But back to the topic at hand..

Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.

asstrix Ayreos Aug 21, 2017 5:21 AM

The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources. Once the resources are gone, they have to find a new place to plunder, in order to again move forward.

The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature. Their way is more about trade and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.

Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in peace with nature. My only hope is that the easterners have enough of the western values already in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.

Tallest Skil doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:40 PM

Reminder that Europe (((gave up))) the entire colored portion of the map above because Germany wanted a land corridor to East Prussia.

Son of Captain Nemo Aug 20, 2017 9:32 PM

"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn't have been more wrong..."

Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World Bank in the 60s and 70s and who I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism and means to exploit the gold fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's best to get the multinationals in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of all their ownership for worthless "shit paper" -- ... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern oil.

John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...

Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him --

DemandSider Son of Captain Nemo Aug 21, 2017 1:05 AM

I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book, 'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains that better. He does explain how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.

The Cooler King Aug 20, 2017 9:23 PM

"There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel"

But they can balance a mean jug of water on their head, which makes make them perfect candidates to GET RICH buying cryptos

Moe Hamhead The Cooler King Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM

Obummer removed Churchill's bust from the Oval office -- He was offended by his graven image. I recall that it has since been brought back.

TuPhat Jason T Aug 20, 2017 11:20 PM

I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non productive and eventually a drain on any economy.

DjangoCat Aug 20, 2017 10:02 PM

Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"

This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling of debt with a side of mandated privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets, followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the ever climbing debt.

This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.

I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??

Koba the Dread DjangoCat Aug 21, 2017 2:00 AM

Well said, Cat -- The occupying nations left a cadre of native criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native criminals take their cut and pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence" -- Sort of like what happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.

Oh regional Indian Scanderbeg Aug 20, 2017 10:40 PM

You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of highly advanced concepts that were stolen from the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great knowledge, astrology, astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (Zero came from India)......

Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.

Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world and humans. All of them, including your "medicine"....

[Aug 21, 2017] We have a very in-depth understanding of how Soros and other financial criminals fund neoliberals like Clinton. So who is funding the far right?

Aug 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Almand | Aug 20, 2017 11:47:49 PM | 23

I've had a thought, I wonder if someone has any ideas. We have a very in-depth understanding of how Soros and other financial criminals fund liberal/leftist causes. So who is funding the right?

I don't mean the Chamber of Commerce, Koch Brothers tennis-playing types, I mean the Eurasianist/Trumpist popular right.

Peter Thiel has made no secret of his support for Trump and Ron Paul. Still, it's amazing that the right-wing alternative media apparatus is seemingly so well-oiled and widely circulated. Who is their secret sugar daddy. A lot of these folks present themselves as "concernced patriots", but I'm not that naïve.

[Aug 21, 2017] Why Explaining US Internal Strife Through Russian Influence Is Lazy and Unhelpful by Alexey Kovalev

Notable quotes:
"... By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter: @Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
Aug 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
August 19, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a well-argued debunking of various "evil Rooskie" claims and is very much worth circulating. Stunningly, there actually are people asserting that white supremacists and the figurative and now literal hot fights over Confederate symbols (remember that Confederate flags have been a big controversy too?) are part of a Russian plot. Help me. Fortunately their views don't seem to have gotten traction outside the fever-swamp corners of the Twitterverse.

Author Kovalev's bottom line: When you are doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing something wrong.

By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter: @Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at openDemocracy

On 11-12 August, violent clashes erupted between the far-right Unite the Right movement and anti-fascist counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. One woman died when an alleged neo-Nazi sympathizer rammed a car into a crowd of counter-protesters. There were numerous injuries and a major national crisis erupted in the United States resulting from and inspired by the rapid rise of white nationalist, neo-Nazi and other similar sentiments far to the right of the political spectrum.

As it often happens these days, numerous people on Twitter immediately jumped in, pitching the so-called "hot takes" -- rapid, hastily weaved together series of tweets with often outlandish theories of what really happened. These instant experts, who have come to prominence in the wake of the Trump presidency, have carved out a niche for themselves by taking the most tangential or non-existent connection to anything Russian and "connecting the dots" or "just asking questions". The most egregious example is Louise Mensch , a former UK conservative pundit (and sometime MP) now residing in the US. Mensch is the most extreme example of a Twitter-age conspiracy-mongering populist . But there are other people, with more credible credentials, who are also prone to demanding that "ties with Russia" (via individuals, events and institutions) be investigated.

Immediately following the events in Charlottesville, the writer and consultant Molly McKew and Jim Ludes of the Pell Center , among others, chimed in with their "hot takes", repeating each other almost word for word: "We need to closely examine the links between the American alt-right and Russia." These particular expressions ("links between X and Russia", "ties with Russia", "Russian connections" or "close to Putin/Russian government") are, essentially, weasel words, expressions so elastic that they could mean anything -- from actively collaborating with senior Russian officials and secretly accepting large donations from to the vaguest, irrelevant connections mentioned simply for the sake of name-dropping Russia in an attempt to farm for more clicks.

Almost every person of Russian origin involved in the Trump drama is "Putin-connected", although in Russia that definition only applies to a tiny power circle of trusted aides and advisors, a select group of oligarchs running state-owned enterprises and close personal friends from before Putin's presidency. The exaggerated tone of reporting often suggests something more far-reaching, coordinated and sinister than a loose collection of unconnected factoids.

So, what do "links between the American alt-right and Russia" actually mean? Much of the allegations of American alt-right's "collusion" with Putin's regime rely on the fact that Richard Spencer, a divisive figure in this already quite loose movement, was once married to a woman of Russian origin , Nina Kupriyanova. Their current marital status is unclear and, frankly, irrelevant. Kupriyanova, a scholar of Russian and Soviet history with a PhD from the University of Toronto, is also a follower of Alexander Dugin, a larger-than-life figure in contemporary Russian media and politics. Because of Dugin's outsized presence in the western media where he is often, and quite erroneously, presented as "Putin's mastermind" or "Putin's Bannon", this connection is often enough to be declared the smoking gun in the crowdsourced investigation .

Dugin has been many things to many people over his decades-long, zig-zagging career as an underground occult practitioner in the Soviet years: philosopher, lecturer, one of the founding fathers of a radical movement, public intellectual, flamboyant media personality. But he is not a "Putin advisor" and never has been. Although Dugin is a vocal fan of the Russian president, has repeatedly professed his loyalty to Putin and has orbited the halls of Russian power for more than a decade, he hasn't accumulated enough influence to even keep a stable job.

In 2014, Dugin was fired from his position as a guest lecturer at the department of sociology of Moscow State University. Students and academic staff had complained for years about the "anti-scientific, obscurantist" atmosphere Dugin had created within the department (one petition filed by the students mentions Dugin "performing extrasensory experiments" on them during lectures). But the final straw was Dugin's interview where he agitated to "kill, kill, kill" Ukrainians in June 2014 -- the early stages of Russia's war campaign in Ukraine. Both Dugin and his patron, the dean of the sociology department, were promptly fired after a major media scandal.

Later, Dugin was quite unceremoniously removed from his position as a host on Tsargrad TV -- a right-wing, reactionary private network funded by "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeyev and launched with the help of a former Fox News executive. All mentions of Dugin's show on Tsargrad simply disappeared from the network's website.

Although Richard Spencer's own writings for his Radix Journal do have visible Dugin inspirations, it's inconceivable that Dugin has any significant influence on the American right. His teachings are just too eclectic, esoteric and over-intellectualised for an average American neo-Nazi who just wants to see more white faces around him. In fact, Dugin's overarching idea of "Eurasianism" goes against the grain of "keeping America white and ethnically pure": at its core is an obscure early 20th century Orientalist school of thought which accentuated Russia's civilisational continuity with Mongolian and Turkic ancestors, as opposed to the spiritually alien West.

Russia's conservatives of all shades of right have indeed been long cultivating links with their brethren to the west of Moscow -- well before Putin appeared on the scene. These have been well documented by scholars of the far right such as Anton Shekhovtsov . After Putin's onslaught in Ukraine, Russia, in dire need of new allies, intensified efforts to strengthen those links .

A trove of leaked emails released by the hacker group Shaltai Boltai ("Humpty Dumpty") in December 2014 did indeed uncover a sinister plot to place Russia in the centre of a wide-ranging alliance of right-wing, far-right, pro-life, pro-"family-values", hardcore Christian and other similar organisations in Europe and both Americas. But there's little evidence that anything resembling the coveted "Black International" ever came to fruition. Only temporary, tactical alliances have been more or less successful, aimed at promoting shared common interests -- such as Italy's pro-Kremlin Lega Nord party lobbying for lifting EU's sanctions against Russia -- or values.

In the latter case, the dynamic is reversed: it's not Russia influencing the West and exporting its values, but vice versa. It's Russia's parliamentary ultra-conservatives like Yelena Mizulina (now a senator) who have been inspired and supported by the American religious right.

Russia's last public attempt to unite the European and American far-right ended in a major media scandal in early 2015 when the "International Russian Conservative Forum" in Saint Petersburg was widely criticised in the press. The forum's Russian official supporters from the "traditionalist" Rodina (Motherland) party allied with the ruling United Russia were forced to withdraw their endorsement, and no further attempts to organise the forum have been made. Propaganda outlets like RT are quietly shedding commentators with far-right sympathies like Manuel Ochsenreiter or Richard Spencer mentioned above in an attempt to cleanse their image as a safe haven for Holocaust deniers and white power enthusiasts. Only a couple of days after Charlottesville, Russian authorities banned The Daily Stormer, a virulently anti-Semitic "alt-right" website, which had temporarily sought refuge on Russian web space after having been refused service in the US.

There is little to no evidence that any of the above had anything to do with the tragic events in Charlottesville. The resurgence of murderous, hateful ideologies in the United States is a home-grown issue. Young men with identical haircuts and matching, uniform-like attires chanting "Blood and soil -- " in the streets of American cities are inspired and influenced by many things, but a bearded Russian mystic is hardly one of them. Attempting to explain internal strife in your country by "Russian influences", hastily put together disjointed and exaggerated phenomena, is intellectually lazy. It distracts from getting to the root of the problem by offering quick, easy answers to complicated questions.

Ironically, it's also a very Putin thing to do. Explaining Russia's internal issues by blaming the West's machinations is the Russian president's shtick. When you find yourself doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing it wrong.

[Aug 21, 2017] Debt based consum ption and speculation led to the roaring 20s and the debt deflation of the Great Depression. That created preconditions to fascism

Aug 21, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com

ConBrio , 17 Aug 2017 07:45

The obligatory sanctimony about America's Nazi past might have included these for context.

Duke of Windsor's chatting up Hitler
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3464198/Photographs-Duke-Windsor-s-trip-Nazi-Germany-1937-met-Adolf-Hitler-sold-auction-1-000.html

The "SALUTE."
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/02/25/16/318E186100000578-0-It_was_on_this_trip_that_he_made_a_Nazi_salute_surrounded_by_uni-a-49_1456419156158.jpg

HARRY at a costume party a few years ago.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rzkTyRo_8Fg/TUnolacSCeI/AAAAAAAAAPw/WXkU-jqCZsc/s1600/Nazi+Prince+Harry.jpg

THE the FUTURE QUEEN practicing the Nazi Salute:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/world/europe/royal-familys-nazi-salute-in-1930s-stirs-debate-in-britain.html

http://gnosticwarrior.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/queen-elizabeth-nazi-salute.jpg

davidc929 -> NotIdefix , 17 Aug 2017 07:45
Race based supremacy was an element of German fascism. Italian fascism was based more on national supremacy. If fascism were to arise in America it would most likely have a strong religious element.
soundofthesuburbs -> GruntyMalunty , 17 Aug 2017 07:43
A lot more effort has probably gone into the cunning and manipulative parts than the system itself. They picked a pretty dire 1920s economics, neoclassical economics, that still has all its old problems.

1) The effect of debt on the economy. Leading to Japan 1989, US 2008, Irish and Spanish real estate collapses, Greece's collapse with austerity and the new normal of secular stagnation.

Today's neo-classical economics was around in the 1920s and it had exactly the same problem. Debt based consumption and speculation led to the roaring 20s and the debt deflation of the Great Depression.

The build up to 1929 and 2008.

https://cdn.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/04/Screen-Shot-2017-04-21-at-13.52.41.png

2) The difference between "earned" and "unearned" income. Leading to parasitical rentier economies, now spotted by one of today's Nobel Prize winning economists "Income inequality is not killing capitalism in the United States, but rent-seekers like the banking and the health-care sectors just might" Angus Deaton.

A flawed model of global, free trade that doesn't consider the minimum wage is set by the cost of living. Western labour is priced out of global labour markets by the high cost of living in the West exacerbated by rentier activity.

3) Bank credit should be directed into productive investment in business and industry, not blowing asset bubbles (e.g. real estate) and other financial speculation.

Klytie -> RedSperanza , 17 Aug 2017 07:42
In Fascism the party is the state. It is collectivist hence the socialist in the title with added national exceptionalism. While racism was always there Nazism was more focused on race than most. I'm not sure that I could identify anything like a Fascist party in the UK or US outside a very few, small fringe groups.
MikeInfinitum -> jochebed1 , 17 Aug 2017 07:40
Totalitarianism is a method of government that controls (or tries to) every aspect of its citizens lives. Fascism is an ultra-nationalist ideology that uses totalitarianism to achieve its aims.

The Soviet Union (under Stalin at least) was also totalitarian but obviously was communist rather than fascist.

Urlicht -> MikeInfinitum , 17 Aug 2017 07:38
"Fascism is a fundamentally patriarchal ideology. It envisions the creation of a new man conquering all before him, whilst the women stay home producing good fascist babies."

And yet, if the same ideology drapes itself in cloth and dogma, the left celebrate it.

NotIdefix -> marv , 17 Aug 2017 07:37
the religious right in the US are not fascists or inclined in that direction

anti-abortion, certainly
anti-same-sex-marriage, mostly,
anti-science, somewhat..

but they are certainly not united behind an ideology of race-based supremacy

snapster -> careenage , 17 Aug 2017 07:36
Not really. He adapted the constitution and manipulated the "Reichstag" from 1933. Not to mention the physical (and murder) of opponents and one time allies.
The Constitution was blatantly ignored and set aside by the NSDAP and the conservative politicians. The Social Democrats and Communists were "done away with.
PotholeKid -> Pete green , 17 Aug 2017 07:36
Meanwhile Henry Ford built vehicles in Germany for the German Army the Duponts supplied chemicals, the bankers funded the Nazi enterprise and IBM supplied the devices to track Hitlers deplorables so they could be rounded up for the work and death camps. These same captains of industry were quite happy to see American boys die for their self serving interests.
Chucky Cheese -> Ubermensch1 , 17 Aug 2017 07:35
The march went ahead though, didn't it? No one was prevented from saying anything. We heard it loud and clear. That Pie quote comes from Feb and relates to Berkeley cancelling Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking, which is a different situation.

He has a pop at Antifa violence handing Trump etc the moral high ground, which I get. The problem is that by equating Antifa with fascists, you are undermining the argument against actual fascists. The internet is awash with "Antifa just as bad" - which pulls the right wing into the centre ground and makes the Alt-right seem more reasonable. I know where he's coming from, but the emphasis is off. It's a nice soundbite - but I don't know how helpful it is.

Djek Durgen Deign , 17 Aug 2017 07:35
Now I in no way condone violence and least of all from people who are into any kind of racial supremacy, however, I cannot help feeling that the MSM are making a mountain out of a mole hill here. The Charlottesville "unite the right" rally was only attended by some 500 participants, I am not aware of the figures for the counter protest but they were probably more numerous. The violence was shocking but probably could have been avoided had the police not disbanded the "unite the right" rally and then stood down leaving both groups to duke it out in the streets of Charlottesville.

The point I'm making is that 500 far right nutters don't mark a new rise of Nazism, but the current climate of calling anybody with slightly right leanings Nazis could push things that way.

Urlicht -> Iansguardian007 , 17 Aug 2017 07:34
Was it thousands who drove the car into that lady too? No. It was one.

Sod the far right - they'd see me strung up for my skin colour.

But equally sod the left - they are the ones who would encourage and 'empathise' with my differences - thus driving me into the clubs and bats of the far right. EG at the last election, I only received racist literature from one party - Labour - celebrating the issues that my race celebrates - because to my local Labour MP, I am a group identity, not an individual.

Travis -> jdanforth , 17 Aug 2017 07:33
The Republican Party embraced racism via Nixon's Southern Strategy in 1968, getting their inspiration from George Wallace's independent run for President. This brought great benefit to the GOP, allowing them to take over the South from 1968 through 1980. They doubled down on this strategy during the Obama presidency, with dog-whistle racist politics that brought them back to power after being decimated in the 2008 elections.

Citing racist Democrats of the past is about as meaningful as saying that Lincoln was a Republican and emancipated the slaves, so the Republican Party isn't racist. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

Treflesg , 17 Aug 2017 07:33
America is similar to the UK in many ways when I visit but there are also big differences.
The class system is less subtle, people are literally divided by walls, and even transport e.g. all the middle classes drive in big cars, whereas the bus is full of working class people. And people openly exclude lower classes in their language (rednecks, white trash and so on).
And in addition to the palpable class difference, they then have a whole race based division as well, the bus is almost all not white, the maids are almost all not white, the posh establishments are white majority etc. And people of all races talk about it all the time. You meet them and in the first few sentences they inform you of their ethnic or cultural background and ask yours. This is something in the UK that I am not used to.
My point is that it is all very well blaming a minority of nutters, or extremists, but actually, the whole of society in the USA is race and class obsessed and it will take all of you to sort this out.
MusicalCheeseBurger -> ID4368353 , 17 Aug 2017 07:30
This is the most idiotic comment I've ever read. There have been a range of white supremacist states in the 20th century that absolutely demonstrate that is it perfectly possible for this ideology to control a country. South Africa was a white supremacist state for over 40 years until 1991 - were they all sad sacks? What about the Germans and Italians in the early 20th century? Whole countries of sad sack losers?

It is amazing to see history repeating itself, including the anti-communist rhetoric of the right. The Nazis effectively created a strawman out of the communist party in Berlin through effective use of propaganda and targeted violence erroneously blamed on the communists (such as the Reichstag Fire). Communists don't make people hate others because of their race.

The fact that you assume that anyone who disagrees with fascism and is concerned about the parallels with the current resurgence in nationalist rhetoric now and in the interwar period is a on the 'far left' says a lot more about your politics than mine.

vonZeppelin , 17 Aug 2017 07:29
Fascism happened in Italy in the 20s. Nazism occurred in German in the 30s. Modern groups may imitate those movements but they should be labelled as far-right extremist and racists .
Urlicht -> ID4368353 , 17 Aug 2017 07:29
"It's like the left want there to be powerful and dangerous fascists. Why?"

This is true in the UK too. The left would rather paint people as racists and fascists, because then they feel that they can attack them.

The problem is, that often the left work towards the goals of the fascists. Take identity politics for example - great for those that want to be defined by their 'identity grouping', foul racism for the rest of us who want to be judged by the same standards as everyone else - for our choices as adults, not our genes at birth.

