Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

American Exceptionalism as the USA version of nationalism

News Who Rules America Recommended books Recommended Links Economic costs of American Exceptionalism American imperialism: the attempt to secure global hegemony What's the Matter with Kansas
Andrew Bacevich on the American militarism Diplomacy by deception American imperialism: the attempt to secure global hegemony Big Uncle is Watching You Industrial Espionage Edward Snowden as Symbol of Resistance to National Security State Damage to the US tech companies
National Security State Corporatism Resurgence of neofascism as reaction on crisis of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization  Neoconservatism as a stage of development of Neoliberalism Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Understanding Mayberry Machiavellians (Rovism) The History of Media-Military-Industrial Complex Concept
Narcissism as Key American Value Anti-Americanism Nation under attack meme National Socialism and Military Keysianism Corporatist Corruption: Systemic Fraud under Clinton-Bush-Obama Regime Authoritarian Corporatism Terrorism as a smokesreen for National Security State implementation
Elite [Dominance] Theory And the Revolt of the Elite Fighting Russophobia Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ? American Exceptionalism as Civil Religion Fighting Neo-Theocracy Inside democratization hypocrisy fair The Unlikely History of American Exceptionalism Walter A. McDougall
Quotes Mark Twain Quotes Niccolo Machiavelli Reinhold Niebuhr Propaganda Quotes Politically Incorrect Humor Etc

Introduction


I call it a tribal phenomena. A tribe can be a religion, a nation, a gender, a race, or any group which is different from the group you identify with. It is not confined to religion.

And it seems to be an inherent trait in the human species that was one aspect of our evolution. Only when we learn that it is better to cooperate with each other rather than kill each other will we be free from this deadly disease which may, in the end, destroy us all.

sheridan44 comment in The Guardian

[American exceptionalism] is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

According to George Soros, the events of 9/11 renewed a "distorted view" of American supremacy that "postulates that because we are stronger than others, we must know better and we must have right on our side."  In other words 9/11 was important step to the transformation of the USA in the "National Security State" with the permanent regime of Total survellance" over the population. The next step were events of 2008, which signified crisis of neoliberalism as an ideology. Neoliberalism now can mostly be propagated by brute force, via military intervention or some form of coup d'état (aka color revolutions) much like Trotskyites planned to propagate socialism to other countries via Permanent Revolution.  With  "Democracy promotion" instead of "liberation of proletariat".

Rise of American exeptionalism is also connected with the reaction to neoliberalism with its redistribution of wealth up by most of US population. Actually this is global phenomenon: neoliberalism gives strong impulse to the rise of neofascism in many countries, not only in the USA. As William I. Robinson noted in his article  Global Capitalism Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism  

Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21st century fascism.5   The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims.

Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.

American exceptionalism is unique in many ways as it does not include mass mobilization (see Inverted Totalitarism). "Go shopping" famously recommended George W Bush after 9/11. It should probably be more correctly called US-specific version of far right nationalism. The latter is  a milder variant of  one that existed in 30th of the last century in national-socialist countries of Europe, such as Italy and Spain, which does not necessarily employ physical violence against political opponents.  

The sad fact is that the America of today is even more arrogant than the America  in the days of Manifest Destiny and gunboat diplomacy. Indeed, the dissolution of the USSR cemented the national myth of superiority. The establishment of unparalleled industrial might, military victories in two world wars and on both sides of the globe, and the staggering economic defeat of Communism in the Cold War all have combined to cement America’s presumption of  chapters in a long history of escalating national illusions of pre-eminence and blind national egoism. The dominant view about the USA from most countries is that it has a split paranoid personality,  a “Jekyll and Hyde” America, “a democracy inside, an empire outside.” American policy makers, with their pretensions of global superiority after collapse of the USSR and with ever-increasing power of their military machine moved steadily toward making the whole globe a US preserve.  Despite its vulgarity and borderline obsession with pornography (or may be because of that) the US culture made inroad all over the globe, and even in Europe and Russia despite rich cultural traditions of both. While the blatant American imperialism of the turn of the last century is now only a memory, today the nations face policies evidence more insidious brands of imperialism: cultural imperialism, economic imperialism,  the imperialism of neoliberal ideology and forced globalization on the US terms.  All are spread by the same national arrogance, the same cock-sure certainly that we are right.  Many nations fear the United States practices a contemporary brand of “soft imperialism,” enslaving nations with IMF debt meachisms under  the auspice of economic globalization.  Converting  the Third World in debt slaves or simply exploit it. In spite of such fears, and despite the setbacks, Americans remain convinced that eventually all nations are destined to fall into step and adopt “the American way.” All the while, the US politicians decry the rigid fundamentalism of our enemies while we remain utterly blind to our own.