DeltaFoxWhiskyMike -> MusicalCheeseBurger , 17 Aug 2017 07:28
Out of 325 million people they managed to scare up 250 oddballs to a heavily publicized event in Virginia? Check the coverage, and they are outnumbered by the reporters and camera crews, which greatly magnified the impact of the rally. They are not the face or forefront of any mass movement, though they are being portrayed as such by opponents desperate for the support (and donations) that political conflicts bring.
People are not dismissing the possibility of extremists finding success in American politics. They are, however, dismissing efforts to dismiss any and all political opposition to people like you as extremists, and the efforts to tie every lunatic fringe anywhere to our elected government that you oppose.
This is a really big country. Your textbook has damned few students. Have you noticed?
SteveRP -> haribol , 17 Aug 2017 07:27
There seems to be quite a lot of evidence that many Americans do subscribe to contempt for "the Other". "God Bless America" at the end of every political speech gives a clear indication they consider themselves special under God. The obsession with their flag, treating it with almost religious reverence, is odd.
wardadkiwi -> PJKatz , 17 Aug 2017 07:26
In nazi Germany it grew from the ground up and their certainly wasnt a coherent plan from the ruling Junkers class to introduce fascism .Like with Drumpf the racist dregs were the core around which the nazis built and the wealthy backed them once they were in power.
PotholeKid , 17 Aug 2017 07:26
Missing from this is the fact that the most powerful elites like Henry Ford, J.P Morgan the Dupont Family and many other bankers and industrialists openly supported fascism. No question these folks were behind the plot to overthrow the Roosevelt government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RD-ISImWgw

Urlicht , 17 Aug 2017 07:26
Are politicians to be judged by the worst that support them as the least worst option?

Trump has the support of some nasty individuals. Likewise here in the UK, Labour seems to have the support of some extremely socially regressive groups. Do we judge Labour by the worst of their voters then?

Daniel Kells -> DrChed4r , 17 Aug 2017 07:26

But none of them enjoy any popular support, and they never will


I suppose this is one of the few good things about Republican/Democrat dominance in the US, either fall flat on your face by striking out on your own or be forced to comprimise by signing up with one of the big 2
SavannahLaMar , 17 Aug 2017 07:25
I can't help thinking all this talk of fascism is disingenuous, because America has always been an apartheid state, and up until quite recently there were even tensions and prejudices between different white groups. Nevertheless the idea that America is fundamentally a white supremacist nation is generally unspoken until it is challenged. It was last challenged in the sixties by the civil rights movement, and the response was violent. Most recently it was challenged by the election of Barack Obama, and predictably the reaction was violent. That isn't to say that there aren't millions of decent Americans who are not racist, or that people of colour cannot overcome these barriers, or that the nation doesn't have a fine tradition of social justice movements, or that racism is the only injustice a human beng can suffer. But, for all the mythmaking about liberty and justice for all, there is no getting away from the fact that the nation's origins lie in genocide, people trafficking, forced labour, caste-based inequality, environmental despoliation and exclusivist religious cultism. These demons have never gone away.
ParcelOfRogue , 17 Aug 2017 07:25
The best counter to Fascism is PR voting.

Hitler was not let in by PR as is sometimes claimed, but after getting 30 odd percent repeatedly, he used political maneuvering and street intimidation to force his opponents out of the way and sieze power, immediately ending democracy. Instead, if Germany had elections under First Past the Post at the time, Hitler's 30 odd percent might have produced a Parliamentary majority.

CharlesBradlaugh -> Charmant_mais_fou , 17 Aug 2017 07:23
Keep saying it, you may believe it yourself. Fascism is a far boraoder movement than you claim. As the businessmen who supported Hitler knew.
wardadkiwi , 17 Aug 2017 07:23
Post WW2 one of the first if not the first show to confront American fascism was "The Twilight Zone ".Great man that he was Rod Serling confrontrd racism and fascism head on having an abiding hatred of both ,he was a WW2 veteran so he knew what nazis looked like in the flesh.
CharlesBradlaugh -> Midlyinterested1 , 17 Aug 2017 07:22
Violence is a reasonable, in fact the only answer to fascism, what do you want people to do, wait placidly for death camps?
palindrome , 17 Aug 2017 07:21

Observers have routinely considered fascism an ideology alien to American society

Why? A population armed to the teeth, a massive military ready to attack defenceless countries and a belief in "exceptionalism" scream fascist to me.

Summersalmostgone , 17 Aug 2017 07:20
Extremism is growing in every little ugly dark corner of our world. It's the real enemy. Left, right, religious or agnostic, even sports fans. We must be ever vigilant and not mistake extremist anger for passion. We must shine a light on those within us who are losing control and we must not excuse those who are lost just because they are on the same side.

Someone agreeing with you is great, but if the manner on which they agree is distasteful or vile, they aren't with you at all if you are a decent person, because the real fight is between the good moderates and the vile extremists. And this notion that there are no bad tactics only bad targets? Bull. Let's make the twenties the decade we get back on track.

antistink -> TimMiddleton , 17 Aug 2017 07:19
UKIP 'openly fascist ideology'? Dearie me.
Fascism: 'Totalitarian ideology associated with Benito Mussolini that elevates the nation over all other loyalties. It calls for the creation of a 'new man' purged of individualism and materialism. It celebrates masculinity, youth and the regenerative power of violence. It seeks to unify the nation under the leadership of a supreme leader in struggle against internal and external enemies.'
PJKatz , 17 Aug 2017 07:18
This column is perfect for The Graun: making a careful list of gaudy outbreaks of fascism while shorting the scaffolding on which it hangs. Instead of exposition on the heavy-handed corporate takeovers that lead to fascism there's a one-liner, "the crisis years of the 1920's and 1930's."

Fascism is not the outgrowth of some nebulous 'crisis' but a coherent economic and political program that must begin at the highest levels of society. So it is in the US today, a result of decades of growing inequality and resulting desperation. Chris Hedges' comment on sick societies: "And if we do not overthrow the neoliberal, corporate forces that have destroyed our democracy we will continue to vomit up more monstrosities as dangerous as Donald Trump." Ladies and gents, I give you Charlottesville.

Ernst Shackleton , 17 Aug 2017 07:16
Alot of people become more radicalized through youtube. If you watch a few 'alt-right' videos on you tube soon your feed will become full of them. People then get drawn in by the unbalanced media and a hate filled echo chamber. Videos heavily edited and narrated to suite a certain agenda.

The hate in some of the comments is atrocious.

I took a look at a video on youtube which suggested that someone should run over fractions of the left wing protestors with a tank. 100 likes. So soon after the terror attack. Youtube needs to do more to censor threats of violence.

Lastly I am sure infowars never used to be so 'far / alt-right... it seems like it has become far more extreme in the last few years.

ID6030211 , 17 Aug 2017 07:15
"Today, neo-fascism has many faces, with movements ranging from neo-Nazis to neo-Confederates to segments of the alt-right."

This is the point at which an interesting piece about the history of fascism in the United States seemed to let itself down.

Neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates tend to self-identify. They're the idiots with the dumb costumes and badges who can't seem to tell whether they're playing at being boy scouts or wizards. But where the piece lost an opportunity to provide additional insight was in the matter of the alt-right. 'Alt-right' has become something of a catch-all term that all kinds of people use for all kinds of reasons.

"[S]egments of the alt-right" is overly vague, and may seem to be something of an evasion. If there are segments of the alt-right that are fascists without falling into the two categories already mentioned (neo-nazis and neo-Confederates) then identify them - just as you identified the individuals and groups earlier in the piece.

Scholarship is great when it is specific and detailed. The alt-right part of the piece was too vague and therefore missed an opportunity to provide much-needed insight about a label that is in danger of becoming overused to the point of meaninglessness

[Aug 21, 2017] The impetus to grow and gain size and influence is essential to any political party, and sustaining this inertia overrides the thinking and living of the individual in favor of the coherence of the party itself as a mass;

Simone Weil definitely does not understands dialectics.
Notable quotes:
"... "Political parties are a marvellous mechanism which, on the national scale, ensures that not a single mind can attend to the effort of perceiving, in public affairs, what is good, what is just, what is true. As a result – except for a very small number of fortuitous coincidences – nothing is decided, nothing is executed, but measures that run contrary to the public interest, to justice and to truth." ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Charles R | Aug 20, 2017 5:44:06 PM | 7

I have used Simone Weil's " On the Abolition of All Political Parties " in a philosophy class. Her argument, as I'll try to summarize: the impetus to grow and gain size and influence is essential to any political party, and sustaining this inertia overrides the thinking and living of the individual in favor of the coherence of the party itself as a mass; thus, we must eliminate the political party.

My students found this "contradictory" or "stupid." People, they tell me, will naturally form groups, and because of this the group will operate just like she's claiming parties do, so she's not really saying how to get rid of this. I point out that she's very deliberate to talk about fluids versus crystals, between how things form associations that are fluid , and thus on some issues folks connect on on others they disconnect without the pressure to sustain these changes as a stable identity !she points to literary circles as groups that ebb and flow with members and associations that do not conform to the logic of the political party. These are distinct from associations that are crystal , where aggregation and homogeneity and stable arrangement are more important for the whole to remain itself. So, I take it my students, despite getting up in one class, walking around campus, and sitting down in another class, believe that there is little to no difference in one collection over another so long as the reason for the collection is what defines the collection . (How they take their intuition as expressed in my class and think through intersectionality as expressed in another class is something I was trying, through conversations with them, to work out, because I find it helps me when I find my own intuitions about all of this so very different from theirs.) But I think the implicit part of their reasoning was that all of this dealt with force, the force they feel inside as pressure to conform on the outside with others, who are at this point for them undeniably also undergoing these inward pressures to regulate their outward expression.

But then I point out that music, or sports, or lovemaking, or dance, or a lot of other ordinary things we do enjoyably with others, show us how to form and move through groups because we share a similar drive or interest in something outside of both of us, and they seem to get that idea. I find myself coming back to this website just to read the comments, because I find it a refreshing change of pace, a host of interesting exchanges, and a good opportunity to face the perennial challenge of sitting within conflict, finding reasonable the disagreeing voice, and owning what makes myself uncomfortable with strangers.

If enough people share the desire to talk about things from conflicting perspectives, the conversations continue, but as people move in and out, the conversation itself changes and evolves. To shut down the conversation is to lock it in place, to keep it rigid and total. To walk away from the conversation in good spirits, is to hope that it will continue, in some spirit, some form, resembling how it was going before. To walk away from the conversation in bad spirits, is to hope it will change into something that either once was !in which case it can't naturally and so only through artifice! or should be !in which case, being based on the limitations of our own perspective, won't be open for the wonderful possibility of something entirely new and inconceivable happening in a conversation.

I sometimes wish politics were just conversations. I found Hannah Arendt to be one of the few thinkers who set the terms in such a way that I was liberated. Leftist thinking taught me a lot about fashion, I didn't realize until later. Paleoconservative thinking taught me a lot about how much either gets suppressed or gathers dust in the libraries, and yet still smolders underneath the haunted foundations of our civilization. I come back to Zhuangzi over and over again. I come back to these rambling conversations under heaven, over earth, within the noosphere.

But eventually the conversation does end, and you have to hammer a nail to keep the walls up. Winter is coming. Wood needs cutting. Grains need grounding. Papers need grading.

PavewayIV | Aug 20, 2017 10:19:52 PM | 17

Charles R@7 - Well said, Charles R. I loved this quote from Weil's book in one of the reviews of On the Abolition of All Political Parties:

"Political parties are a marvellous mechanism which, on the national scale, ensures that not a single mind can attend to the effort of perceiving, in public affairs, what is good, what is just, what is true. As a result – except for a very small number of fortuitous coincidences – nothing is decided, nothing is executed, but measures that run contrary to the public interest, to justice and to truth."

Not sure I'm sold on eliminating them - this is another call to kill some of the existing victims in a futile effort to eliminate an infectious disease that permeates public affairs. It will irritate power- and control-seeking psychopaths temporarily. Political parties are just a convenient 'easy' button for them.

US society's problem is a child-like belief in some kind of magical innate integrity of organizations that feed us public affairs 'information' despite those organizations being obvious targets for exploitation. Part of psychopath's successful control and exploitation of the public is to obscure the fact that they are being controlled and exploited.

It's lonely here in tin-foil hat land, but I'm starting to see more visitors. I think our 'Taco Tuesday' promotion is starting to pay dividends!

psychohistorian | Aug 20, 2017 10:49:30 PM | 20

@ PavewayIV with his Taco Tuesday Tin Foil Hat promotion in response to Charles R@7 comment about political parties

I am reminded of the movie "Being There" with Peter Sellers as Chauncy Gardner. Chauncy Gardner has spent enough of his life inside so that when forced out on the street he carries a TV remote control and tries to change the channel when the situation starts to get dicey......Unfortunately, I see most Americans responding like Chauncy Gardner and keep banging on their TV remotes hoping the reality they see changes.

Does Waco Wednesday follow Taco Tuesday? or are you staying with a food meme?

[Aug 20, 2017] Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise

Notable quotes:
"... The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.msn.com

Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise. The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.

The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.

By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr. Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the deadly violence needed to be amended.

Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr. Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.

"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr. Kelly.

[Aug 20, 2017] The Permanent Crisis

Notable quotes:
"... The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton is satisfied with the status quo, and uses identity politics as a veneer for economic policies that benefit Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and multinational corporations ..."
"... What we might call the party of Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is both more radical on questions of political correctness and identity and hostile to the established order. The party of Sanders wants radical change. Beginning with Medicare for all. ..."
"... What we have are four parties: The mainstream Republicans, the party of Trump, the mainstream Democrats, and the party of Sanders. ..."
"... White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's bizarre call to the editor of the liberal American Prospect ..."
"... But the effort is doomed to fail. In twenty-first century America culture and identity take precedence over economics, and it is in regards to culture and identity that the true break between left and right is found. ..."
"... metteur en scene ..."
"... The Benedict Option ..."
"... I feel the same way, redbrick. My patriotism has gradually dried up over the past 15 or so years. At this point, the US is the place where I live, nothing more. It's an administrative unit, not a nation. I love it in the same way I love the DMV or a utility service. ..."
"... As you get more towards the middle I think you find folks who are less urgent for big changes in either direction and who become less upset when policies swing away from their preferred position for a cycle or two. Yet they are more focused on competence, on keeping the trains running on time and on successfully passing to future generations the good that we already have. I suspect the Trump crazy train is bolstering this tendency. ..."
"... "And now Steve Bannon is gone. Don't think for a moment that is going to make any difference. " ..."
"... Ah, but it does make a difference. Bannon's presence was cause for mild hope that some part of Trump's populist agenda would be realized. ..."
"... Now it's clear that the coup / hijacking is well under way, with the usual vultures wrestling over the carcass. Meantime more immigration, more jobs for foreigners, bigger deficits, more wars, no "Wall", no infrastructure work, etc. ..."
"... Anyway, I think Trump is better off without Bannon with his sympathies to the alt right. (Unfortunately the alt right tendencies to go weird Zionist conspiracy theories is not helping.) ..."
"... It is a dangerous situation. I have often said I would prefer a clear feeling of victory for either side than this current "everyone loses" mentality. Currently, everyone is a rebel against the perceived mainstream, willing to see the rebels on the other side as the stormtroopers of the establishment. ..."
"... M_Young , says: August 18, 2017 at 11:23 pm ..."
"... Many here have come up with elaborate rational why a line can be drawn at removing the 'traitor' (untried, unconvicted, but hey, you know better than Grant) Robert E Lee. You believe other former heroes will remain unscathed. ..."
"... Well, today a statue of Saint Junipero Serra, pretty much founder of California, was vandalized as was an accompanying statue of a child. And lest you think that is all, there has already been a bill put forth in California to repeal and replace him as one of our state's representatives in the hall a statuary. ..."
"... http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/08/17/junipero-serra-statue-vandalized/ ..."
"... And a Columbus statue in Houston was vandalized. ..."
"... http://abc13.com/security-stepped-up-amid-statue-vandalism-protests/2320244/ ..."
"... You see, this isn't about you white liberals with your reasoned arguments (such as they are). It's about how [blacks, 'Hispanics', Asians, Amerinds] feel ..."
"... James Hartwick , says: August 19, 2017 at 12:33 am ..."
"... KevinS: As a university professor, I can attest that most of my colleagues are of "the left." I do not think any of them ever heard of Antifa before last week. I know I had not. ..."
"... I'm curious then about what you and your colleagues thought about the protests, say, at Berkeley last winter, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak? There was violence (fists and bricks thrown apparently) and fires were set. Who did you think was doing that kind of stuff? ..."
"... Also, while TAC doesn't seem to have had many articles about antifa (others have covered that topic more thoroughly), Rod did mention it back in January, when a masked antifa sucker punched white nationalist Richard Spencer on the street and The Nation's Natasha Lennard praised him . ..."
"... Hound of Ulster , says: August 19, 2017 at 4:33 am ..."
"... Sadly, the radicals have the biggest megaphones right now. The vast center-right to center-left middle has been silenced by numerous minor changes in media and politics. ..."
"... It should be noted that in any other Western democracy, Trump never would have won because of his popular vote defeat. He is only president because of the elitist quirk of the Electoral College. Which, in the height of historical irony, was created by the Founders to prevent figures like him (Caesar-type populist dictators) from coming to power. Oops. ..."
"... John , says: August 19, 2017 at 6:33 am ..."
"... It is impossible to stop a trend. Those who oppose it will be mowed down. ..."
"... The right extremist faction is a puny force. It is just a convenient punching bag for the left to justify its will to power as it continues gearing up for an all out war on civil society. The trashing of Washington, DC protesting the inauguration of Trump as President of the USA; Charlottesville, Gainesville, Boston of the currently planned free-speech rallies are but preliminary to the really major battles of violence sure to erupt during the 2018 midterm elections, then predictably culminating in even a larger wave of assaults during the 2020 presidential election campaign. ..."
"... The rumble may start even sooner, say, the next time Trump attempts to have one of his usual rallies at some midwestern venue. ..."
"... The trend favors the left not the right because the country at large has an ideologically radicalized and committed liberal base, (the mainstream press, -the cultural elite-, most especially the universities, and a secularized "religious" establishment (Protestants, Catholics, and Jews,etc.,) and the right does not. Black Lives, other racial and and gender issues are the weapons of choice of the Left. They are not the real issues. At the end these stake holders, useful idiots, will be worse off than before, lumped together with the other vanquished. Power is the only thing at stake. ..."
"... Hollywood has been anticipating the future in a number of futuristic scenarios which depict chaotic, lawless societies following conflicts of large-scale disruptions. There is evil in the air. And evil has gone mainstream for many decades now. The 20th-21rst centuries produced massacres of epic proportions: WW I-II, Cambodia, ISIS are some of the worst examples. I would include the evil of abortion among humanity's greatest tragedies as well. It is an organized program financed with public funds worldwide. It has desensitized the globe to accept killing as nothing else has done before. North Korea just boasted of its ability to annihilate millions of its sisters and brothers on the other side of the DMZ and more oversees. Islamists killing innocents is a daily happening. ..."
"... The U.S. Congress, both parties, and the President must get together to head off the coming widespread domestic violence. The President should call upon the leaders to gather for an emergency consultation. Instead of aiding and abetting the ANTIFA movement the Democratic Party leadership must publicly repudiate ANTIFA leadership, members, and its aims. Unless and until they do there will be no solution to the disorder that is now well underway. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Matthew Continetti has a good piece about the dynamics tearing the country apart politically. He begins by talking about how Trump is dividing is own party, as well as factions within the nation at large. And:

Making things more complicated is the fact that there are more than these two parties. Drutman also found divisions within the Democrats. "To the extent that the Democratic Party is divided, these divisions are more about faith in the political system and general disaffection than they are about issue positions." The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton is satisfied with the status quo, and uses identity politics as a veneer for economic policies that benefit Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and multinational corporations .