Americans have been, and are today, exposed almost from birth to a particularly virulent strain of nationalism unlike that found in other modern nations. The resulting affliction stems from an unswerving faith in national superiority and uniqueness that is deeply ingrained in the American mind. Historically, these notions of superiority sprang from myths of the visions of chosen-ness, and high destiny; from the myth of frontier self-sufficiency; and finally from the perceived universality of American ideology and dominance of US culture and English language over the globe. While in some of us, nationalist feelings are not that pronounced, few of us are immune, and that is especially visible in times of anger, or fear. In spite of, and perhaps because of, our many strengths, practically all of us as Americans share this particularly prideful, unlovely, and potentially fatal weakness. In one form or another and to some degree or another, we carry national pride across the invisible boundary that separates benign patriotism from malignant far right nationalism. Hillary candidacy demonstrates that this process went too far and became really  malignant:

Still, Americans are sure that they, like Woodrow Wilson, have seen “visions that other nations have not seen,” and that, accordingly, the United States’ mission has always been to become the “light of the world.”28 Indeed, from the very beginning, the American national identity was built on audacious visions of chosen-ness, destiny, and mission. Ronald Reagan was not the first nor the last in a long line of entrenched American visionaries to proclaim American exceptionalism, with its missionary implications of the Puritan “city on the hill,” no longer a stationary beacon, but an active force, the “leader of the free world” directing its forces against “empires of evil.”29

With such visions comes a warning: “the adoption of political and social values … as a framework for national identification is possible only if these values are based on some source of apparent ultimate truth which confers on them absolute validity — if they can claim universality.”30 If Americans unflinchingly believe that theirs is the single principle of Absolute Truth representing the universal interests of humankind, then any opposition will appear either criminal or inhuman.31 As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. puts it, “Those who are convinced that they have a monopoly on Truth always feel that they are saving the world when they slaughter heretics. Their object remains the making of the world over in the image of their dogmatic ideology — their goal is a monolithic world, organized on the principle of the infallibility of a single creed.”32 If Americans are so egotistical as to believe that their nation with its gleaming lamp of Ultimate Truth is the envy of the world, then they will perceive no wrong in trying to make the world over in America’s image, by whatever means. However, the world is a very complex and diverse place, and Ultimate Truth is a highly elusive and unstable substance. Thus, these are not only very arrogant ideas; they are also very dangerous ideas.

The way in which American elite as a whole relates with the rest of the world demonstrates a strong nationalistic (as in cultural nationalism) and chauvinistic point of view. That means that mass media presents events only from the particular  point of view, that militarism is always encouraged and defended. With the considerable part of brainwashed lemmings (aka American public) believing that their nation, or culture, is superior to all others.

This view involves a unique mixture of prejudice, xenophobia and inter-group and in-group violence, with the latter directed at suppression of dissent. Indeed, the United States’ inflated sense of eminence create additional, non-economic stimulus for the country elite to act in  fundamentally ethnocentric ways, and to to strive for unilateral rule of the world using military supremacy as door opener to resources of other nations.  And first of all oil.

The other key support of American exeptionalism are large financial institutions, which depend on the success of the US "financial imperialism". We can view imperialism as ethnocentrism in action. And "financial imperialism" is very similar to "old-style" European imperialism, where  European nations discovered new lands and imposed capitalism, their system of law and culture on the native peoples usually through violence. Like old colonies were forced to abandon their way of life and adopt a “superior” lifestyle and became resource base of metropolia, financial imperialism impose debt on other nations keeping them in a kind of debt slavery with the same result: they also became resource base for metropolia. 

American exceptionalism might also have religious overtones as "citi on the hill" metaphor implies.  It is not thus accidental that the first deep analyses of American exceptionalism was done by Niebuhr from the religious positions in his famous book The Irony of American History. Niebuhr as a theologian came to conclusion that it represents a sin that inevitably lead to the false allure of simple solutions and lack of appreciation of limits of power. In his opinion "Messianic consciousness" which constitute the core of American exceptionalism, was partially inherited form religious dogmas of early religious sects which came to colonize America.  Those views were later enhanced and developed further by Professor Bacevich. See more details exposition of his views on the subject in the page New American Militarism

Any unbiased analysis of the nationalist activities leads to a disappointing conclusion: nationalists can behave as compradors: as enthusiastic servants of a foreign occupier of their own territory. In this case international banking cartel. Ukraine is one example, Serbia and Georgia are other but very similar examples. In the same way the USA can be viewed as a country occupied by financial oligarchy with most of its citizents converted into "debt slaves".

The policy which oppose exceptionalism is often called Noninterventionism

Noninterventionism is a rather clunky and unappealing label for a set of very appealing ideas: that the U.S. should mind its own business, act with restraint, respect other nations, refrain from unnecessary violence, and pursue peace. If future administrations took just a few of these as guiding principles for the conduct of foreign policy, America and the world would both be better off.

There were several important thinkers who contributed to understand of this complex and multifaceted, like any type of nationalism,  phenomena. We will discuss (in breif) just four thinkers that made significant impact in understanding of this very complex concept. Among them: 

  1. Niebuhr
  2. Michael Ignatieff
  3. Anatol Lieven
  4. Andrew Basevich

American neo-conservatism  is a closely related phenomenon. In this case the key point is that the pre-eminence of the USA as the sole superpower needs to be maintained at all costs and with wide use of military force. Among prominent neocons we can name Hillary Clinton and most of republican candidates for the presidency in the 2016 presidential race. That means that American exeptionalism is an establishment view, the view of the US elite, not some anomaly.  

Niebuhr's contribution to understanding of American exeptionalism

In his brilliant foreword to Niebuhr's book The Irony of American History Bacevich noted:

In Niebuhr's view, America's rise to power derived less from divine favor than from good fortune combines with a fierce determination to convert that good fortune in wealth and power. The good fortune cane in the form of vast landscape, rich in resources, ripe for exploitation, and apparently insulated from the bloody cockpit of [European] power politics. The determination found expression in a strategy of commercial and territorial expansionism that proved staggeringly successful, evidence not of superior virtue but of shrewdness punctuated with a considerable capacity for ruthlessness.

In describing America's rise to power Niebuhr does not shrink from using words like "hegemony" and "imperialism". His point is not to tag the United States with responsibility for all the world's evils. Rather, it is to suggest that it does not differ from other great powers as much as Americans may imagine.

...Niebuhr has little patience for those who portray the United States as acting on God's behalf. "All men are naturally inclined to obscure the morally ambiguous element in this political cause by investing it with religious sanctity," he once observed. " This is why religion is more frequently a source of confusion then of light in the political realm.". In the United States, he continued "The tendency to equate our political [goals] with our Christian convictions cause politics to generate idolatry."

Michael Ignatieff contribution to understanding of American exeptionalism

In the introduction to American Exceptionalism and Human Rights Michael Ignatieff identifies three main types of exceptionalism:

I would add to it

The contributors to American Exceptionalism and Human Rights use Ignatieff's essay as a starting point to discuss specific types of exceptionalism -- America's approach to capital punishment and to free speech, for example -- or to explore the social, cultural, and institutional roots of exceptionalism.