What we might call the party of Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is both more radical on questions of political correctness and identity and hostile to the established order. The party of Sanders wants radical change. Beginning with Medicare for all.

Recent events have brought to light the distinction between the party of Trump and the GOP. But it would be foolish for Democrats to believe that they are out of the woods, that America has settled, for the moment, on a three-party system. What we have are four parties: The mainstream Republicans, the party of Trump, the mainstream Democrats, and the party of Sanders.

White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's bizarre call to the editor of the liberal American Prospect magazine can be seen as a clumsy attempt to forge a new majority by rejecting the mainstream Republicans and aligning with the party of Sanders on trade, entitlements, and infrastructure spending.

But the effort is doomed to fail. In twenty-first century America culture and identity take precedence over economics, and it is in regards to culture and identity that the true break between left and right is found.

President Trump's isolation from the party whose nomination he wrested from insiders and scions is just part of a larger trend in American society and politics. The widening divisions within and between parties are symptoms of our fractured republic , of the unbundling, disaggregation, and dissociation of our communal lives. Mounting political violence, too, is a consequence of the polarization that estranges Americans from one another and turns every disagreement into an apocalyptic battle royal. Trump, McConnell, Pelosi, and Sanders are pulling the mystic cords of memory in four different directions. And they won't quit doing so. Until the cords snap.

It is striking how so many people are eager to exacerbate our divisions for political gain. As Continetti indicates, Steve Bannon has a theory that if he can get culture-war Democrats distracted by race, he can forge a new coalition. He told the liberal editor Robert Kuttner that it makes him happy to see all the fighting over statues, because in theory, it makes it possible for him to get done what he wants to get done. The best spin you can put on that is that it's breathtakingly cynical. But now we have this from the other side:

. @SpeakerRyan , it is time to immediately remove Confederate statues from the halls of Congress. https://t.co/twJ4MFOfgB pic.twitter.com/7Yx6p4JgCK

! Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) August 17, 2017

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

You do know, I trust, that in all the years that Nancy Pelosi was House speaker, she never said a peep about those abominable Confederate statues. But now she can energize her base with it, so here we are.

Trump will say or do something outrageous today that will ratchet up the tension. And then his enemies will respond in kind. It's all starting to bring to mind this passage from the contemporary German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, describing the Weimar Republic:

Theatricality appeared to be the common denominator of all manifestations of life – from Expressionism to Marlene Dietrich's spectacular legs in Blue Angel ; from the bloody comedy of Hitler's 1923 putsch to Brecht's Threepenny Opera ; from the impressive funeral of Rathenau to the calculated banditry of the Reichstag fire of 1933. The permanent crisis proved to be an excellent metteur en scene , one who knew how to direct quite a few memorable effects.

Another Sloterdijk passage, which to me suggests Trump and what he stands for:

Fatally, the term "barbarian" is the password that opens up the archives of the twentieth century. It refers to the despiser of achievement, the vandal, the status denier, the iconoclast, who refuses to acknowledge any ranking rules or hierarchy. Whoever wishes to understand the twentieth century must always keep the barbaric factor in view. Precisely in more recent modernity, it was and still is typical to allow an alliance between barbarism and success before a large audience, initially more in the form of insensitive imperialism, and today in the costumes of that invasive vulgarity which advances into virtually all areas through the vehicle of popular culture. That the barbaric position in twentieth-century Europe was even considered the way forward among the purveyors of high culture for a time, extending to a messianism of uneducatedness, indeed the utopia of a new beginning on the clean slate of ignorance, illustrates the extent of the civilizatory crisis this continent has gone through in the last century and a half – including the cultural revolution downwards, which runs through the twentieth century in our climes and casts its shadow ahead onto the twenty-first.

We have not yet seen a left-wing Trump, but we will. That's because Trump is far less a producer of this decadent culture than a product of the decadent culture. That's why I write in The Benedict Option that he is no cure for the disease, but rather a symptom of it.

For quite some time now we have had the performative malice of right-wing talk radio hosts, manipulating the emotions of their listeners for the sake of ratings and political success. ( John Derbyshire wrote well about this a few years ago, for TAC. ) Today we have Milo's campus cabaret. On the Left, we have had for years to deal with the operatic rituals of political correctness, which entered into a new, more hysterical stage in 2015. People on both sides are enjoying this hate. With shared standards abandoned, people are reverting to tribalism, one aspect of which is finding unity and purpose in rallying against a common enemy.

I suppose this is to be expected in a culture of emotivism, in which people come to think of truth as what feels good to them. We didn't become emotivists the day before yesterday. This has been building in our culture for decades, and it is a natural extension of a core quality of the American character: individualism. On both the Left and the Right, we exalt the individual and his preferences. We do this in our different ways, with emphases on different aspects of the individual. But we all do it. Identity politics is what you get when people cease to try to get outside of their heads, and strive to live by ideals of the common good, and instead limit their politics solely to what's good for them and their tribe. It is perfectly ordinary politics to contend for one's own interests, but what makes identity politics so toxic is that it distorts political reality by decontextualizing the individual. That is to say, we stop thinking about how we, and our kind, relate to the whole, and focus entirely on ourselves and our desires.

In fact, we have come to think of our desires as defining our own identities. The Left pushes this farthest, of course, as we can see with its dogmatic insistence that if someone claims to be a woman or a man, then they are, despite biology. We see this in the Left's obsession with race, sex, and gender categories. Sometimes it seems that the only people in this country as obsessed with whiteness as white nationalists is the campus Left.

But I think the identity politics curse affects all of us. To be an identitarian is to start statements with formulations like, "Speaking as a Latinx lesbian ," and to believe that assertion is the same thing as argument. To dispute them, they believe, is to deny their personhood. If that is true, then democracy is impossible.

I have never heard people on the Right talk in precisely those terms, but I have heard the same manner of thinking ! or rather, not thinking, emotion ! manifested often on the Right. It's as if we (whoever constitutes "we") are the only real people, and everybody else is an abstraction that keeps us from getting what we want. And make no mistake: for identitarians of the Left and the Right, what we want is what we deserve .

The center cannot hold, I fear. The forces tearing us apart are greater than the forces holding us together. Both Left and Right are going to snap the cords.

And now Steve Bannon is gone. Don't think for a moment that is going to make any difference.

... ... .. 67 Responses to The Permanent Crisis ← Older Comments

Mel Profit , says: August 19, 2017 at 10:05 am

Mr Cosimano has a point. Every time I leave the confines of American reality as filtered by media, I am struck by how normal and placid things and people seem. Flying somewhere, for example, you witness huge groups of people undergoing enormous frustration–from crowding, delays, or just the imperious incompetence of the airlines. And yet, the incidence of violence, or even speaking out, is remarkably rare. The same for peoples' behavior on subways, in traffic jams, at most public events. The occasional freakouts get all the attention, but if you spend enough time in crowded cities or other environments where humans are exposed to near-torturous incitement, the really amazing thing is not how much violence and lunacy there is, but given the circumstances how little.

Without doubt, this is Weimar Republic, and it probably cannot hold given the extreme deformations of the American elite, which as always defines the Zeitgeist through ownership of media, entertainment, and political propaganda. But the vast majority of Americans, in my experience, while dejected, disoriented and increasingly angry, are not appreciably different from the Americans of the 1950s. To a shocking degree, in day to day American life, normalcy still reigns.

As seems to be true of much history, the present West is both a very dark dark age and in other ways the most dazzling of golden ages.

Patrick , says: August 19, 2017 at 10:21 am
Eric Erickson is a public supporter of torture to gather intelligence. Now you may agree with that or not agree, but his moral preening (and most of the warmongering GOP) vis-a-vis Trump is nauseating to anyone who remembers the Bush years.

Hey, guys: y'all supported a war that killed thousands and screwed up all sorts of lives. I know it isn't rude Tweets or something, but please realize that Trump's supporters find you obnoxious hypocrites rather than merely obnoxious.

JonF , says: August 19, 2017 at 11:14 am
RE: It's difficult to imagine a person thinking its moving to the right. However, most liberals seem to genuinely believe it is.

Well, follow the money. Who has most benefited from the last forty years of so of government policy? It sure hasn't been the poor, the working people or the middle class.

Erdrick , says: August 19, 2017 at 1:15 pm

redbrick
August 18, 2017 at 4:46 pm

What will snap and what has snapped for people like me is that old warm patriotic feeling in the heart for this Nation.

I don't feel it loves me or has any interest in protecting my history or future. I and millions like me wont ever resort to political violence but we will secede in our hearts. No longer willing to die for this ruling class.

I feel the same way, redbrick. My patriotism has gradually dried up over the past 15 or so years. At this point, the US is the place where I live, nothing more. It's an administrative unit, not a nation. I love it in the same way I love the DMV or a utility service.

The left has been arguing for my entire life that new arrivals and illegals are more American than those of us who have been here for generations. They've convinced me. So now the new arrivals and illegals can take of things. There's no way I'd want my children to join the military, and I'm hard pressed to think of something that would inspire me to risk my life for the country. In any event, why would the country want some white-privileged, patriarchal, heteronormative, cis-gendered bigot like me defending it?

And on a different topic, I don't believe the people in these comments who claim they had never heard of Antifa until last weekend. Anyone who has paid any attention to European news at all in the past few decades has to have heard of them. They've been prominent for a long time. Either all of these commentators have been living under various rocks, or they're being dishonest.

Anne , says: August 19, 2017 at 1:35 pm
Unfortunately, Pence can't stay away from culture war divisiveness, because he's built his reputation on it, as have so many of his fellow Republicans who might otherwise be able to "heal the wounds" after the impeachment and/or resignation we all know is coming. The problem is, some 30+ years ago, Republicans bound themselves to issues that, by nature, don't yield to compromise, which means they've effectively ruled out any political resolution. Instead of "the art of the possible" or just Trump's art of the deal, politics has become an ongoing war, which some Republicans fully acknowledge yet most Democrats keep hoping will disappear once the Religious Right finally fades away as leftwing pundits predict it is doing after every presidential election cycle, including 2016. Trump's been called a lot of things, but "religious" was never one of them.

The problem is, once Republicans claimed God's will, Democrats had to claim something at least approaching that sort of high moral commitment, which became, in the case of abortion and related matters, a Woman's Right to Control Her Own Body, and some other equally non-negotiable values when the issue was something else. Since nobody compromises on absolutes, and yet compromise is what politics is all about, American politics has reached stalemate. Literally, metaphorically, we're not moving. The President might as well become an autocrat signing executive orders as Trump sees the role, because as a democratic leader he'll just be stymied and obstructed at every turn (witness Obama's experience from 2010 on).

No wonder no one's jumping to impeach Trump even with the many obstruction of justice possibilities he's provided. I don't think many believe it's safe to leave an undisciplined amateur loose around the nuclear codes, but taking the lead on Trump means cleaning up after, which requires politics as usual, and those people haven't done that in a looong time, and I don't think Republican pols even trust their uncompromising "base" to let them.

America has gone through crises far harder to manage than this, from Civil War and its aftermath to world wars and a global economic depression, not to mention the "cultural" upheavals of the 1960s and 70s that in many ways led to the self-inflicted wounds our political parties are going through right now. God himself has guided his people through religious conflicts far worse. The main problem facing America right now is a little different from all the great issues swirling through the world at large. Ours is a specifically political problem, an essential misunderstanding of what exactly democratic politics can or should do, which Americans being far more religious than we've ever given ourselves credit for being, tend to conflate with the Christian's vocation on earth, which is something else again. Ironically, if all we really expected of a President or our representatives in Washington was something as limited and parochial as Trump's so-called "art of the deal," we might at least be able to dial down some of this existential angst and doomsday talk about the end of civilization as we know it. Problem is these fears have allowed some of the more religious among us to elect an irreligious "pharoah" whose personal dealings have likely put him on the wrong side of the law. To deal with the real crisis this is bringing about, our politicians really need to get back to politics as usual, and the best thing religious people might do to facilitate that process would be to back off and stop conflating Caesar's business with God's.

bbkingfish , says: August 19, 2017 at 3:03 pm
How was the "mass assassination attempt" materially different than the attempts on Gabby Giffords, or Presidents Reagan, Ford, Kennedy, McKinley, Garfield, Lincoln, Roosevelt, or candidate Wallace (off the top of my head)? Seems to me that, in a nation of 500 million guns, with a gun policy that holds every man has the right to build his own arsenal, and openly carry any part of that arsenal on any trip to the local Walmart, or to his weekend white solidarity rally, that sort of stuff simply is going to happen every so often, and it has .even before Trump was President.

And can anyone tell me when was that time in our past that national politicians didn't try to spin current events to partisan advantage? I'd really like to know that, because it had to be before my lifetime, and I'm 68.

No. I think what's different today is the internet, where we find out instantly every travesty perpetrated by every nut in the world, and, within 15 minutes, a raftful of commentators compete to tell us what it all means, with the competition most vigorous at the outsides of the opinion continuum, where a sturm und drang sensibility grips both the left and right.

No offense meant, just my opinion.

Lllurker , says: August 19, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Eliavy: "His response when asked what he'll do if/when everything falls apart "

To some extent my point is that there will be no falling apart for your husband to worry about. Maybe a way to define "the center" is as it being the place for people who are far from either extreme, even though they happen to lean right or left. As you get more towards the middle I think you find folks who are less urgent for big changes in either direction and who become less upset when policies swing away from their preferred position for a cycle or two. Yet they are more focused on competence, on keeping the trains running on time and on successfully passing to future generations the good that we already have. I suspect the Trump crazy train is bolstering this tendency.

Time will tell but I doubt we'll be seeing any bomb-throwers emerging from the primaries in the near future. One won't be able to talk of things like deconstructing administrative states and win nominations"

The pollsters make a big deal out of the observation that there are fewer swing voters than there used to be. IMO this isn't a product of our country producing some new breed of human, it's because the sources filtering information to voters have become more fragmented and polemical, which allows politicians to cling to positions that they would have been forced to abandon in the past. Similar things have been happening overseas as well ! the starkest of course being Brexit ! but since that vote the trend hasn't continued as many predicted. Brexit rattled a lot of Europeans in the same way that I think Trump has rattled a lot of folks over here.

Incidentally I don't see us ever finding our way back to the media environment we once had but what we can begin to do is demand that our sources of information not lie to us. This current obsession with media bias has masked the widespread growth of media deceit, a far more destructive state of affairs than the bias problem ever was . IMO pushing back against that is the best way to create a strong bulwark against things ever "coming apart."

DRK , says: August 19, 2017 at 9:18 pm
M Young, both a Christopher Columbus statue and an MLK statue were vandalized Thursday night in Houston. So I guess it's about how white supremacists feel , too?

http://www.chron.com/houston/article/Reports-Christopher-Columbus-statue-vandalized-11883027.php#photo-13829974

St. Vitus Dancehall , says: August 19, 2017 at 11:57 pm

"And now Steve Bannon is gone. Don't think for a moment that is going to make any difference. "

Ah, but it does make a difference. Bannon's presence was cause for mild hope that some part of Trump's populist agenda would be realized.

Now it's clear that the coup / hijacking is well under way, with the usual vultures wrestling over the carcass. Meantime more immigration, more jobs for foreigners, bigger deficits, more wars, no "Wall", no infrastructure work, etc.

kitchen timer , says: August 20, 2017 at 12:22 am
What did "je suis Charlie Hebdo" mean?
JonF , says: August 20, 2017 at 7:46 am
Re: likes President Trump better than President Obama (because Trump thus far hasn't affected his life personally,

Question: How did Obama affect his life? Does your family purchase health insurance from the individual market?\

Re: He laughs at the idea of getting politically involved.

This is very much someone who is part of the problem, not the solution. And what I am seeing here is a classic "I got mine (screw you)" ethic. That is utterly reprehensible, and it goes a long way to explaining why we are in the situation we are.

Earl Uhtred , says: August 18, 2017 at 4:31 pm
White House chief strategist Steve Bannon's bizarre call to the editor of the liberal American Prospect magazine can be seen as a clumsy attempt to forge a new majority by rejecting the mainstream Republicans and aligning with the party of Sanders on trade, entitlements, and infrastructure spending.

For the record: a dubious proposition. The call was more likely either a fig leaf for Bannon's impending departure, an effort to distance the White House from the nastier white nationalists in Charlottesville, or both.

Michael , says: August 18, 2017 at 4:39 pm
I discovered a five hour long radio series that is essentially just a curated interview with Rene Girard about his work. His prescience grows every day. The Right scapegoats antifa, the Left scapegoats the Klan.

(Also, before anyone gets excited, the fact that Klan is a genuinely evil organization of terrorists with over a century of blood on their hands does not stop them from fitting the bill of a Girardian scapegoat. As in, I'm not saying they're getting a bad rap. Screw the Klan.)

[NFR: I've been thinking that we are headed for a Girardian moment with the president. May God spare us. Let the reader understand. ! RD]

redbrick , says: August 18, 2017 at 4:46 pm
"Both Left and Right are going to snap the cords."

It only tears if both Left and Right pull on the cord with equal strength.

The leaders of the American conservative movement are basically rich boomers. They have given in on gay marriage, given in on mass immigration, given in on civil war statues .and there is really not much besides tax cuts they wont eventually give in on.

These boomer Republican just wont to keep the status quo until they die rich in their nice neighborhoods.

There fore the cord will not snap .it will just keep pulling the center of the country to the Left.

What will snap and what has snapped for people like me is that old warm patriotic feeling in the heart for this Nation.

I don't feel it loves me or has any interest in protecting my history or future. I and millions like me wont ever resort to political violence but we will secede in our hearts. No longer willing to die for this ruling class.

There will be no civil war number 2 .but if some other outside massive economic collpase or military earthquake happened .well who knows.

People thought the Soviet Union would never fall in 1970 .20 years later it was in the trash heap of history.

Nate J , says: August 18, 2017 at 4:51 pm
I've defended Trump here before, but now I fear that without Bannon, we have Trump the showman without the (capital-P) Plan.

At least before I could believe that his brashness and intemperate demeanor were in service of some idea – a map towards economic nationalism and a repudiation of the stultifying political correctness that has gripped this age. Now who is running this spectacle? Jared? Ivanka? McMaster and his band of military-industrial globalists? Maybe he can replace Bannon with another Wall Street bandit insider?

Now, in Trump's defense, we cannot judge this until we see what fruit this bears. Perhaps Bannon can do more good working from the outside and perhaps Trump's commitment to the ideas that got him elected are genuine. My biggest fear at this point is that the military-industrial globalists in his ear will have all sorts of good ideas about how to get those poll numbers back up

Pseudonym , says: August 18, 2017 at 4:51 pm
Respectfully, Rod, drama queens in the media aren't helping things.

You were already blindsided by the disconnect between the media narrative of a nation in crisis over Charlottesville and the collective shrug revealed by opinion polls. You and your bubble buddies would do well to spend less time on Twitter and cable news and more time out talking with your neighbors. As, indeed, would we all.

yahtzee , says: August 18, 2017 at 4:56 pm
Are you really with Erick Erickson though? The problem with him, and the David Frums, and the Jonah Goldbergs, and the rest of the #NeverTrump conservatives is that they think once Trump is gone, they are going to slide back into power and everything is going to go back to the way it was. That's why the obsession with 3.5 years, and with constantly asserting that, "Trump has to step down after this latest of debacles."

It's like the people who kept saying, at the end of 2016, "I can't wait for this year to be over." Really?! Do you think that 2017 is going be *better*?

I think contra Erickson, the general argument of this blog (and even this post) is, "there's no going back," and "once Trump is gone, something worse will follow." That seems much more correct to me.

[NFR: I don't know Erickson's inner thoughts, but my sense reading this column of his is that he does not hope for any kind of restoration. I too believe that after Trump, worse will come (though I don't know what form or forms it will take). ! RD]

Khalid , says: August 18, 2017 at 4:58 pm
"In fact, we have come to think of our desires as defining our own identities. The Left pushes this farthest, of course, .."

Not sure. The right ( or parts of it) has been pushing the idea that our individual preferences or desires are all that count ( in its support for an economic system that emphasizes a hollow, formal notion of freedom). In fact, it's got worse since under the system the right has championed there's hardly concern with an enduring idea of the person: just ' constantly moving happiness machines' , really.

Rod, the opening chapter of Macintyre's new book has a brilliant discussion on desire.

David , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:02 pm
Well, golly, Rod. There's another way forward here, too. I think there's a plausible future in which:

1) Trump gets defenestrated via the 25th amendment;

2) Everyone takes a deep breath, and

3) President Pence behaves like a statesman ! the theme of his administration is to *actually bind up* the wounds that divide us. So, in addition to trying to address the unease and unrest of Trump's supporters, he stays away from culture-war nonsense of any stripe.

This last is probably the least likely link in this chain of events, which is unfortunate. Trump's removal would act as a safety valve through which the built-up rage and pressure on the left can slowly dissipate, but his successor has to avoid any actions that would build the pressure right back up.

Most obviously, this means no rollback of LGBT protections by executive order (and of course no ADVANCE of them, either ! call it a freeze-in-place). But it's not enough for Trump's successor to say he wants a ceasefire in the culture war. He has to have a positive agenda ! has to have talking points that emphasize good governance, common sense, and compromise.

And there's got to be follow-through, too. This means having legislative priorities like infrastructure and tax reform. And it means, in the end, trying to govern a bitterly divided country with relentlessly bland centrism *because that's what we need* right now ! slow, hard work to rebuild our trust that America *works*.

I mean, I don't think this is especially LIKELY. But part of the reason I say this is that everyone is breathing very rapidly into a paper bag right now, and talking about how we're almost at a breaking point.

Well, maybe we ARE on the precipice, but you know the nice thing about standing on the edge of a cliff? You can always choose to back away.

Hans , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Great column, even though I basically disagree with it. Love seeing references to Brecht in a column about modern America.

I straight up disagree with Continetti's skepticism that Bannon can't form a new coalition. I don't know if Bannon is the man to do it, but I actually think that that coalition will come together. Many on the left think that identitarianism is ridiculous. Many in the right think that white supremacy is abhorrent. Many immigrants think that an open door policy is insanity.

That centrist coalition is just waiting to be built. Maybe the first brick is the Supreme Court agreeing to hear a case on political (not racial) gerrymandering. That could be the first step is sidelining the extremists of both sides.

Cash , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:05 pm
Look the far right and far left matter only because the center is weak. There's no voice speaking for issues matter to ciyizens who are a bit to left and right of the center.

Even the Repub establishment, with its agenda of tax cuts for the rich, smaller govt and deregulation, is out of the step with the mass of the party. Voters want a govt that addresses their concerns. This is why Trump and Sanders did so well last year.

Alt-right, SJW, antifa, Freedom Caucus ! none matter if the two major parties regain their strength and relevance. That's the most important task before us. Repubs need to end the Hastert rule and starting reaching across the aisle to allies in the Dem party. We need to end partisan redistricting and have general elections feature the top two vote getters in the primary.

A moderate, centrist politics, with the extremists unable to gain traction is how this country revives democracy.

Ms , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:07 pm
I wish we would try to live with malice toward none, and charity toward all, and guided by the better angels of our nature. As was once said when we were torn apart before.
KevinS , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:07 pm
"But Antifa is as violent and loved by the left, or at least tolerated."

As a university professor, I can attest that most of my colleagues are of "the left." I do not think any of them ever heard of Antifa before last week. I know I had not. Not sure there was any reference to Antifa in TAC more than two weeks ago. It's hard to love a group one did not know even existed 300 hours ago.

Jeremy , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:08 pm
"The forces tearing us apart are greater than the forces holding us together."

Honest question, Rod. In your view, what is holding us together?

[NFR: At this point? Inertia, mostly. ! RD]

Ana Gorey , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Rod, thanks for the great Erikson piece. Have you seen the new Red State article "The Flight 103 Presidency" http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2017/08/17/flight-103-presidency/ It's worth a read.

Meanwhile, here in our quiet little East Bay town in northern CA, it appears that someone just vandalized the local Jewish temple. https://www.jweekly.com/2017/08/17/vandalism-temple-israel-alameda-windows-smashed/

And of course we are bracing for the protests coming to SF and Berkeley.

midtown , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:12 pm
I'll be honest: last night I went to the grocery store and, along with the usual groceries, I bought a goodly amount of canned goods for the express reason that there is a madness in the air, politically. Maybe nothing will happen almost certainly won't. But I don't want to put my family at any more risk than necessary if there is some sort of massive disruption in society.
Kent A Powell , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:18 pm
Mr. Dreher, This may come across as simplistic, however as a fellow Christian I will point out a few tenants that you may reflect on. Obviously your work causes you to take sides. As you know we are not to judge. Gods Commandments and Christs teachings show us how to live. It isn't easy and we all fall short.The Beatitudes were preached for all who believe. We all have idols and yet God loves us. Get back to the Word and stop flailing against the world. Thank you.
Ben H , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:25 pm
Don't get drawn into the panic. The mainstream media/instant internet culture thrive on the demand that we take action now, without reflection. It's the way they compel your compliance.

Political violence is always very bad, but let's be honest it is very low level. We are not seeing it break out all over. It's the same relatively isolated groups involved (or isolated loners obsessed with some aspect of the instant media culture). At this point it is being used by people blowing off steam, not as a threat to compel real political change.

Noah172 , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:26 pm
Nate J wrote:

I fear that without Bannon, we have Trump the showman without the (capital-P) Plan

Trump was running on a nationalist platform for a year before hiring Bannon. Bannon can still influence Trump in the media. For all we know Trump may continue converse directly with Bannon over the phone, and that Bannon's formal departure from the administration may be merely a means of appeasing Kelly, McMaster, Cohn, and other antagonists.

(Or Bannon may turn on Trump, or Trump on Bannon. We'll see.)

I am concerned what Bannon's departure means for Afghanistan, but even there, the President himself is a skeptic of the whole enterprise, which is why the escalation Mattis and McMaster want has been delayed.

Adamant , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:26 pm
'I have never heard people on the Right talk in precisely those terms, but I have heard the same manner of thinking ! or rather, not thinking, emotion ! manifested often on the Right.'

Sure you have. Simply turn on your radio right now and on any one of a number of stations, new vistas of identity politics are there for you to enjoy.

http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/country-music-openness-to-experience-and-the-psychology-of-culture-war

JonF , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:32 pm
Re: There fore the cord will not snap .it will just keep pulling the center of the country to the Left.

Huh? In what alternate reality has America been pulled leftward? On social issues– well, maybe– and really just on the gay stuff– public opinion on abortion has not budged significantly in my adult life.
Meanwhile economically we've been pulled right– hard right, at least insofar as such policies have benefited the 1% and their enablers in the upper middle class.

JZ , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:36 pm
This is not sustainable. Something is going to have to give. I do not know what, but something will give. The nation cannot sustain this constant state of chaos and crisis drift for three and a half more years. We will either see external or internal forces applied that will hurt the nation.

The idea that this can't last for 3.5 more years is simply not true. If you know anything of history you know that there have been much longer periods of time lived under much greater social stress. Yes, you can absolutely feel the pressure building. The principles that once bound us have been abandoned. Liquid modernity has seemingly unmoored everything we thought we knew. The elite are spectacularly corrupt. We seem to have no ability to confront national issues everyone knows exist. Populist anger is rising on all sides. The tide is certainly rising, yet we could very well go on like this for a very long time. However, once the wall has been breached, things could spin out of control very quickly.

People often compare our time to the Weimar Republic. I think a better German analogy is the Protestant Reformation/revolution. European society at the time was undergoing rapid change in the form of the Renaissance. Corruption of the elites – very much including but not limited to the clergy – had seemingly crystallized. Calls for reform of head and members of the Church went on unceasingly for decades with no urgency from the elites. Nationalism was rising in all corners. Enter the bombastic figure of Martin Luther. Much like Trump he was vulgar, hot temptered and completely unable to accept criticism without responding with a vitriol that would make Steve Bannon blush. He used the word papist much like Trump uses fake news. Most importantly he knew how to work the populist crowd and how to use the communications revolution of his day (the printing press) to speak directly to the people via countless pamphlets. The elites had both lost their credibility and were slow to respond.

Luther blasted through the walls holding Christendom together. Will Trump be the cannon ball shot through through the American system? It's impossible to know, but it's far from a sure thing. Christendom healed itself countless times before those fateful events of 500 years ago.

Roger H. , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:38 pm
"It's as if we (whoever constitutes "we") are the only real people, and everybody else is an abstraction that keeps us from getting what we want. And make no mistake: for identitarians of the Left and the Right, what we want is what we deserve."

It seems to me that everyone is becoming so confident in the righteousness of their anger that they are losing the ability to feel empathy for anyone else.

Ben H , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:43 pm
Trump is a drama queen but also a blowhard, and despite the efforts to manufacture panic and cynicism actually has a middle of the road agenda. His agenda is khaki not zubaz.

The danger is not Trump, the danger is the establishment response to Trump. He's one guy, they are many. He is an outsider, they consider 'our' government is theirs. He'll be gone one day, they will stay. They are trying to provoke a crisis in every way possible to discredit him. The real danger comes from inside the system because they will destroy rather than have it fall out of their hand (like one of those African dictators who refused to accept the outcome of an election).

The correct way to deal with Trump would be to bore him by routine and wait out the time until they can take over again and complete their final plan to sell us all as sex slaves to Arabs.

collin , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:53 pm
This is not sustainable. Something is going to have to give. I do not know what, but something will give.

I am sorry I see Erick Erickson as part of the problem saying Obama in 2014 "Hates America" and called "The Left ISIS." Right wing identity politics has been around for a good long while and went fairly wild during the Obama years.

In terms, it has gotten to point where the Left should follow the military and learn to ignore our President. Let him say what he wants to get attention while we withdraw from his nonsense and focus protesting on the right policy. (like Healthcare.)

Anyway, I think Trump is better off without Bannon with his sympathies to the alt right. (Unfortunately the alt right tendencies to go weird Zionist conspiracy theories is not helping.)

Bannon probably won Trump the election with Hillary "Evil In Her Heart!" Clinton campaign but he was ineffective (like Trump) at governing because the EVIL HRC had diminishing returns after November.

Charles Cosimano , says: August 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm
"People thought the Soviet Union would never fall in 1970 .20 years later it was in the trash heap of history." Actually by 1970 we knew the Soviet Union was going to fall. We just did not know when or by what mechanism. I would not worry too much. It's a big country and the bulk of the people are too busy enjoying summer to get very excited about any of this. It's like murders on the South Side of Chicago, something that gets on the news but really has no impact on your life.
Charles Cosimano , says: August 18, 2017 at 6:08 pm
I really like what JZ said. Remember, the Protestant Revolution was the best thing that happened to the west since Romulus looked at the Sabines and said, "Rome needs women!"

Following Luther, the West became more powerful than ever. Along with kicking the Papal elite from their pedestal and smashing their faces into the mud, the Turkish Menace was crushed, Western armies spread Western civilization across the world and western science has done unimaginable things.

We have stood upon the Moon and sent our message to the stars.

Good will come of this.

Deplorable Me , says: August 18, 2017 at 6:19 pm
I still say everything will remain relatively quiet as long as pro sports, college sports, and giant American vehicles are around. Don't forget, Rod, your job is monitoring this stuff, so it looms larger to you than to many of us. I would venture to say that at least half the people I know don't know what Antifa is.

That said, go ahead and stockpile water and canned goods. If all turns out well, you'll end up with a nice big donation to a food drive, and if all doesn't go well

I will start taking Antifa and the Nazi wanna-bes seriously when the ruling class does. So far, they have done little or nothing to stop or to encourage either side.

CharleyCarp , says: August 18, 2017 at 6:22 pm
I was wrong about Bannon yesterday ! was it only yesterday? ! so get your salt out.

I don't think we're necessarily headed for worse. The failure of Trump, of which there's much more to come, is more likely to be a cautionary tale on the Republican side. The question 'what have we got to lose' has been answered: anything worth having.

Is Gov Kasich the front-runner for 2020 right now? Why not?

On the Dem side, none of the contenders are going to be even close to the rails, much less off them. Here again, Trump is the cautionary tale: we were right about snake oil, so, what, we're going to try buying our own next time? Don't bet on it.

(IMO, it's a bad idea to try to predict Democratic positioning based on the utterances of people who (a) wouldn't be caught dead identifying as a Democrat and (b) don't vote anyway.)

Watch the red state Dem senators in 2018. Watch the Dem governors.

Brian Villanueva , says: August 18, 2017 at 6:43 pm
redbrick: "I don't feel it loves me or has any interest in protecting my history or future. I and millions like me wont ever resort to political violence but we will secede in our hearts. No longer willing to die for this ruling class."

This is one of the saddest comments I have heard recently from anyone left or right.

If a significant mass of hard-working, everyday people are so dis-spirited they believe their fellow Americans don't care about protecting their future, and give up on the idea of defending the idea of America, we're already finished.

The Left will congratulate itself as it carves up the pieces, paving the way for a new dictatorship.

I hope you're wrong, Rod. And redbrick, please don't lose hope completely.

Fran Macadam , says: August 18, 2017 at 7:09 pm
To blame Trump or think he's causing the decline, even if he is in some ways representative of it, is completely false. Trump was elected because the interests of the greedy staus quo elites no longer align with those of a huge swathe of the population. A Clinton victory would have merely been a delusion for the ruling class that even if not all is well, they had managed to put a lid on it and could continue, unsteady as she goes. There are the real philistines and barbarians, responsible for the Goldman Sacking of the Empire. And to a large degree, they are intentionally fomenting the chaos with their own brand of fake news, in the hopes to impose their unchallenged rule.

Bannon gone? Wonder who else is left who doesn't want to expand all the wars and fix domestic infrastructure.

Fran Macadam , says: August 18, 2017 at 7:11 pm
Trump as that "scoundrel" Luther? Gimme a break! It's definitely Weimar, with all the churches compromised. Attend an RC church in The Castro and see what I mean.
Joan , says: August 18, 2017 at 7:40 pm
What a nostalgia trip! Nothing like a forecast of societal collapse or civil war to send me right back to '69. Such forecasts got into print fairly regularly back then, including some by Marxists who salivated at the thought of literal, armed class war the way a certain strain of white supremacist salivates at the thought of race war. Nobody on any side predicted that the whole thing would simmer down by 1975.
Siarlys Jenkins , says: August 18, 2017 at 8:19 pm
The Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton is satisfied with the status quo, and uses identity politics as a veneer for economic policies that benefit Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and multinational corporations.

That's right on target, and it was the most disappointing thing about Barack Obama. Some of us Sanders voters would like just a select bit of Ron Paul grafted in. You know, the kind of commies who are also lifetime members of the NRA. (I'm not, but I've known some.) Actually I'm thinking more of bitter clingers who DID vote for Obama.

KingP , says: August 18, 2017 at 8:31 pm
It is also possible that much, if not all of the cultural angst detailed on this site is the result of a single phenomenon. Namely, a relatively affluent society where individuals can spend vast amounts of time online demanding validation for every single opinion, thought and whimsy without even the slightest twinge of humor or circumspection. Nothing done while angry usually amounts to anything constructive. Voting and tweeting especially.

Computer Mediated Paranoia is indeed a thing. Resist both it and the urge to stock canned goods. Unless they contain chili, pork n' beans and other items that you can utilize for a tailgate party during the upcoming college and pro football season. An event which will once again unite all Americans regardless of race, religion or creed.

Richard2 , says: August 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm
In the election of 2016 American voters hated both of the candidates of the major parties. Since both could not lose, Trump achieved victory by such a thin margin he lost the popular vote. This was perhaps a pity because Clinton may be closer to sane than Trump. But right now Democrats see a wonderful opportunity to take back control of Congress next year, and perhaps dump Trump in 2020.
JEinCA , says: August 18, 2017 at 8:33 pm
When the illiberal NeoBolshevik left gets the reigns of power you and I will be practicing your Benedict Option in a Gulag in Death Valley while our children are taught the joys of diversity and why they should hate their Christian parents in Reeducation camps with rainbow flags flying out front. The Revolution is not coming it is here. Arm yourselves and prepare to fight to for the Kingdom of God and for your children whom He gave you authority over and a duty to protect with your life.
LFM , says: August 18, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Only one thing to quote, here, again, as often as it has been quoted before, from the Sword of Honour trilogy by Evelyn Waugh; its appositeness may not be immediately apparent, but I think it will become so:

'"Is there any place that is free from evil? It is too simple to say that only the Nazis wanted war. These Communists wanted it too. It was the only way in which they could come to power. Many of my people wanted it, to be revenged on the Germans, to hasten the creation of the national state. It seems to me there was a will to war, a death wish, everywhere. Even good men thought their private honour would be satisfied by war. They could assert their manhood by killing and being killed. They would accept hardships in recompense for having been selfish and lazy. Danger justified privilege. I knew Italians-not very many perhaps-who felt this. Were there none in England?"

"God forgive me," said Guy. "I was one of them."'

All the buzzards are gathering around to grab at the corpses, watching with interested eyes.

KingP , says: August 18, 2017 at 8:54 pm
To clarify, we cannot worry that the Republic will be undone by loopy 80s b-grade pseudo-celebrity any more than we would believe that a guy who called himself "Barry" as as teenager and, by some accounts, had a pretty decent jumpshot, was/is the antichrist.

The founding fathers are surely not weeping, but are instead looking down/up/askance at us and chuckling a bit. The system was intentionally structured in a manner that did indeed allow for the election of an idiot in certain circumstances, and conversely, the removal of said idiot in due time. We will survive.

Bob Taylor , says: August 18, 2017 at 9:02 pm
JZ, your equating Trump with Luther is just inane at best. I would prefer not to believe you're truly that dishonest.

Luther was passionate for God, while Trump cares only about himself. Luther was a "man on fire," but Trump is as lifeless looking a human being as anyone I've ever seen. Luther was indeed vulgar, as the Lord Jesus could be, but Trump is vile.

Most important, Luther exalted the Bible as the Word of God, while Trump acknowledges only himself as a point of reference.

I never see anything from Protestants in these comments which comes close to equalling the animosity toward Catholics which Catholics direct so easily toward Protestants.

As well, Eastern Orthodox commenters are always respectful.

This is the most splenetic I've ever been in a comment on Rod's blogs, but I'm really tired of it.

Catholic theology holds that we Protestants are "separated brethren." Why don't you heed your theologians and stop insulting your brothers?

Sean Mitchell , says: August 18, 2017 at 9:22 pm
Pelosi wants the Confederate statues in the Capitol removed. That's just priceless! Why didn't she have them removed when she was Speaker of the House? If I'm Paul Ryan, I just say, "That's your problem Nancy – all of those Confederate statues are Democrats. You clean up your own mess."
Furor , says: August 18, 2017 at 10:01 pm
Again I ask – what mindset dominates on the Left? Is it constitutional democrats? Socialist Revolutionaries? Mensheviks? Bolsheviks? Do Bolsheviks in the end always win, because they lead the leftist reasoning to its rational conclusion, but it only takes them more time with the West than it did with Russia?