Anatol Lieven contribution

The second important contribution to to the studies of American exceptionalism is Anatol Lieven.  He correctly linked American exceptionalism with far right nationalism which Wikipedia defined as

Far-right politics or extreme-right politics are right-wing politics to the right of the mainstream centre right on the traditional left-right spectrum. They often involve a focus on tradition as opposed to policies and customs that are regarded as reflective of modernism. They tend to include disregard or disdain for egalitarianism, if not overt support for social inequality and social hierarchy, elements of social conservatism and opposition to most forms of liberalism and socialism

 "America keeps a fine house," Anatol Lieven writes in his probably best book on the American Exceptionalism (America Right or Wrong An Anatomy of American Nationalism ) "but in its cellar there lives a demon, whose name is nationalism."  In a way US neocons, who commanded key position in Bush II and Barack Obama administrations  are not that different from Israeli Likud Party. 

While neocons definitely played an important role in shaping the US policy immediately after 9/11, the origins of aggressive U.S. foreign policy since 9/11 also reflect controversial character of the US national identity, which according to Anatol Lieven embraces two contradictory features.

Both of those tendencies are much older then 9/11. The first aggressive, expansionist war by the US was the war of 1812. See American Loyalists, The Most Important War You Probably Know Nothing About - By James Traub Foreign Policy

The War of 1812 matters because it was America’s first war of choice. The United States did not have to declare war on Great Britain on June 18, 1812, to survive as a nation and indeed President James Madison did not want to. The newly founded United States was growing westward but the “war hawks” in Congress pressed for a conflict with America’s former colonial masters in the hopes of gaining even more territory to the north. The term “hawk” was coined in the run-up to the War of 1812 and the hawks of U.S. foreign policy have been with us ever since.

The War of 1812 was America’s first neocon war. With an audacity that would become familiar, the war hawks appealed to a combination of personal pride — the British navy was forcibly conscripting Americans — and the prospect of material gain — the absorption of British Canada — wrapped up in love of country. No one said the conquest of Canada would be a “cakewalk,” but the hawks were confident the Americans would be greeted as liberators.

These two mutually-excusive impulses caused wild oscillations of the US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East and influenced the nature of U.S. support for Israel. Due to those oscillations those two contradictory impulses are undermining the U.S. foreign policy credibility in the eyes of the worlds and complicates reaching important national objectives.

Some attribute the term “American Exceptionalism” to Alexis de Tocqueville — though he never penned the phrase. In reality this term originated by German Marxists who were trying to explain weakness of worker movement in the USA. The idiom was popularized by neo-conservative pundits (aka former Trotskyites) soon after WWII.

In reality the term "American Exceptionalism is nothing but a disguised, more "politically correct" reference to America's Janus-faced nationalism. It has some mystical components like long vanished under the hill of financial oligarchy the "American dream" and its German-style refrain "God bless America". What is interesting about "God bless America" is that most founding fathers were Deists, profoundly critical of organized religions and they sought to separate personal -- what many of them described as mythologies -- from government. They were profoundly respectful of personal religious belief, but saw government as necessarily secular if freedom was to prevail. Not until the religious revivals of the 1820s through the 1860s can you find many identifying religion as a component of American exceptionalism.

As Martin Woollacott aptly noted in his review of Anatol Lieven book America, Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism ( Guardian):

He cuts through the conformist political rhetoric of America, the obfuscating special language of the "American dream", or the "American exception", which infects even foreign accounts. Even to use the word "nationalism" to describe an American phenomenon is, as he notes, not normal. Americans are not "nationalist", they are "patriotic". It is a patriotism which too often leaves no room for the patriotism of others, combining a theoretical care for all humanity with, in practice, an "indifference verging on contempt" for the interests and hopes of non-Americans. Nothing could be more distant from "the decent respect to the opinions of mankind" recommended to Americans in the early years of their independent existence

Lieven first paints a picture of an in some ways admirable American "civic nationalism", based on respect for the rule of law, constitutionality, democracy, and social (but not economic) equality, and a desire to spread these values in the world. But because this nationalism unrealistically holds that such "American" values can be exported at will, it blinds Americans to the different nature of other societies, sustaining the mistaken idea that if only particular rulers or classes can be displaced, "democracy" will prevail - a "decapitation" theory which contributed to the decision to attack Saddam. The American campaign to democratize other societies, Lieven says, harshly but fairly, "combines sloppiness of intellect and meanness of spirit". But, while in part mythic and not entirely rational, this side of American nationalism is of some value not only to the United States, but to the world as a whole.

...The result, Lieven argues, is that instead of the mature nationalism of a satisfied and dominant state, American nationalism is more akin to that of late developing and insecure states such as Wilhelmine Germany and Tsarist Russia.

"While America keeps a splendid and welcoming house," Lieven writes in his preface, "it also keeps a family of demons in its cellar.

His book supports Mark Twain quite to the effect that we are blessed with three things in this country, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and, thirdly, the common sense to practice neither one!

He also points at the very important side effect of Exceptionalism: "America's hypocrisy," (see for example Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair). An outstanding level of hypocrisy in the US foreign policy also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American (although British are strong competitors). Now after Snowden, Libya, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc we might be appear to be entering an new stage on which "The era of easy hypocrisy is over."

The regime of easy hypocrisy means that America position itself as a blessed nation created by God and (here’s the rub) therefore privileged in what actions it can take around the world and the nation that can safely ignore international norms, which are created only for suckers. It is above the international law.

We create our own reality

The source of the term, which implicitly stresses that the USA stands outside international norms and treaties and can act as it please, is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]

This is pretty precise definition of the idea of introduced by Nazi idea of “decisionism” in which action is seen as a value in itself. Decisionism is a defining feature of any totalitarian state. By extension if you find decisionism exists in particular state, it is rational to expect other F-features of such states. Umberto Eco has listed fourteen attributes along with two major features: irrationalism and decisionism. Eco has them listed as attributes 2 and 3.

The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.

3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.

Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes. Distrust of the intellectual world has always been a symptom of Ur-Fascism, from Hermann Goering's fondness for a phrase from a Hanns Johst play ("When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun") to the frequent use of such expressions as "degenerate intellectuals," "eggheads," "effete snobs," and "universities are nests of reds." The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values.

Eternal Fascism:
Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

Fascism has an irrational element that rejects modern thought because it conflicts with traditional beliefs of the Christian religion and because fascism views communist ideology as a child of the Age of Reason and Jewish intellectuals. The Nazis were well aware that Karl Marx was a German Jew. Evolution is seen as modernist and is rejected in favor of Christian creationism. This debate is repeating itself today in American society with Christian fundamentalism attempting to gain control of state education.

Very closely related to irrationalism is “decisionism” in which action is seen as a value in itself. This is an existential element in fascism that elevates action over thought. Action is a sign of unambiguous power, and thought is associated with weakness and indecision. Carl Schmitt, a Nazi Law constitutional jurist, wrote that a decision is “(an actual historical event) and not within that of a norm (an ahistoric and transcendent idea).” The a priori is overshadowed by the posteriori. Actions over abstract principles, Fact over Idea, Power over pure thought, Certainty over ambiguity are the values and ideological norms that are primary in a totalitarian state.

After fleeing Germany, Marcuse wrote in 1934 a critique of German fascist society and attempted to identify those beliefs and philosophical themes found within fascist ideology. Marcuse believed that the seeds of fascism could be found in the Capitalist Democratic Liberal State, which over time mutate as Monopoly Capitalism gain control of the State as in the case of Germany. The evolution of Capitalism is also the concealed dialectic of Fascism. Those mutated liberal democratic ideas and values are betrayed by a totalitarianism based on action and force.

Using Germany as his example of a fascist society Marcuse writes:

And within the political sphere all relationships are oriented in turn toward the most extreme “crisis,” toward the decision about the “state of emergency,” of war and peace. The true possessor of power is defined as beyond all legality and legitimacy: “Sovereign is he who decides on the state of emergency.” (Carl Schmitt, Politische Theologie,1922).

Sovereignty is founded on the factual power to make this decision (decisionism). The basic political relationship is the “friend-enemy relationship.” Its crisis is war, which proceeds until the enemy has been physically annihilated.

There is no social relationship that does not in a crisis turn into a political relationship. Behind all economic, social, religious, and cultural relations stands total politicization. There is no sphere of private or public life, no legal or rational court of appeal that could oppose it.
Negations, page 36.