And what is the "alt-right" answer to this? Just white racism and a desire for a white ethno-state? Is there any common vision among counter-revolutionaries on what to do? Because the Left I think is very united by its usual vision – destruction and anti-culture

Lllurker , says: August 18, 2017 at 10:50 pm
RD: " I too believe that after Trump, worse will come (though I don't know what form or forms it will take)."

Rod forgive the snark but really, isn't that a pretty good summation of the Dreher Worldview? (I actually tried to put a "TM" after that like you do but couldn't figure out hie to do it.)

"The center cannot hold, I fear. The forces tearing us apart are greater than the forces holding us together. Both Left and Right are going to snap the cords."

I would challenge that this way: how much do you really know about the center? The people in the center? Because that's what we're really talking about here, millions and millions of moderate and decent American people. Hundreds of millions actually. And they haven't gone anywhere. But what has happened to them is that they've been shellshocked by this Trump mess. In fact most are probably still in denial that this has happened to this great country.

What this Trump scare likely portends for the future is a frustratingly long run of moderate voting, eventually begetting lots and lots of moderate politicians. The pendulum always swings back.

Lllurker , says: August 18, 2017 at 11:07 pm
I lost track of who mentioned it above but I agree that the so-called Hastert Rule really does need to go.

When the founders initially set everything up they just had no way of foreseeing how destructive party politics could become.

Optatus Cleary , says: August 18, 2017 at 11:23 pm
"Huh? In what alternate reality has America been pulled leftward?"

This is what I view as the biggest problem in America today. We all believe we're losing. I, and most conservatives I know, genuinely feel that the country is moving ever leftwards. It's difficult to imagine a person thinking its moving to the right. However, most liberals seem to genuinely believe it is.

I think that part of it is that we tend to see the other side as monolithic (ignoring the differences between Obama and the radical left, or between a Marco Rubio type and Donald Trump). We also tend to focus on the areas where we don't get our way. Also, we tend to overemphasize the importance to our opponents of their own victories.

It is a dangerous situation. I have often said I would prefer a clear feeling of victory for either side than this current "everyone loses" mentality. Currently, everyone is a rebel against the perceived mainstream, willing to see the rebels on the other side as the stormtroopers of the establishment.

M_Young , says: August 18, 2017 at 11:23 pm
Many here have come up with elaborate rational why a line can be drawn at removing the 'traitor' (untried, unconvicted, but hey, you know better than Grant) Robert E Lee. You believe other former heroes will remain unscathed.

Well, today a statue of Saint Junipero Serra, pretty much founder of California, was vandalized as was an accompanying statue of a child. And lest you think that is all, there has already been a bill put forth in California to repeal and replace him as one of our state's representatives in the hall a statuary.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/08/17/junipero-serra-statue-vandalized/

And a Columbus statue in Houston was vandalized.

http://abc13.com/security-stepped-up-amid-statue-vandalism-protests/2320244/

You see, this isn't about you white liberals with your reasoned arguments (such as they are). It's about how [blacks, 'Hispanics', Asians, Amerinds] feel

James Hartwick , says: August 19, 2017 at 12:33 am
KevinS:
As a university professor, I can attest that most of my colleagues are of "the left." I do not think any of them ever heard of Antifa before last week. I know I had not.

I'm curious then about what you and your colleagues thought about the protests, say, at Berkeley last winter, when Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak? There was violence (fists and bricks thrown apparently) and fires were set. Who did you think was doing that kind of stuff?

Also, while TAC doesn't seem to have had many articles about antifa (others have covered that topic more thoroughly), Rod did mention it back in January, when a masked antifa sucker punched white nationalist Richard Spencer on the street and The Nation's Natasha Lennard praised him .

Hound of Ulster , says: August 19, 2017 at 4:33 am
Sadly, the radicals have the biggest megaphones right now. The vast center-right to center-left middle has been silenced by numerous minor changes in media and politics.

It should be noted that in any other Western democracy, Trump never would have won because of his popular vote defeat. He is only president because of the elitist quirk of the Electoral College. Which, in the height of historical irony, was created by the Founders to prevent figures like him (Caesar-type populist dictators) from coming to power. Oops.

John , says: August 19, 2017 at 6:33 am
It is impossible to stop a trend. Those who oppose it will be mowed down.

The right extremist faction is a puny force. It is just a convenient punching bag for the left to justify its will to power as it continues gearing up for an all out war on civil society. The trashing of Washington, DC protesting the inauguration of Trump as President of the USA; Charlottesville, Gainesville, Boston of the currently planned free-speech rallies are but preliminary to the really major battles of violence sure to erupt during the 2018 midterm elections, then predictably culminating in even a larger wave of assaults during the 2020 presidential election campaign.

The rumble may start even sooner, say, the next time Trump attempts to have one of his usual rallies at some midwestern venue.

The trend favors the left not the right because the country at large has an ideologically radicalized and committed liberal base, (the mainstream press, -the cultural elite-, most especially the universities, and a secularized "religious" establishment (Protestants, Catholics, and Jews,etc.,) and the right does not. Black Lives, other racial and and gender issues are the weapons of choice of the Left. They are not the real issues. At the end these stake holders, useful idiots, will be worse off than before, lumped together with the other vanquished. Power is the only thing at stake.

Hollywood has been anticipating the future in a number of futuristic scenarios which depict chaotic, lawless societies following conflicts of large-scale disruptions. There is evil in the air. And evil has gone mainstream for many decades now. The 20th-21rst centuries produced massacres of epic proportions: WW I-II, Cambodia, ISIS are some of the worst examples. I would include the evil of abortion among humanity's greatest tragedies as well. It is an organized program financed with public funds worldwide. It has desensitized the globe to accept killing as nothing else has done before. North Korea just boasted of its ability to annihilate millions of its sisters and brothers on the other side of the DMZ and more oversees. Islamists killing innocents is a daily happening.

The U.S. Congress, both parties, and the President must get together to head off the coming widespread domestic violence. The President should call upon the leaders to gather for an emergency consultation. Instead of aiding and abetting the ANTIFA movement the Democratic Party leadership must publicly repudiate ANTIFA leadership, members, and its aims. Unless and until they do there will be no solution to the disorder that is now well underway.

[Aug 20, 2017] The chattering political classes have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. They use identity politics to discredit his base.

The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

doug , 17 August 2017 at 04:54 PM

The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies are increasingly uncertain of their future.

The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch. Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are no longer so constrained.

It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats.

Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.

So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans to go along.

The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.

In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.

turcopolier , 17 August 2017 at 05:19 PM
kerim,

Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.

There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.

That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win" Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl

Tyler , 17 August 2017 at 05:30 PM
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
Murali -> LeeG... , 17 August 2017 at 05:38 PM
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person).

I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with Hope!

AK -> Dr.Puck... , 17 August 2017 at 06:27 PM
Dr. Puck,

The calls have begun:

That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely find more.

BillWade , 17 August 2017 at 06:47 PM
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently.

I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others, no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of a different way to prepare for the future.

A.I.Schmelzer , 17 August 2017 at 07:20 PM
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...

I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts.

But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor.

As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically. There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land. This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.

That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.

As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a 100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.

I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings, I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue. Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.

Haralambos -> turcopolier ... , 17 August 2017 at 07:29 PM
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot. I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness. I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the Reconstruction and carpetbagging.

I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking up their case in regard to free-speech: http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz

I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.

Fred -> Lars... , 17 August 2017 at 07:36 PM
Lars,

"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."

I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.

They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary: Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Seamus Padraig -> Dr.Puck... , 17 August 2017 at 07:40 PM
"I know of no call by anybody to remove all statues of the slaveholders. Please edify."

Well, it appears that Al Sharpton is now in favor of defunding the Jefferson Memorial. That's close, isn't it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4XKIX1bs4&feature=youtu.be&t=5

VietnamVet , 17 August 2017 at 08:32 PM
PT

The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.

On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election.

The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.

The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening.

James , 17 August 2017 at 09:32 PM
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.

I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist (or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.

Jack , 17 August 2017 at 09:56 PM
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow, Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.

What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving.

Cvillereader -> turcopolier ... , 17 August 2017 at 10:17 PM
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public settings.

LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for mental health evaluation.

This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.

luxetveritas , 17 August 2017 at 10:45 PM
Chomsky: "As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."

"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally self-destructive."

"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."

Bill H , 18 August 2017 at 02:02 AM
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault.

There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.

CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did, "they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.

The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election.

Old Microbiologist -> Lars... , 18 August 2017 at 03:53 AM
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which were violent and this response was no different.

However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.

So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left. I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others, are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.

AK -> Richardstevenhack ... , 18 August 2017 at 04:02 AM
Richardstevenshack,

Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:

" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others. It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head who have something you want. "

First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms, this is the ethos driving the radical Left.

Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization" is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.

Old Microbiologist -> FourthAndLong... , 18 August 2017 at 04:12 AM
Not as significant but along a similar trend to re-write history is this pastor asking Chicago mayor Emmanuel to rename parks named for Presidents because they were also slave owners. http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/08/inevitable-chicago-pastor-demands-washington-name-be-removed-from-park-because-of-slavery-ties/
AK -> Tyler... , 18 August 2017 at 04:33 AM
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would do well to take their warnings seriously.

If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.

You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep at night.

If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating, and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail, you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty, and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win, and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen. It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.

The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate burning it all down.

johnklis56@gmail.com -> rick... , 18 August 2017 at 07:19 AM
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as "a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor said:

As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while the decision may not be mine to make...

It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course, the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky, are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant racial ideology, symbols, and flags.

Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side, is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free world.

Just a few I've seen....

James F , 18 August 2017 at 07:29 AM
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/ . That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which followed it. That is tragic.
Ishmael Zechariah -> Dr.Puck... , 18 August 2017 at 08:14 AM
Dr. Puck,
Do you agree w/ this elected representative's statement: ""I hope Trump is assassinated!" Missouri state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, wrote during a morning Facebook exchange, referring to Republican President Donald Trump."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/chappelle-nadal-posts-deletes-facebook-post-hoping-for-trump-s/article_406059d6-1aa4-52fc-89ee-2a6a69baaf2e.html
Ishmael Zechariah
Kooshy -> Richardstevenhack ... , 18 August 2017 at 09:21 AM
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump' presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him, possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of to be same.
Croesus -> doug... , 18 August 2017 at 09:52 AM
Netanyahu is under pressure for failing to speak out forcefully against Trump

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/benjamin-netanyahu-resists-calls-to-denounce-trumps-response-to-charlottesville/

Bibi has keen political skills. He hasn't lasted this long based on his mastery of judo.

Fred -> James F... , 18 August 2017 at 10:03 AM
James F,

" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."

That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states, especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.

TV , 18 August 2017 at 10:18 AM
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans, especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government), Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
blowback , 18 August 2017 at 10:33 AM
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.

https://newrepublic.com/article/144365/cops-dropped-ball-charlottesville

The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.

doug -> Tyler... , 18 August 2017 at 10:40 AM
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."

Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by "teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."

These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality, exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.

turcopolier , 18 August 2017 at 10:45 AM
Booby

Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1 and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the South knows the cost of war." pl

ISL , 18 August 2017 at 10:53 AM
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).

But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?

When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their filth with facts and arguments and history.

I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back, is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his own mental echo chamber).

If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.

sid_finster , 18 August 2017 at 11:29 AM
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness.

But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.

[Aug 20, 2017] I believe you are onto something when you suggest that the US is becoming a state ruled by corporations.

Notable quotes:
"... The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system: http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Krollchem | Aug 20, 2017 1:12:08 PM | 123

james @121

I believe you are onto something when you suggest that the US is becoming a state ruled by corporations. In contrast, both Fascism and national socialism directed corporations to meet state end: "Difference Between Fascism and Nazism"
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/

  1. Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological concept of the Nazi Party.
  2. For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasized on racism.
  3. While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered 'Aryanism' as more important."

The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system:
http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html

Cannot wait for football season to arrive so we can go back to the regularly scheduled sports "programming"(go seahawks. sic).

[Aug 20, 2017] Documents reveal Italian dictator got start in politics in 1917 with help of 100 weekly wage from MI5

Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Just Sayin' | Aug 20, 2017 5:05:05 PM | 142

104
Don't spread fake news.

This is Mussolini in his own words.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20, 2017 9:53:57 AM | 106

The pot calling the Kettle . . . . , once again

Recruited by MI5: Benito Mussolini
Documents reveal Italian dictator got start in politics in 1917 with help of £100 weekly wage from MI5

[Aug 20, 2017] Fascism denies, in democracy, the absurd conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress...

Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: somebody | Aug 19, 2017 9:53:06 AM | 22

Whatever you are smoking certainly looks like great stuff.

Posted by: Temporarily Sane | Aug 20, 2017 3:20:34 AM | 94

Bravo.

Let's add the US is certainly a fascist country, but that is nothing new. Fascism, as defined by its inventor Benito Mussolini, is characterized by the protection of private assets/corporations by the power apparatus of the state, in particular the military and police.

If there is a better definition of the United States, I'd love to hear it. And it's been like that from day one.

Posted by: Lea | Aug 20, 2017 9:37:16 AM | 104

Anon | Aug 20, 2017 9:53:40 AM | 105

CNN Smears Again! Don Lemon Implies Breitbart Platform for Nazis
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/08/19/cnn-smears-again-don-lemon-implies-breitbart-platform-for-nazis/

See the pattern - everyone is a "nazi" these days according to the liberal MSM that of course have the "correct" news, worldview.

somebody | Aug 20, 2017 9:53:57 AM | 106
104
Don't spread fake news.

This is Mussolini in his own words .

War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death ... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society... ... After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....

...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress...

fast freddy | Aug 20, 2017 10:01:39 AM | 107
Fascism is collusion between government and big business. Pay to play.

Get elected, get paid. Accept the payola and serve big business at the expense of your constituents. IF you don't play, you won't get re-elected.

If you intend, with pure motives like Mr. Smith, to go in and clean it up, you will be out on your ass after one miserable term. And nobody will sit with you in the lunch room.

Fascism is the American Way.

fast freddy | Aug 20, 2017 10:01:39 AM | 107 somebody | Aug 20, 2017 10:35:48 AM | 108
107

Of course you can make up your own definition of fascism but don't expect fascists to agree.

Fascists don't worry about reelection. They only have to come to power once.

fast freddy | Aug 20, 2017 11:05:13 AM | 112
While the state must carry huge incidental expenses, the big capitalists themselves have to stand a certain number: "voluntary contributions" extorted by the party and its "welfare" undertakings; various subscriptions; "graft" and seats on the boards of directors of big companies for the "upper crust" of the fascist leaders, etc. But these incidental expenses, the importance of which must not be exaggerated, are less annoying to big business than the demagogic agitation indulged in by the fascist plebeians – agitation which, despite purges and repressions, periodically reappears, though within constantly narrower limits.

Again, while big business approves of an aggressive policy that brings it new armament orders, it is afraid lest the fascist leaders, in seeking a diversion from the wretchedness of the people, provoke a premature war which will result in the isolation of the country and its defeat. It is especially significant that in the autumn of 1935 it was the fascist leaders, Farinacci, Rossoni, and others, who urged Mussolini into conflict with England.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/guerin/1938/10/fascism.htm

somebody | Aug 20, 2017 11:06:56 AM | 113
110 - the definition is pretty simple

Definition of fascism

1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Piotr Berman | Aug 20, 2017 11:07:10 AM | 114
"Fascism is collusion between government and big business. Pay to play."

Given that power allows to control resources, it allows to get money or whatever resource control exists (e.g. land estates in feudalism), so political systems have components of "power gives money" and "money gives power" in varying proportions. Fascism has some equilibrium of the two, but to define it as a special variety of government you need to list more features.

I guess that in the context like USA you can point to vilification used as a tool of public manipulation as a "fascist feature". True, IMHO, but that feature is invented by "fascism proper", it is fascistic in terms of being a malicious power technique. However, it lacks a catchy name. Should it be called "fascism"? That would be ironic, because that would be using vilification to eliminate vilification. It also leads to the type of discourse in which mere volume wins, and this is one of mechanisms of converting money to power.

smuks | Aug 20, 2017 11:23:12 AM | 115
@From The Hague 102

Realizing changes everything - in the longer run at least.
Democracy gave us World Wars? lol, you serious?

@somebody 103

Which comes down to the same imo, since regulation reduces volatility and other ways of making illicit profits.

@Lea, fast freddy

That's not 'fascism', it's rather capitalism controlling the state, or trying to.

There are several valid ways to define 'fascism' afaict.
One calls it 'the rule of the most reactionary, most chauvinist parts of financial capital', another says it's 'an ideology which defines certain groups of people as 'inferior' and denies them the most basic rights, even the right to exist' (from memory, not exact wording).
I would argue that both are complementary rather than contradictory.

@Piotr Berman 109

How about we replace it with a (mostly decentralized) democratic organization of the economy, with 'money'/ investment capital as a public good that does not require any yield?
:-)

From The Hague | Aug 20, 2017 11:36:16 AM | 116
113 somebody

Too simple for somebody with the name George Orwell

https://faculty.washington.edu/rsoder/EDLPS579/HonorsOrwellPoliticsEnglishLanguage.pdf

115 smuks

How about we replace it with a (mostly decentralized) democratic organization of the economy, with 'money'/ investment capital as a public good that does not require any yield?

Political language ! and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists ! is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

psychohistorian | Aug 20, 2017 11:54:02 AM | 118
@ From The Hague who wrote: "But China is a working model for a more complex economy."

Exactly! China has planned and executed 12-13 5-year plans, reduced poverty immensely and yet all we hear in the West besides crickets about the situation is TINA!!!!!!!!!

I read all this commenting about fascism but no link to a compelling definition

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt

james | Aug 20, 2017 12:49:30 PM | 121
116

This here is Orwell in 1944

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one ! not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

Orwell's problem is that thinking one race superior to the other would have applied to the colonialist British conservatives of his time (and the United States) and authoritarian rule and anti-individualism to Stalin.

In 2017 Merriam Websters definition is valid

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader.

British and US political systems were about the individual and never autocratic, whilst the Soviet Union emphasized class, not nation or race.

117
You are spreading fake news.

President Obama speaks at Dallas shooting memorial service

Posted by: somebody | Aug 20, 2017 12:41:43 PM | 120

how about coming up with some new terms???

i thought corporatism was good... it seems to capture a lot of what is going on in the west today where corporations control politicians, especially the big ones i have mentioned previously - exxon, goldman sachs, and the military builders/contractors... aren't those the ones inside of every friggin' ''''new'''' usa gov't that comes along?

Krollchem | Aug 20, 2017 1:12:08 PM | 123
james @121

I believe you are onto something when you suggest that the US is becoming a state ruled by corporations. In contrast, both Fascism and national socialism directed corporations to meet state end: "Difference Between Fascism and Nazism"
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism/

"1.Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under Mussolini. Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological concept of the Nazi Party.
2.For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasized on racism.
3.While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered 'Aryanism' as more important."

The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system:
http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html

Cannot wait for football season to arrive so we can go back to the regularly scheduled sports "programming"(go seahawks. sic).