From what social idea in Capitalistic Liberalism did this decisionism evolve? It is none other than the economic hero, the free independent entrepreneur of industrial capitalism.The idea of the charismatic, authoritarian leader is already preformed in the liberalist celebration of the gifted economic leader, the “born” executive. Negations, page 18.

The total-authoritarian state is born out of the Liberal state and the former concept of the economic leader is transformed into a Fuhrer. We can see this mutation of the concept of the “born” executive into the leader-state (Fuhrerstaat) in George Bush’s speech and actions.

An uneducated but privileged man, George Bush, has merged the idea of the CEO with that of the State Leader. But society has also made this same concatenation of ideas. He is a president of action and seen as a “strong” president. He is doer and not a thinker and his followers are proud of this persona. His opponents are “feminine” and members of the “reality based community.” Consequently, the Bush administration has attempted to engineer the executive branch to be the strongest in American history by claiming “inherent” presidential powers. It is precisely the concept of “state of emergency” that Bush has used to grab more and more state power in the name of security.

He has instituted the hyper-surveillance of Americas with the Patriot act, which is based on the same justification Nazi Law used to empower the Fuhrer. A Bush lawyer and advisor, John Yoo, wrote, Just two weeks after the September 11 attacks, a secret memo to White House counsel Alberto Gonzales’ office concluded that President Bush had the power to deploy military force “preemptively” against any terrorist groups or countries that supported them—regardless of whether they had any connection to the attacks on the World Trade Towers or the Pentagon. The memo, written by Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, argues that there are effectively “no limits” on the president’s authority to wage war—a sweeping assertion of executive power that some constitutional scholars say goes considerably beyond any that had previously been articulated by the department. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732484/site/newsweek/

Carl Schmitt, a Nazi Law constitutional jurist in Hitler’s Third Reich, wrote a similar justification of power for the State Leader using the concept of the “exception” in his work “Political Theology,” Hence, the thundering opening of his treatise: 'The sovereign is he who decides on the exception.' It is a disturbingly 'realistic' view of politics, which, in the manner of Hobbes, subordinates de jure authority to de facto power: autoritas, non veritas facit legem. (The law is made by the one who has authority (i.e. power) and not the one who possesses the truth (the legitimate sovereign).)

The problem of the exception, for the constitutional jurist Schmitt, can only be resolved within the framework of a decision (an actual historical event) and not within that of a norm (an ahistoric and transcendent idea). Moreover, the legal act which decides what constitutes an exception is 'a decision in the true sense of the word', because a general norm, an ordinary legal prescription, 'can never encompass a total exception'. If so, then, 'the decision that a real exception exists cannot be derived entirely from this norm.' The problem of the exception, in other words, demarcates the limit of the rule of law and opens up that trans-legal space, that no-man's land of existential exigency, which is bereft of legal authority and where the decision of the sovereign abrogates the anomaly of the legal void. …against the legal positivism of his times, Schmitt seems to be arguing that not law but the sovereign, not the legal text but the political will, is the supreme authority in a state. States are not legal entities but historical polities; they are engaged in a constant battle for survival where any moment of their existence may constitute an exception, it may engender a political crisis that cannot be remedied by the application of the rule of law. From the existential priority of the sovereign over the legitimacy of the norm, it would also follow that according to Schmitt, law is subservient to politics and not autonomous of it. The Sovereignty of the Political Carl Schmitt and the Nemesis of Liberalism http://www.algonet.se/~pmanzoor/CarlSchmitt.htm

When the Bush administration argues that increased presidential power is needed to fight terrorism by suspending or overriding the constitutional protections against search and seizures, they are arguing the principles of Nazi constitutional law. Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday vigorously defended the Bush administration's use of secret domestic spying and efforts to expand presidential powers, saying "it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years." Talking to reporters aboard his government plane as he flew from Islamabad, Pakistan to Muscat, Oman on an overseas mission, Cheney said a contraction in the power of the presidency since the Vietnam and Watergate era must be reversed. "I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it. And to some extent, that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/20/D8EK28B82.htmlAgainst these ever expanding powers of the State stand the once traditional individual freedoms upheld by the Liberal Democratic State. The theologian and philosopher of the Age of Reason, Immanuel Kant wrote…Human right must be kept sacred, no matter how great the sacrifice it costs the ruling powers. One cannot go only halfway and contrive a pragmatically conditioned right….All politics, rather, must bend the knee before sacred human right…