[Aug 20, 2017] The Saker

Although he speaks about the USA being occupied, looks like Saker does not understand that that the US empire is actually a global neoliberal empire where multinationals and financial oligarchy have political control. And without a viable alternative it probably will not collapse, as any collapse presuppose the withdrawal of support. The necessary level of isolation is possible only if a an alternative is present
Now like in befor the World War Ii there is struggle for "spheres of influence", in which the USA is gradually losing as both Germany and Japan restored their industrial potential and China is a new powerful player on the world scene, which now is allied with Russia with its formidable nuclear deterrent that now anti-missile defense can neutralize"
Also the USA venture into Ukraine means the completion of revision of the results of WWII, which opened a new can of worms for the USA making Russia essentially a hostile power (which neocon admit and try to exploit via the current neo-McCarthism witch hunt)
Notable quotes:
"... In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. ..."
"... And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse. ..."
"... Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised "fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. ..."
"... This bizarre, and illegal, form of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor, or both. ..."
"... Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia . ..."
"... I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population. ..."
"... just imagine the reaction in South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by missiles! ..."
"... when the cat is gone, the mice dance ..."
"... The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ..."
"... Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays, a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving, but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe, by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course. ..."
"... No wonder that when so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration of war. ..."
"... vide supra. ..."
"... Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake. First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they are using to control and run this country. ..."
"... What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social, the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades, the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States. ..."
"... And if Obama was probably the most incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office. As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more. The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense, political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary. ..."
"... The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal. As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different ways. ..."
"... This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially devastating consequences for everybody. ..."
"... This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?! ..."
"... My biggest hope with Trump was that he would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US. Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically), the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle ways! ..."
"... my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office, either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him insane and unfit to be the President). ..."
"... The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice. ..."
"... Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from something which worked so well the first time around?!). ..."
"... in 1991 when the US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then this was all quickly forgotten ..."
"... There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

First, my writing on the wall

In October of last year a wrote an analysis I entitled The USA are about to face the worst crisis of their history and how Putin's example might inspire Trump and I think that this is a good time to revisit it now. I began the analysis by looking at the calamities which would befall the United States if Hillary was elected. Since this did not happen (thank God!), we can safely ignore that part and look at my prediction of what would happen if Trump was elected. Here is what I wrote:

Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid " crazies in the basement "? Consider the vicious hate campaign which all these "personalities" (from actors, to politicians to reporters) have unleashed against Trump – they have burned their bridges, they know that they will lose it all if Trump wins (and, if he proves to be an easy pushover his election will make no difference anyway). The Neocons have nothing to lose and they will fight to the very last one. What could Trump possibly do to get anything done if he is surrounded by Neocons and their agents of influence? Bring in an entirely different team? How is he going to vet them? His first choice was to take Pence as a VP – a disaster (he is already sabotaging Trump on Syria and the elections outcome). I *dread* the hear whom Trump will appoint as a White House Chief of Staff as I am afraid that just to appease the Neocons he will appoint some new version of the infamous Rahm Emanuel And should Trump prove that he has both principles and courage, the Neocons can always "Dallas" him and replace him with Pence. Et voilà !

I went on to suggest that Trump's only option would be to follow Putin's example and do the the Neocons what Putin did to the oligarchs. Clearly that did not happen. In fact, one month after the election of Trump I wrote another analysis entitled " The Neocons and the "deep state" have neutered the Trump Presidency, it's over folks! ".

Less than a month ago I warned that a 'color revolution ' was taking place in the USA . My first element of proof was the so-called "investigation" which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President Trump's candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Tonight, the plot to get rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and General Flynn had to offer his resignation . Trump accepted it. Now let's immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not. However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump's national security policy . ( ) The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador. And Trump accepted this resignation. Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. But now Trump has betrayed us all. Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed him. The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be . Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again. It's over, folks, the deep state has won.

I then concluded that the consequences of this victory would catastrophic for the United States:

In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse.

I think that what we are seeing today are the first signs of the impending collapse.

The symptoms of the agony

Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised "fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. While this makes for good headlines, this does not qualify as a "policy" of any kind (I discussed this issue at length during my recent interview with SouthFront ). And then there is Congress which has basically stripped Trump from his powers to conduct foreign policy . This bizarre, and illegal, form of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor, or both. Internally, the latest riots in Charlottesville now being blamed on Trump who, after being a Putin agent is now further demonized as some kind of Nazi (see Paul Craig Roberts' first and second warnings about this dynamic) Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia .

I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population.

The psychological preparation for the forthcoming coup: scaring them all to death Here are three very telling examples taken from Newsweek's front page:

... ... ...

Ask yourself, what is the message here? Trump is a traitor, he works for Putin, Putin wants to destroy democracy in the United States and these two men together are the most dangerous men on the planet . This is a " plot against America ", no less! Not bad, right? "They" are clearly out there go get "us" and "we" are all in terrible danger: Kim Jong-un is about to declare nuclear war on the US, Xi and Putin are threatening the world with their armies, and "our" own President came to power courtesy of the "Russian KGB" and "Putin's hackers", he now works for the Russians, he is also clearly a Nazi, a White supremacist, a racist and, possibly, a " new Hitler " ( as is Putin , of course!).

And then, there are those truly scary Mooslims and Aye-rabs who apparently want only two things in life: destroy "our way of life" and kill all the "infidels". This is why we need the TSA, 16 intelligence agencies and militarized police SWAT teams everywhere: in case the terrorists come to get us where we live.

Dangerous international consequences

This would all be rather funny if it was not also extremely dangerous. For one thing, the US is really poking at a dangerous foe when it constantly tries to scare Kim Jong-un and the DPRK leadership. No, not because of the North Korean nukes (which are probably not real nuclear capable ICBMs but a not necessarily compatible combination of nuclear 'devices' and intermediate range ballistic missiles) but because of the huge and hard to destroy conventional North Korean military. The real threat are not missiles, but a deadly combination of conventional artillery and special forces which present very little danger to the US or the US military, but which present a huge threat for the population of Seoul and the northern section of South Korea. Nukes, in whatever form, are really only an added problem, a toxic "icing" on an already very dangerous 'conventional cake'.

[Sidebar - a real life nightmare : Now, if you *really* want to terrify yourself and stay awake all night then consider the following. While I personally believe that Kim Jong-un is not insane and that the main objective of the North Korean leadership is to avoid a war at all costs, what if I am wrong? What if those who say that the North Korean leaders are totally insane are right? Or, which I think is much more likely, what if Kim Jong-un and the North Korean leaders came to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose, that the Americans are going to kill them all, along with their families and friends? What could they, in theory, do if truly desperate? Well, let me tell you: forget about Guam; think Tokyo! Indeed, while the DPRK could devastate Seoul with old fashioned artillery systems, DPRK missiles are probably capable of striking Tokyo or the Keihanshin region encompassing Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe including the key industries of the Hanshin Industrial Region . The Greater Tokyo area (Kanto region) and the Keihanshin region are very densely populated (37 and 20 million people respectively) and contain an immense number of industries, many of which would produce an ecological disaster of immense proportions if hit by missiles. Not only that, but a strike on the key economic and financial nodes of Japan would probably result in a 9-11 kind of international economic collapse. So if the North Koreans wanted to really, really hurt the Americans what they could do is strike Seoul, and key cities in Japan resulting in a huge political crisis for the entire planet. During the Cold War we used to study the consequences of a Soviet strike against Japan and the conclusion was always the same: Japan cannot afford a war of any kind. The Japanese landmass is too small, too densely populated, to rich in lucrative targets and a war lay waste to the entire country. This is still true today, only more so. And just imagine the reaction in South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by missiles! The South Koreans have already made their position unambiguously clear , by the way. As for the Japanese, they are officially placing their hopes in missiles (as if technology could mitigate the consequences of insanity!). So yeah, the DPRK is plenty dangerous and pushing them into their last resort is totally irresponsible indeed, nukes or no nukes]

What we are observing now is positive feedback loop in which each move by the Neocons results in a deeper and deeper destabilization of the entire system. Needless to say, this is extremely dangerous and can only result in an eventual catastrophe/collapse. In fact, the signs that the US is totally losing control are already all over the place, here are just a few headlines to illustrate this:

Iran could quit nuclear deal in 'hours' if new U.S. sanctions imposed: Rouhani Israel: Netanyahu declares support for a Kurdish state Syrian forces take 3 more towns en route to Deir ez-Zor in first airborne operation Maduro calls for nationwide 'anti-imperialist' drills after Trump's threat of 'military option' Soldiers of the 201st (Russian) base in Tadjikistan have been put on high alert as part of a military exercise Confirmed: Turkey to end support for anti-government terrorists in Syria Russia Plans Huge Zapad 2017 Military Exercises With Belarus

A French expression goes " when the cat is gone, the mice dance ", and this is exactly what is happening now: the US is both very weak and basically absent. As for the Armenians, they say " The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ". Well, the "mice" of the world are dancing and dreaming and simply ignoring the "cat". Every move the cat makes only makes things worse for him. The world is moving on, while the cat is busy destroying himself.

Dangerous domestic consequences

First on my list would be race riots. In fact, they are already happening all over the United States, but they are rarely presented as such. And I am not talking about the "official" riots of Black Lives Matter, which are bad enough, I am talking about the many mini-riots which the official media is systematically trying to obfuscate. Those interested in this topic should read the book here ). The simple truth is that no regime can survive for too long when it proactively supports the exact opposite of what it officially is supposed to stand for. The result? I have yet to meet an adult American who would sincerely believe that he/she lives in the "land of the free and the home of the brave". Maybe infants still buy this stuff, but even teenagers know that this is a load of bull.

Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays, a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving, but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe, by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course.

Combine all this and you get a potentially extremely explosive situation. No wonder that when so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration of war.

And how do the Neocons plan to deal with all this? By cracking down on free speech and dissent, of course! What else? Their only response – repression of course!

YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter – they are all cracking down on "bad" speech which includes pretty much any topic a garden variety self-described 'liberal' frowns upon. GoDaddy and Google are even going after domain names. Oh sure, nobody gets thrown in jail for, say, defending the 2nd Amendment, but they get "demonetized" and their accounts simply closed. It's not the cops cracking down on free speech, it's "Corporate America", but the effect is the same. Apparently, the Neocons do not realize that censorship is not a viable strategy in the age of the Internet. Or maybe they do, and they are deliberately trying to trigger a backlash?

Then there is the vilification campaign in the media: unless you are some kind of 'minority' you are assumed to be nefarious by birth and guilty of all the evils on the planet. And your leader is Trump, of course, or maybe even Putin himself, vide supra. Christian heterosexual White males better run for cover

Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake. First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they are using to control and run this country. That, of course, only further weaken the Neocons and the United States themselves and that further accelerates the positive feedback loop mentioned above which now threatens the entire international system.

Us and Them

What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social, the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades, the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States. In my admittedly subjective opinion, the last competent (no, I did not say 'good', I said 'competent') US President was George Herbert Walker Bush who, unlike his successors, at least knew how to run an Empire. After that, it is all downhill, faster and faster. And if Obama was probably the most incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office. As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more. The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense, political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary.

The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal. As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different ways.

So the real question now is this: can the rest of the planet prevent a catastrophic collapse of the AngloZionist Empire?

This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially devastating consequences for everybody.

This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?!

And the next obvious question: can we still stop them?

I honestly don't know. I hope so, but I am not sure. My biggest hope with Trump was that he would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US. Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically), the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle ways!

So what's next?

Truly, I don't know. But my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office, either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him insane and unfit to be the President). Seeing how weak and spineless Trump is, he might even be "convinced" to resign. I don't see them simply murdering him simply because he is no Kennedy either. After that, Pence comes to power and it will all be presented like a wonderful event, a group-hug of the elites followed by an immediate and merciless crackdown on any form of political opposition or dissent which will immediately be labeled as racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, terrorist, etc.

The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice.

Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from something which worked so well the first time around?!). Unless the US decides to re-invade Grenada or give Nauru a much deserved thrashing, any more or less real war will result in a catastrophic failure for the US at which point the use of nukes by the Neocon crazies might become a very real risk, especially if symbolic US targets such as aircraft carriers are hit ( in 1991 when the US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then this was all quickly forgotten ).

There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around.

This analysis was written for The Unz Review

[Aug 20, 2017] Trump used the neocon expression "drain the swamp" on the campaign trail. He was talking about washington while the neocons were referring to the near Mid-East. Both he they were full of hubris. The swamp dwellers in DC can not be extricated short of revolution.

Notable quotes:
"... I don't think the neocons want Trump out. They want him to stay as their puppet. If he fights back and start to win then they will do everything to replace him. ..."
"... Now with the departure of the strong anti-neocon Steve Bannon, Trump is loosing more chances to resist. Getting back his strength would be a miracle. If Trump realizes that he has lost all power and all ways to regain it, he may want to resign and be replaced by Pence who is a weak leader. Yet Pence may object to more wars that the neocons will promote and he could pose a problem for them. ..."
"... This is why I think the neocons and the zionists want to keep a powerless Trump in 'power' ..."
"... any more or less real war will result in a catastrophic failure for the US at which point the use of nukes by the Neocon crazies might become a very real risk, especially if symbolic US targets such as aircraft carriers are hit ..."
"... Coincidentally, I was just thinking the very same thing today. US conventional forces are basically worthless and would be quickly destroyed if put to the test in any general mobilization. Our nuclear deterrence is everything. Nobody will lay a finger on our aircraft carriers for fear of provoking Armageddon, so these lumbering hunks of expensive horseshit get to float around the world "projecting force" when, without the nuclear cover, they would be sent to the bottom without much ado. ..."
"... This last 6 months has been, in my opinion, a classic case of the result of cognitive dissonance that occurs when prophecy fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails ..."
"... The whole Russia-Gate thing is slowly being exposed as a hoax but we may still have a case of "some stories are true that never happened." A huge number of people will never think of Trump anyway other than how they do now no matter what he does or what happens – as evil, or incompetent, or immoral, or whatever. ..."
"... I think we have been in a very slow, shallow decline since about 1969. Barely noticeable. Bursts of innovation and growth have distracted the country from the fact that the standard of living for 80% of everybody has not really improved. It is unlikely that Trump will reverse this. ..."
"... There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem ..."
"... Trump might be a clown show but he will be in the WH on January 1 2021. The political and legal obstacles for his removal are substantial. Perhaps he hasn't drained the swamp but he stopped funding for the Jihadis in Syria, which has essentially ended the war there. He has dramatically improved border security and he obtained a SC nominee who is not left wing crazy as the previous two. ..."
"... Not all neo-cons are Jewish and not all Jewish people are neo-cons. Similarly, not all Zionists are Jewish and not all Jewish persons are Zionists. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

Robert Magill , August 18, 2017 at 10:07 am GMT

This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?!

And the next obvious question: can we still stop them?

Stalin found a way to stop the prototype Neocon Leon Trotsky.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

Seamus Padraig , August 18, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT

@Robert Magill

This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?!

And the next obvious question: can we still stop them?

Stalin found a way to stop the prototype Neocon Leon Trotsky.

True enough. But then, Stalin had control of the party and the country. Alas! Trump does not.

Sean , August 18, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT

America throws its weight about but that won't lead to war. No danger at all of anyone taking on the unbeatable US with nuclear or conventional force. Russia's doctrine stresses asymmetrical war because the understand shadow boxing is safer. And while the world economic system is dependent on America, it isn't going to collapse because of a few riots–especially with the massive police apparatus that is in reserve.

There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around.

Neocons are not different to anyone in history who had to take care of a state's business. It would be irrational for a state like the US not to lead with its strengths and be aggressive with because no one knows what other state's intentions are – or might become in the future.

WorkingClass , August 18, 2017 at 6:48 pm GMT

@WorkingClass

"The Neocons" is too vague. The people need an authoritative list with names, addresses and photographs."

Here is the closest thing to a list of names that google turned up:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?450257-The-Neoconservative-Reference-List

Johnny Rico , August 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT

Sure.

You may be simply be reaching a personal tipping-point from all the fear-mongering and apocalyptic race-war/civil-war nonsense that has had its ups-and-downs the last year-and-a-half, but which has hit record heights after Charlottesville. Hysterical group-think.

You have always been a "predictor." Laying out various scenarios and then going back every few months to try to fit what you said to what happened. This can quickly become self-deluded back-patting.

You have been correct I think in certain respects and your analysis has usually been top-notch even if it doesn't always cover all angles.

But your record forecasting or predicting is just as bad as everybody else's. We can't predict. Not the price of oil. Not the lottery. Not the Super-bowl. Not the weather more than 5 days out. Not war. And not war's unintended consequences.

Three weeks ago nobody cared about Southern statues or White Supremacists. Two weeks from now nobody will care anymore again. Two weeks ago we were going to nuke North Korea. Now they are not in the news.

Imagine if that one girl hadn't been killed by that one guy at the protest or counter-protest. It doesn't even matter. Nobody will remember her name in a month. But everybody knows who Kim Kardashian is.

This last 6 months has been, in my opinion, a classic case of the result of cognitive dissonance that occurs when prophecy fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

The prophecy in this case was that Trump was the next Hitler. This and the lingering, very strong sour grapes.

The whole Russia-Gate thing is slowly being exposed as a hoax but we may still have a case of "some stories are true that never happened." A huge number of people will never think of Trump anyway other than how they do now no matter what he does or what happens – as evil, or incompetent, or immoral, or whatever.

I am rather partial to Andrew Bacevich's analysis that suggests Trump is actually apolitical and non-ideological.

I think we have been in a very slow, shallow decline since about 1969. Barely noticeable. Bursts of innovation and growth have distracted the country from the fact that the standard of living for 80% of everybody has not really improved. It is unlikely that Trump will reverse this. People have been predicting collapse for decades. Read James Howard Kunstler. http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/total-eclipse/. It kind of happened in 2008-2009. Look at the current collapse of large parts of the retail sector.

Not surprisingly, few are predicting Trump will be in office in 2020 and that the world will look a lot like 2007 at that point. But that is where my money is.

If "Antifa" continues to wear wear black ninja outfits and masks and continues to use violence, the State will have to crush them.

Same old, same old. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Something like that.

I live in Boston. I was 100 yards away from the first bomb that went off at the 2013 Marathon. I saw the National Security State response over the next week. The State Police with a LOT of support did not mess around. Over the years I have seen how the Boston and State police deal with protests and gatherings of all types. Boston is a very safe city. It is difficult to envision what happened in Charlottesville happening here.

Lawrence Fitton , August 18, 2017 at 7:55 pm GMT

Trump used the neocon expression 'drain the swamp' on the campaign trail. he was talking about washington while the neocons were referring to the near & mid-east. both he & they were full of hubris.

The swamp dwellers in d.c. can't be extricated short of revolution. the mid-east is in chaos thanks to the neocons and the swamp is getting, well, swampier. trump has no plans to get us out of the mess the neocons got us in even if he could. this adds to trump's incompetence, which when applied to his mental cardboard jungle, bodes ill for america under his term – if he serves it out.

I tend to agree with everything the saker wrote. we are in trouble folks. obama & bush left trump with a mess. trump has not the wherewithal to get us out. but, realistically, who can?

There is a middle eastern expression that goes something like this: one fool can create problem that 100 wise men can't solve.
trump is a clown show. he's gotta go. the problem is, then we get pence.

DFH , August 19, 2017 at 8:54 am GMT

Has any empire ever had a ruling class as stupid (I'm talking about the gentiles in particular) as the current one?

virgile , August 19, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT

I don't think the neocons want Trump out. They want him to stay as their puppet. If he fights back and start to win then they will do everything to replace him.

Now with the departure of the strong anti-neocon Steve Bannon, Trump is loosing more chances to resist. Getting back his strength would be a miracle. If Trump realizes that he has lost all power and all ways to regain it, he may want to resign and be replaced by Pence who is a weak leader. Yet Pence may object to more wars that the neocons will promote and he could pose a problem for them.

This is why I think the neocons and the zionists want to keep a powerless Trump in 'power'

Fran Macadam , August 19, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT

You'd think the neocons were – shudder – Trotskyists, or something.

Priss Factor , August 19, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT

I think I know what the globalist capitalists are doing. It's not that they like Antifa. I think they despise them. But they do fear the antifa and far-'left' thugs. And they also fear BLM.

After all, NY Libs fear blacks. NY libs got so tired of black crime that they elected Clinton to lock up record number of blacks. They elected Giuliani twice to get tough on black crime. And three times they elected Bloomberg of 'stop and frisk' fame. And San Fran and other cities did a lot of gentrification, which is codeword for pushing blacks out.

The fact is the capitalists have NOTHING to fear from Alt Right or 'nazis' or white identitarians. White Identitarians don't rob white yuppies. They don't do knockout games. They don't smash windows or burn down buildings. They don't protest businesses. They didn't even do the 'antisemitic hate hoaxes'. It turns out a black guy and Jews carried out those hoaxes. (When Trump truthfully said Jews may be behind some of those bomb threats, the media went ballistic until the truth came out. Same with Charlottesville. Trump's crime was noticing that the Antifa scum attacked first, a fact.)

But capitalists do fear blacks who loot, riot, and turn cities into hell. Capitalists fear antifa bottom-feeders who create havoc in places like San Fran and Seattle. If Capitalists really really feared Alt Right and White Identitarians, they would NOT be purging them. Purging is done to the weak, not to the strong. Capitalists appease whom they fear, not whom they have nothing to fear from.

So, capitalists wanna do something about antifa and BLM constantly barking at them.

Now, why can't the globo-cappers just use their wealth and power to harshly clamp down on antifa and black thugs? After all, they got all the power whereas most antifa are bottomfeeding scum and most blacks are just street thugs. If the rich and powerful wanted to crack antifa skulls and lock up more blacks, they could. So, why don't they? Because PC dogma rules over America, and it romanticizes the 'left' in media and academia and pop culture. And blacks have been so sacralized to prop up 'white guilt' that it's difficult to move harshly against them. We have to indulge their idiocies and use more roundabout ways to control them.

And this is where 'nazi' and 'confederacy' are very useful to the Capits or Cappers. If Capits yell, "Look, a Nazi" or "Look, a racist", the very antifa and BLM who were growling at the capits suddenly go charging at the 'nazis'.
This is why Jewish supremacists also find the South so useful. Jewish Supremacists pull every dirty trick in the book to lock up blacks and use extra-policing to control black crime and violence. Also, Jews are no longer for class conflict favoring the proles against the rich and instead for elite global capitalism where Jews get richer. So, Jewish Power is the natural target of blacks and far-leftists. To prevent these people from coming at Jews, Jews create hysteria about KKK and the Sooooouth as diversionary tactic.

It's like, if a mad dog is barking at you, it's smart to toss a bone so that the dog will go after the bone, not you.

So, this isn't really so much a Capit war on Alt Right. It is the Capitalists using the Alt Right as a bone to throw at the dogs(blacks and far-left scum) so that the dogs won't bark and bite at Capitalists.

... ... ...

DFH , August 19, 2017 at 9:15 pm GMT

@Priss Factor I think I know what the globalist capitalists are doing. It's not that they like Antifa. I think they despise them. But they do fear the antifa and far-'left' thugs. And they also fear BLM.

After all, NY Libs fear blacks. NY libs got so tired of black crime that they elected Clinton to lock up record number of blacks. They elected Giuliani twice to get tough on black crime. And three times they elected Bloomberg of 'stop and frisk' fame. And San Fran and other cities did a lot of gentrification, which is codeword for pushing blacks out.

The fact is the capitalists have NOTHING to fear from Alt Right or 'nazis' or white identitarians. White Identitarians don't rob white yuppies. They don't do knockout games. They don't smash windows or burn down buildings. They don't protest businesses. They didn't even do the 'antisemitic hate hoaxes'. It turns out a black guy and Jews carried out those hoaxes. (When Trump truthfully said Jews may be behind some of those bomb threats, the media went ballistic... until the truth came out. Same with Charlottesville. Trump's crime was noticing that the Antifa scum attacked first, a fact.)

But capitalists do fear blacks who loot, riot, and turn cities into hell. Capitalists fear antifa bottom-feeders who create havoc in places like San Fran and Seattle. If Capitalists really really feared Alt Right and White Identitarians, they would NOT be purging them. Purging is done to the weak, not to the strong. Capitalists appease whom they fear, not whom they have nothing to fear from.

So, capitalists wanna do something about antifa and BLM constantly barking at them.

Now, why can't the globo-cappers just use their wealth and power to harshly clamp down on antifa and black thugs? After all, they got all the power whereas most antifa are bottomfeeding scum and most blacks are just street thugs. If the rich and powerful wanted to crack antifa skulls and lock up more blacks, they could. So, why don't they? Because PC dogma rules over America, and it romanticizes the 'left' in media and academia and pop culture. And blacks have been so sacralized to prop up 'white guilt' that it's difficult to move harshly against them. We have to indulge their idiocies and use more roundabout ways to control them.

And this is where 'nazi' and 'confederacy' are very useful to the Capits or Cappers. If Capits yell, "Look, a Nazi" or "Look, a racist", the very antifa and BLM who were growling at the capits suddenly go charging at the 'nazis'.

This is why Jewish supremacists also find the South so useful. Jewish Supremacists pull every dirty trick in the book to lock up blacks and use extra-policing to control black crime and violence. Also, Jews are no longer for class conflict favoring the proles against the rich and instead for elite global capitalism where Jews get richer. So, Jewish Power is the natural target of blacks and far-leftists. To prevent these people from coming at Jews, Jews create hysteria about KKK and the Sooooouth as diversionary tactic.

It's like, if a mad dog is barking at you, it's smart to toss a bone so that the dog will go after the bone, not you.

So, this isn't really so much a Capit war on Alt Right. It is the Capitalists using the Alt Right as a bone to throw at the dogs(blacks and far-left scum) so that the dogs won't bark and bite at Capitalists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dIlOAWsh-A

Now, the Jewish supremacists are far nastier. If Capitalists just wanna distract the mad barking dogs, Jewish supremacists want to use Antifa and State terror as hunting dogs to kill the wolves of White Independent Movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIwWa-WkCak

So, what is the solution? If Alt Right doesn't want the cappers to treat it so shabbily, it has to make the cappers FEAR the Alt Right? How?

Alt Right should write up a BLACK BOOK on every capper that goes after Alt Right.

Write a BLACK BOOK ON GOOGLE like Black Book on Communism. Expose how Google has worked with every thuggish and tyrannical regime around for profit.

Write a BLACK BOOK ON PAYPAL that details how this organization serves all kinds of terrorists, tyrants, extremists, and etc.

Expose the cappers. March on capper headquarters.

If Alt Right goes after the cappers, Antifa will have to defend them.. and this will discredit Antifa as stooges of Globalism.

It's like when Alt Right opposed Trump's attack in Syria, Antifa made fools of themselves by attacking Alt Right than opposing the Missile strike on trumped-up charges. (The media were totally swooning about the naked act of US imperialist aggression. Zakaria said, 'Trump became president tonight', and Brian Williams was yammering about 'beautiful missiles' and quoting Leonard Cohen.) Sickos. That thesis doesn't make any sense. If they were afraid of antifascists then why would they create and finance them? Why does their media stoke up black resentment if that is what they wish to avoid?

Why should they be afraid of them? Black crime doesn't affect rich whites. Even if it did, blacks are criminals for prosaic reasons that have nothing to do with BLM. Black riots have no effect on billionaire capitalists either. Its not rich white communities they burn down.

jilles dykstra , August 20, 2017 at 6:13 am GMT

Indeed, the present Cold Civil War in the USA has world wide ramifications. But what would have happened had FDR's policies been continued ?

The USA is in the midst of a political revolution, revolutions seldom improve living conditions. A political revolution in the power that led the world since the Casablanca conference, where Churchill discovered he had ran into a trap, is a political revolution in the world.

Intelligent Dasein , • Website August 20, 2017 at 7:03 am GMT

The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place).

I found this line to be a somewhat mystifying exception to an otherwise fine article, unless The Saker is referring specifically to Ron Paul, whose criticisms of the administration have been spot on lately. But in the main, "US libertarians" have about as much brains as a puddle of dog drool (cf. Gary "And what is Aleppo" Johnson for illumination on this point).

any more or less real war will result in a catastrophic failure for the US at which point the use of nukes by the Neocon crazies might become a very real risk, especially if symbolic US targets such as aircraft carriers are hit

Coincidentally, I was just thinking the very same thing today. US conventional forces are basically worthless and would be quickly destroyed if put to the test in any general mobilization. Our nuclear deterrence is everything. Nobody will lay a finger on our aircraft carriers for fear of provoking Armageddon, so these lumbering hunks of expensive horseshit get to float around the world "projecting force" when, without the nuclear cover, they would be sent to the bottom without much ado.

This cannot help but infuriate anybody who has been the target of a US intervention. I can begin to imagine how this obscene pageantry must appear to non-Western eyes -- perhaps something like having a gun held to your head whilst an ill-mannered, fat princeling trashes your house for amusement. I can imagine the bitter resentment they must feel, tempered by the certain knowledge that they will overcome through time and patience as the Empire destroys itself with its hubris. Their retribution, when it comes, will be terrible. This is why we should have made every effort to withdraw from the word stage and defend our limes while we still could.

white noise , August 20, 2017 at 11:09 am GMT

@WorkingClass "The Neocons" is too vague. The people need an authoritative list with names, addresses and photographs.

Yeah, and then publish the list in CNN, Fox, Washington Post, et al Sure, tomorrow morning, they all will be happy to comply. They may even agree to start a massive vilification campaign against themselves.

white noise , August 20, 2017 at 11:27 am GMT

@Johnny Rico Sure.

You may be simply be reaching a personal tipping-point from all the fear-mongering and apocalyptic race-war/civil-war nonsense that has had its ups-and-downs the last year-and-a-half, but which has hit record heights after Charlottesville. Hysterical group-think.

You have always been a "predictor." Laying out various scenarios and then going back every few months to try to fit what you said to what happened. This can quickly become self-deluded back-patting.

You have been correct I think in certain respects and your analysis has usually been top-notch even if it doesn't always cover all angles.

But your record forecasting or predicting is just as bad as everybody else's. We can't predict. Not the price of oil. Not the lottery. Not the Super-bowl. Not the weather more than 5 days out. Not war. And not war's unintended consequences.

Three weeks ago nobody cared about Southern statues or White Supremacists. Two weeks from now nobody will care anymore again. Two weeks ago we were going to nuke North Korea. Now they are not in the news.

Imagine if that one girl hadn't been killed by that one guy at the protest or counter-protest. It doesn't even matter. Nobody will remember her name in a month. But everybody knows who Kim Kardashian is.

This last 6 months has been, in my opinion, a classic case of the result of cognitive dissonance that occurs when prophecy fails. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

The prophecy in this case was that Trump was the next Hitler. This and the lingering, very strong sour grapes.

The whole Russia-Gate thing is slowly being exposed as a hoax but we may still have a case of "some stories are true that never happened." A huge number of people will never think of Trump anyway other than how they do now no matter what he does or what happens – as evil, or incompetent, or immoral, or whatever.

I am rather partial to Andrew Bacevich's analysis that suggests Trump is actually apolitical and non-ideological.

I think we have been in a very slow, shallow decline since about 1969. Barely noticeable. Bursts of innovation and growth have distracted the country from the fact that the standard of living for 80% of everybody has not really improved. It is unlikely that Trump will reverse this.

People have been predicting collapse for decades. Read James Howard Kunstler. http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/total-eclipse/

It kind of happened in 2008-2009. Look at the current collapse of large parts of the retail sector.

Not surprisingly, few are predicting Trump will be in office in 2020 and that the world will look a lot like 2007 at that point. But that is where my money is.

If "Antifa" continues to wear wear black ninja outfits and masks and continues to use violence, the State will have to crush them.

Same old, same old. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Something like that.

I live in Boston. I was 100 yards away from the first bomb that went off at the 2013 Marathon. I saw the National Security State response over the next week. The State Police with a LOT of support did not mess around. Over the years I have seen how the Boston and State police deal with protests and gatherings of all types. Boston is a very safe city. It is difficult to envision what happened in Charlottesville happening here. It may not be an accurate prediction, but this article by The Saker is excellent in that it gives a very accurate, penetrating portrait of the decadence of America, and the main culprits, the predator, parasitic Jews, and their minions: the American politicians, and other assorted traitors.

And so, are you saying that a repressive police state is good? It's certainly going that way, but no, it's not good at all for the people of America. What America needs is repression against the invader Jews that have hijacked the government, not repression against the American people.

jacques sheete , August 20, 2017 at 11:40 am GMT

A bit windy, but every point excellent.

There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem

True, but it's astonishing how so many people still don't get it.

jacques sheete , August 20, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

@WorkingClass "The Neocons" is too vague. The people need an authoritative list with names, addresses and photographs.

"The Neocons" is too vague. The people need an authoritative list with names, addresses and photographs.

Damn. I've said this before, but you make the best damned comments on UR, and you hit the nail squarely on the head once again with that one.

white noise , August 20, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT

@Felix Keverich

"How come a president, who won 65 million votes, cannot get a single man in his administration who shares his political views?"

...because weak people sell their souls easily in exchange of money and goods. And there are a lot of weak people.

jacques sheete , August 20, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

@WorkingClass A list should be easy to develop.

In Jacques' Paradise anyone still living who's ever run for political office, and their staffs and advisers would be rounded up, they and any offspring spayed, and sent to Abu Ghraib for lifelong "treatment." This goes for anyone who's ever been connected, in any way, with the Federal Reserve or any other large bank or corporation especially one that's been bailed out. Ditto for any foreign "leader" who's ever accepted a penny in foreign "aid," or who's ever had a standing ovation or any other sort of positive recognition from the US government.

Anyone who ever worked for any government past the age of thirty ( some allowance should be made for youthful ignorance and indiscretion, no?) and anyone who ever contributed so much as a nickel to a political party gets rounded up, spayed, and sent to Guantanamo for life with no chance for parole.

That oughta buy the rest of us a couple of days of peace and quiet.

Si1ver1ock , August 20, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT

This is a very good article. I would quibble on a minor thing about North Korea. They could definitely cause problems with their nukes via the old "Death Shroud" technique from Dr. Strangelove.

North Korea doesn't need ICBMs.http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34797252

On more humorous note:

The world is moving on, while the cat is busy destroying himself.

WJ , August 20, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

@Lawrence Fitton

Trump might be a clown show but he will be in the WH on January 1 2021. The political and legal obstacles for his removal are substantial. Perhaps he hasn't drained the swamp but he stopped funding for the Jihadis in Syria, which has essentially ended the war there. He has dramatically improved border security and he obtained a SC nominee who is not left wing crazy as the previous two.

I am not convinced he will substantially escalate Afghanistan but we will find out perhaps this week. He is vastly superior to at least three of predecessors in the job and he is most certainly preferable to the horrendous Clinton/Kaine, open borders neocon clan.

Blake , August 20, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

George W. Bush once asked his father to define Neoconservatism. "'What's a neocon?' 'Do you want names, or a description?' answered [the elder Bush]. 'Description.' 'Well,' said the former president of the United States, 'I'll give it to you in one word: Israel.'" – Andrew Cockburn, Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy (New York: Scribner, 2007), 219.

DFH , August 20, 2017 at 2:44 pm GMT

@Tulips

Not all neo-cons are Jewish and not all Jewish people are neo-cons. Similarly, not all Zionists are Jewish and not all Jewish persons are Zionists.

And? Neo-conservatism is a Jewish ideology; it was founded and driven by Jews as a vehicle for Jewish ethnic interests.

Commenters with these reactions to Saker's essay should maybe introspect a little on what is running in the minds and emotions.

Isn't the appropriate response to look at the facts of the matter to determine whether opposition to Jewish influence is justified or not? What does introspection have to do with anything?

[Aug 20, 2017] A De-Putin-Nazification of America Update

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

Given the current level of hysteria, few people are going to check your facts. This is one you can really have fun with. See how far you can push the paranoia. Make up elaborate conspiracy theories. If you're not quite sure how to go about that, check The New York Times or The Washington Post they're masters of that kind of thing.

Your anti-Nazi loyalty oath should definitely not include any of the following:

(1) Any mention of the Ukrainian Nazis that Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Resistance (before it was the Resistance, of course) helped regime-change the Ukrainian government when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Mentioning the Resistance's support of these Nazis would only confuse those reading your oath, who might not understand that there are good Nazis and bad Nazis, and who have probably forgotten how the US government smuggled a number of actual Nazis (i.e., members of the NSDAP) into America after WWII or how, since the end of that war, the United States has mass murdered countless millions of people all over the planet (but, technically, not in a genocidal fashion, so that doesn't make us the same as Nazis).

(2) Actual membership figures on neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, because those figures are pathetically small. Doing this would make your loyalty oath (not to mention the whole Nazi hysteria thing, generally) seem, if not paranoid, then at least absurd, or like part of some manufactured effort to whip up support for a ruling class coup by waving Nazis in front of everyone's faces. This would be extremely counterproductive. Remember, one of the primary goals of the De-Putin-Nazification program is to convince the public that Richard Spencer (and the handful of other insignificant idiots that the corporate media is showering with publicity) is about to lead an overwhelming force of tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis into the streets of American cities to battle the hyper-militarized police, the national guard, and the US military, or some other preposterous scenario like that.

(3) Any reference whatsoever to the corporatocracy that runs the country, and that normally decides who can run for president, and which is currently making an example of Trump in order to dissuade any future billionaires from having the audacity to fuck with them. You'll be better off avoiding this subject entirely, as it only reminds folks how screwed they are, and how, odds are, they're probably all worked up about something the corporate-owned media wanted to get them all worked up about, neo-Nazis, Russian hackers, nuclear war with North Korea, Syrian gas attacks, lone wolf terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, or whatever. Take it from someone who's worked in show business. No one likes being made aware of how they are being manipulated or provided with a binary set of officially acceptable contextual parameters within which they can think and speak.

But don't worry too much about that binary stuff. There'll be plenty of time to get into all that after we rid the world of these Nazis, and these racists, and all these Confederate statues. And Trump, of course. That's the main thing getting rid of Donald Trump, and getting a Democrat back in office. Oh, yeah and the books. We need to look at the books. God knows how many Confederate books are still out there in the public libraries, and in people's homes, where children can read them. We'll need to get to the books eventually.

In the meantime, focus on Priority One. Go hard on the Nazi hysteria, at least throughout the rest of the weekend, after which they'll probably need to switch us back to the Russia hysteria, or possibly the North Korea hysteria, or damn, see? Here I go with that contextual parameter stuff again. I've really got to stop doing that. The last thing I need is to get myself accused of being some kind of Nazi sympathizer, or Confederate apologist, or Russian propagandist, or extremist, or terrorist, or, you know whatever.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org

Brabantian > , Website August 19, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT

Indeed it is hysteria & the madness of crowds in the USA, to a degree never seen before in our lifetimes

Perhaps the cleverness of Trump & others with him, is instinctively understanding that, this hysteria cannot be directly defused given its elite & corp media support, but now the fire must simply be left to run its course, until it burns itself out, in the end forcing a widespread recognition of the absurdity, & enduring shame for those who fostered it

This may explain including such nominal feints such as the jettisoning of 'goy' top advisor Steve Bannon to give the antifa etc hysterics more fuel for their fires

Interesting article by, of all people, David P Goldman aka 'Spengler' of Asia Times, arguing that Donald Trump may at the moment be making an extremely clever riverboat gamble -

Siding with the more common-sense ordinary people of both USA Democrat & Republican political parties, as those parties implode and split into pieces, & possibly building a new, core, more sensible political centre once the current hysteria has run its course

Trump will reach out to Democratic voters who are alienated from a leadership that has devoted most of its energy to a radical social agenda instead of bread-and-butter solutions, and he will appear to a majority of his own party. I do not know whether he will succeed; if he does, the self-inflicted wounds to the erstwhile arbiters of American opinion will be fatal.

'The Bloody Shirt of Charlottesville and its unintended consequences'

http://www.atimes.com/unintended-consequences-charlottesville/

Renoman > , August 19, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT

Good article, thank you.

War for Blair Mountain > , August 19, 2017 at 11:39 am GMT

When all the Confederate Statutes are taken down, what replaces them?

The Anti-fascist replacement:go google photos of Hillary Clinton pick the Hillary Clinton photo with Hillary wearing the most hideous of her pantsuits that's the one that will replace General Lee .A statue of a psychopathic War Criminal bulldyke who was organized and gave the order to mass murder Conservative Russian Christians in the Eastern Ukraine on behalf of Neo-Nazis.

Hillary Clinton created Al QUEDA and ISIS .enabler of Ukraino Nazis ..

Hillary Clinton..the poster girl for the Antifa Tranny Freaks .and the cucked White Protestant Male Ministers standing up to hate in Charlottesville

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT

Nicely provocative, an essay that seems more likely than a lot published here to get through to Americans not yet divided-and-conquered.

Another way to help people you know and care about to get beyond the TV-level dumbshittery afflicting the country: posit whether ANY statue, plaque, etc., of ANY politician, military "hero," or other person being thus celebrated for exercising governmental authority is worth funding with taxation, much less squabbling over.

Every sheep gets sheared.

Michael Kenny > , August 19, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT

Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact: the Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Quite the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU association agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO was never an issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest growing fear in the pro-Putin camp.

Seamus Padraig > , August 19, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact: the Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Quite the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU association agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO was never an issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest growing fear in the pro-Putin camp. As usual, you're dead wrong. Yanuvovich ultimately did not sign the EU agreement:

The political provisions of the treaty were signed on 21 March 2014 after a series of events that had stalled its ratification culminated in a revolution in Ukraine and overthrow of the then incumbent President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. This ousting was sparked by Yanukovych's refusal to sign the agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_Association_Agreement

As far as NATO is concerned, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be joining in the near future, because of Transnistria and because it has two border disputes with Russia. But the country can still be used as a cat's paw to get at Russia (just like Georgia under Sakashvili), which is even better from Washington's point of view, since they don't even have to give the Ukies any security guarantees if they get into trouble with Russia (again, just like Georgia under Sakashvili).

Anon > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT

You are right, hypocrisy rules. What else is new? Civil war has nothing to do with what happened in Charlottesville. These monuments stood for ~100 years or longer and caused no violence. It is important to face this fact, as well as the fact that the violence in Charlottesville was started by self-proclaimed "liberals". Considering how shamelessly they push lies in the media and how they violently suppress any opinion that differs from theirs, these "liberals" are anything but. What we are witnessing is yet another string of provocations by those who are sore that their beloved mad witch spent twice as much money as Trump and lost. Mind you, I am no fan of Trump, but I don't trust that lying corrupt to the core "alternative" an inch. As far as Hillary is concerned, from my viewpoint her gender does not matter. What matters is massive fraud in the Democratic primaries (that's why Debbie Wasserman-Schulz resigned as a head of DNC in 2016 right before the convention she presumably prepared), as well as the fact that Hillary never gave a speech w/o at least $100,000 "speaking fee", took vast amounts of money from the most unsavory sources, including Saudi Arabia (the same one that murders people by public beheading with a curved sword, exactly like ISIS, and keeps murdering hundreds of civilians in Yemen), and was openly supported by the most notorious neocons from both parties. I would not trust a male with this kind of record, either.
Trump's words that removal of monuments is "sad" and "so foolish" arguably are his first intelligent utterance in months. History does not change no matter what people do, and it has a way of punishing those who forget or try to erase it. Only cowardly scum fights monuments. I am deeply ashamed that some scenes from my country resemble those earlier seen in hopeless basket cases, like present-day Ukraine.

SolontoCroesus > , August 19, 2017 at 9:32 pm GMT

@Priss Factor https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/898978484709666821

Look, events in Boston vindicating the Alt Right narrative in Charlottesville.

All the violence is instigated by 'counter-protesters', as the globalist CBS calls them.

They are Antifanissary thugs and lunatics who oppose free speech and side with Wall Street and the War State.

I'm glad this event happened. At this event, there were no Confed flags, no one with Nazi flag, and no extremists.

There were only patriots defending free speech, but the Antifanissary scum attack just the same.

Trump should talk about this.

Globalist War on Free Speech and Free Assembly.

Barking dogs on leash who can't tolerate the howl of free wolves.

Thank the Police on this. The State, in this case, defended those defending freedom of speech and assembly.

But the Corporations will all side with PC Proglodytes.
But there will be blowback. Just like the Jihadis supported by the US turned on the West, these Antifa scum will turn around and bite the corpies.

In a way, the bogeyman of 'nazi' is very useful to corporations. Capitalists know that the Far Left hates them and wanna smash windows, burn down Starbucks, create havoc in upscale cities like Seattle, and etc. And capitalists fear BLM and black thugs too.

If 'nazis' didn't exist, these restless Antifa and BLM would likely be doing Occupy Wall Street, rioting in gentrified parts of town, attacking yuppies and hipsters, and attacking GREED.

But if there are 'nazis' as bogeyman, the corporations can direct all Antifa and BLM rage at the 'white supremacists' who actually have no power and wealth.
Also, as having sponsored the Antifa and BLM, the corpies hope that the far-left and black thugs will be grateful and not attack them.

But there is blowback sometime down the line. you've made an important point, Priss: "Nazi," "Hitler," "Swastika" and "Holocaust ™ " are brands created by and for corporate interests; the narrative behind these brands does NOT represent history, it is the product of Bernays/hasbara. That is, its basic appeal is to emotion, deliberately bypassing reason and critical analysis.

Corporatists, zionists and Jews *** are striking back as hard as they are, and attempting to associate "hate" with "Nazi" as often as they can, in an exercise in Brand Spanking: as Sam Shama let slip the other day, spanking the Nazi etc. brand is essential because more and more people are waking up .

Charlottesville was, indeed, a set-up: some PR shop managed the affair and cucksertive media are following the script to a Tee.

On C Span on Aug 15, John McArdle hosted an exercise in propaganda so obvious you have to wonder if UVa might consider rescinding his diploma. McArdle invited callers to opine on Trump's statement on the C'ville events; in the 61 minute program, he spoke the word "hate" 41 times: once every 90 seconds.

"Hate" was associated with "white" at every opportunity.
If a caller failed to link "hate" with "white/supremacists/nationalist," McArdle prompted them to do so.

https://www.c-span.org/schedule/?date=2017-08-15

The history of the era of the European-Jewish wars is a radically different entity from the branding.

Before the history can be made more fully consistent with reality ! an absolute essential for a the "well informed citizens" in a representative form of government ! the "Nazi" etc. brands have got to be torn apart: shattered, fragmented.

One of Eddie Bermays's first triumphs was to persuade elite women that smoking cigarettes was chic.

Years and many deaths later, cigarettes now carry a warning from the Surgeon General that cigarettes can kill you.

The same thing has to happen to the deadly way the Jewish PR/media has bastardized "Nazi" Hitler" "Swastika" .

It must be made clear in every instance that the people who inserted the toxic ingredients in those brands had only their own revenue stream in view, and not full and truthful information for the American public.

!!!

*** Jews ! and they can be named & should be shamed ! were at the vanguard of branding "Nazi" "Hitler" and "Swastika" with the epithet Hate nearly a decade before a single hair on a Jewish head was so much as mussed: James Waterman Wise, son of Rabbi Stephen Wise, published a book titled "Swastika" in about May, 1933.
The book opened with the declaration that "the swastika represents hatred of the Jew."

https://www.amazon.com/Swastika-Nazi-terror-James-Waterman/dp/B00086B93S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1472385235&sr=8-3&keywords=swastika+the+nazi+terror

In fact, and contrary to the sappy tale related in some video docs, the design of the Swastika/banner is based on a Harvard banner https://www.shutterstock.com/editor/image/197551868?exit=%2Fimage-photo%2F197551868&ref=image-photo (in the 1800s, Harvard football banners borethe letter H in a white shield, on a red field) , just as "Seig Heil" is based on Harvard football cheers.

SolontoCroesus > , August 20, 2017 at 1:58 am GMT

@Anon I've listened to nearly a 24-hour day's worth of C Span programming about Charlottesville; I've heard "hate" and "Nazi" and "KKK" and "white supremacy" said so many time my ears are numb and my cerebral cortex overdosed.

I have NOT heard, in all that C Span programming, one, single, solitary guest or journo-phoner discuss what Robert E. Lee stood for; or his correspondence with Lord Acton, about the necessity of state sovereignty to guard against an oppressive centralized power that could take a country to war with no bulwark against its force.

Incredibly ! and I have to post this for all to see: a Jewish woman called C Span to complain that Jewish interests were not represented in C Span programming on Charlottesville.
Here's what she said:

Moderator: Let's go to Virginia Beach, Virginia; Betty is on the line for Democrats:

BETTY: Good morning. Thank you for C Span. I want to say one thing. The two gentlemen you just had on were fine, *** but I'm extremely disappointed because I happen to be Jewish and I was in Connecticut, which I'm originally from Newtown, Connecticut [and spent ] the last weekend there visiting my family there.
I heard more news when I got home. But what I'm disappointed about ! I don't know if C Span ever invited ! I know you've had Jewish people on talking before, but with the Charlottesville thing, I don't know if you've invited anybody from the Anti Defamation League or a rabbi or some other Jewish person to come on, representing a group, because it's awful with the KKK but it's also awful with these Nazis marching ! Nazis marching down in Charlottesville! Both groups are – are- are terrible. It was a horrible thing to see such a thing in 2017 in the United States of America.
And one other thing, and I mean, these other networks, I mean, I don't just sit home and watch TV but I watch C Span, I watch CNN, I watch MSNBC quite a bit !
I haven't seen too many uh Jewish commentators come out and talk. And I really I appreciate and respect the Black commentators that have come on, but I don't know why there hasn't just! Let me make one more comment please:
All the Jews and people of color that are in ! I don't think there's too many, but the ones that are in the Trump administration really should resign after what he said.
I'm glad Steve Bannon is gone. But he uh he uh Trump himself in my opinion is a sympathizer to these groups, that's how I feel, I mean that's how I feel.
And just, I mean, y'know uh uh they're wimps, and especially his son-in-law. He's supposed to be an Orthodox Jew? No, I'm not even a religious Jew, but I mean in my heart, that's what I am. But I mean, he's a wimp! He shouldn't be in there with his father-in-law! He should get up and walk out! That's how I feel.
And real quick !I was so proud to get a letter from President Obama ! I was always going to write him ! I always been a big supporter of his from the very very beginning. And uh I wrote him a letter before he left office, and now I have a framed letter from President Obama on my wall and I'm very very grateful for that.
Thank you very much for allowing me to make my comments.I00:10:04

Mod. Geoff Bennett: Thank you for your suggestion about our programming. We will take it under consideration.

In fact, several persons who are "Jewish in their hearts" (or at least their names) appeared on C Span to explain the many sins of the "white supremacists."

Several highly informative Black people also were guests at the C Span table. Two of them, Robert Woodson and Prof. Bernard Anderson of Princeton University, were highly critical of the cult of victimization that is besetting the Black community. https://www.c-span.org/video/?432749-4/washington-journal-robert-woodson-bernard-anderson-discuss-race-relations-us

Over the course of 6 days, I heard only ONE (white male) guest who had been on the scene, who had a journalist's eye, and who provided a larger perspective than "Nazis . . . hate . . . white supremacist." That was Joe Thomas, a Charlottesville-based conservative radio talk show host with 30 years experience in the city. His commentary is here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?432556-3/charlottesville-radio-host-discusses-aftermath-white-nationalist-protests-violence

The one group (in addition to sound historians on Robert E Lee) that was not represented in C Span program over the course of this hysteria was a single representative of the Unite the Right project.

There are plenty of articulate voices that C Span could have hosted to better inform its audience.

Paul Craig Roberts's article, here ,

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/15/america-propaganda-vanquished-truth/

would make a very useful contribution to the knowledge-base of the C Span audience.

Surely C Span producers are aware of the work of persons like Roberts, and of Giraldi and Ray McGovern.

They don't want those voices to be heard.

Go get 'em, Betty; the world is your (kosher) oyster.

[Aug 18, 2017] How think tanks sell war...

Notable quotes:
"... The idea behind offset agreements is simple: When a country buys weapons from a firm overseas, it pumps a large amount of money out of its economy, instead of investing in its own defense industry or in other domestic projects. So to make large weapons deals more attractive, arms companies offer programs to "offset" that effect. As part of a weapons package, they often sign an agreement to invest in the country's economy, either in defense or civilian sectors. ..."
"... According to an email from Clarke, the UAE accepted unpaid offset obligations as cash payments to a large financial firm called Tawazun Holding. Tawazun sent the $20 million to a UAE think tank called the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research . ECSSR then began sending that money to the Middle East Institute, a prestigious D.C. think tank that has a history of promoting arms sales to Gulf dictatorships. ... ..."
"... So essentially, in a roundabout way, the UAE took money from international firms that was meant for economic development and funneled it to a supportive think tank in the United States. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Weapons Money Intended for Economic Development Being Secretly Diverted to Lobbying Alex Emmons Aug 18, 2017 undefined

The United Arab Emirates created a "slush fund" using money meant for domestic economic development projects and funneled it to a high-profile think tank in the United States, emails obtained by The Intercept show.

Last week, The Intercept reported that the UAE gave a $20 million grant to the Middle East Institute, flooding a well-regarded D.C. think tank with a monetary grant larger than its annual budget . According to an email from Richard Clarke, MEI's chairman of the board, the UAE got the money from offset investments ! development investments by international companies that are made as part of trade agreements.

The idea behind offset agreements is simple: When a country buys weapons from a firm overseas, it pumps a large amount of money out of its economy, instead of investing in its own defense industry or in other domestic projects. So to make large weapons deals more attractive, arms companies offer programs to "offset" that effect. As part of a weapons package, they often sign an agreement to invest in the country's economy, either in defense or civilian sectors.

Offsets provide a way to sell weapons at inflated prices, when companies offer juicier offset packages. Critics say the lack of transparency in how offset investments are carried out leaves a window open for a form of legalized corruption. The emails lift a veil on what has long been an obscure element of the arms trade.

According to an email from Clarke, the UAE accepted unpaid offset obligations as cash payments to a large financial firm called Tawazun Holding. Tawazun sent the $20 million to a UAE think tank called the Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research . ECSSR then began sending that money to the Middle East Institute, a prestigious D.C. think tank that has a history of promoting arms sales to Gulf dictatorships. ...

So essentially, in a roundabout way, the UAE took money from international firms that was meant for economic development and funneled it to a supportive think tank in the United States.

Fair use excerpt. Full article here .

[Aug 18, 2017] Russia-gate Hoax About To Be Exposed by Justin Raimondo

Aug 18, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Julian Assange has the evidence – but will he reveal it?

There's an exciting new development in the "Russia-gate" investigation, one that has the potential to blast apart what is arguably the biggest hoax in the history of American politics.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) has met with Julian Assange – the first US congressman to do so – and returned with some spectacular news:. The Hill reports :

"Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year's election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future."

Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta emails, despite the intelligence community's assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir Putin personally approved the alleged "hack." Yet credible challenges to this view have emerged in recent days, including from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the idea that there was even a "hack" to begin with. "Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents," says The Hill ,

"Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. 'Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,' he said."

What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current status as a political prisoner: he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave and his rendition to the United States to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how he got his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?

Rohrabacher, who has a history as a libertarian fellow traveler, has been the target of a smear campaign due to his unwillingness to go along with the Russophobic hysteria that's all the rage in Washington, D.C. these days. Politico attacked him in a piece calling him "Putin's favorite congressman," and "news" accounts of this meeting with Assange invariably mention his "pro-Russian" views – as if a desire to get along with Russia is in itself somehow "subversive."

It's a brave stance to take when even the ostensibly libertarian and anti-interventionist Cato Institute has jumped on the hate-on-Russia bandwagon. Cato cut their ties to former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus because he refused to accept the War Party's line on the US-sponsored Ukrainian coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected chief of state. But it gets worse. Here 's Cato senior fellow Andrei Illarionov saying we are already at war with Russia:

"First of all, it is necessary to understand that this is a war. This is not a joke, this is not an accident, this is not a mistake, this is not a bad dream. It will not go away by itself. This is a war. As in any war, you either win or lose. And it is up to you what choice you will make."

And it's not just a cold war: the conflict must, says Illarionov, contain a military element:

"First, in purely military area, it is quite clear that victory in this war cannot be achieved without serious adjustments made to the existing military doctrine. Certainly, soft power is wonderful, but by itself it does not deter the use of force."

While the rest of the country is going about its business with nary a thought about Russia, in Washington the craziness is pandemic. Which is why Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Adrienne Watson felt safe vomiting up the usual bile in response to Rohrabacher's initiative: "We'll take the word of the US intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin's favorite Congressman."

The power of groupthink inside the Washington Beltway has energized both the neo-cold warrior hysterics – epitomized by the imposition of yet more sanctions ! and the "Russia-gate" hoax to the point where it is unthinkable for anyone to challenge either. Yet Rohrabacher, whom I don't always agree with, has the balls to stand up to both, and for that he should be supported.

Assange has stubbornly resisted revealing anything about the provenance of the DNC/Podesta emails, allowing the CIA/NSA to claim that it was the Russians who "hacked the election," and also giving them a free hand to smear WikiLeaks as an instrument of the Kremlin. This meeting with Rohrabacher, and the promise of revelations to come, indicate that he is reconsidering his stance – and that we are on the verge of seeing "Russia-gate" definitively debunked.

We here at Antiwar.com have challenged the "mainstream" media's wholesale swallowing of the government's line from the very beginning. That's because there hasn't been one iota of solid proof for blaming the Russians, or even for the assertion that the DNC was "hacked." We don't accept government pronouncements at face value: indeed, we don't accept the "conventional wisdom" at face value, either. We always ask the question: " Where's the evidence? "

[Aug 18, 2017] Steve Bannon goes as the military takes over the Trump administration by Alexander Mercouris

Notable quotes:
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | theduran.com

The announcement of the 'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.

Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.

Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense.

In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is continuing to tighten his control of the White House.

Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is completing his purge of the remaining Flynn hold-overs on the staff of the National Security Council.

Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.

I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills.

Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible – it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.

The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland.

I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it.

However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely believed – probably rightly – to have written it.

As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and