"Faith-based community" vs. Reality-based community

The same idea from slightly different angle is reflected in term "Faith-based community" vs. Reality-based community ( Wikipedia )

Reality-based community is a popular term among liberal political commentators in the United States. In the fall of 2004, the phrase "proud member of the reality-based community" was first used to suggest the commentator's opinions are based more on observation than on faith, assumption, or ideology. The term has been defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from judicious study of discernible reality." Some commentators have gone as far as to suggest that there is an overarching conflict in society between the reality-based community and the "faith-based community" as a whole. It can be seen as an example of political framing.

The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[1]

Commentators who use this term generally oppose former President Bush's policies and by using this term imply that Bush's policies (and, by extension, those of the conservative movement generally) were (or are) out of touch with reality. Others use the term to draw a contrast with the perceived arrogance of the Bush Administration's unilateral policies, in accordance with the aide's quote. Its popularity has prompted some conservative commentators to use the term ironically, to accuse the left-leaning "reality-based community" of ignoring reality[2].

Imperial Outreach

The Republican Party — and more particularly the neo-con wing of the party — is particularly susceptible to imperial outreach. This imperial mentality is well exemplified by Fox News reporting.

For example, Matt Lewis, a conservative political Pundit on MSNBC attacked Barack Obama for saying “Any world order that elevates one nation above another will fall flat.” In response Lewis stated:

“I think that goes against the idea of American exceptionalism…most Americans believe that America was gifted by God and is a blessed nation and therefore we are better.”

For any conservative the concept of “American Exceptionalism” is rather bemusing. America is not more democratic, more free, more enterprising, more tolerant, or more anything else be it Canada, New Zealand or for that matter Australia. America is just a bigger country and due to its size, human resources and industrial potential it the leading Western country and the owner of world reserve currency, after Great Britain became financially exhausted after WWII. That means that American Exceptionalism is simply a politically correct work for a combustible mixture of nationalism (with Christian messianism component similar to Crusades with "democracy" instead Jesus) and Jingoism. In a very deep sense this is negation of the idea "all men are created equal" and as such is anti-American ;-).

America is a blessed nation as everybody in the country is an immigrant, the nation that at some point of time was freer and more prosperous than many others, but as a great Nazarene once said, “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.”

Bill Moyers Journal . Watch & Listen | PBS

sample:

BILL MOYERS:

Here is one of those neon sentences. Quote,

"The pursuit of freedom, as defined in an age of consumerism, has induced a condition of dependence on imported goods, on imported oil, and on credit. The chief desire of the American people," you write, "is that nothing should disrupt their access to these goods, that oil, and that credit. The chief aim of the U.S. government is to satisfy that desire, which it does in part of through the distribution of largesse here at home, and in part through the pursuit of imperial ambitions abroad."

In other words, you're saying that our foreign policy is the result of a dependence on consumer goods and credit.

ANDREW BACEVICH:

Our foreign policy is not something simply concocted by people in Washington D.C. and imposed on us. Our foreign policy is something that is concocted in Washington D.C., but it reflects the perceptions of our political elite about what we want, we the people want. And what we want, by and large - I mean, one could point to many individual exceptions - but, what we want, by and large is, we want this continuing flow of very cheap consumer goods.

We want to be able to pump gas into our cars regardless of how big they may happen to be, in order to be able to drive wherever we want to be able to drive. And we want to be able to do these things without having to think about whether or not the book's balanced at the end of the month, or the end of the fiscal year. And therefore, we want this unending line of credit.

Anti-Americanism as blowback of American exeptionalism

Quite logically the imperial actions is a source of widespread Anti-Americanism. As Ian Tyrrell noted in What is American exceptionalism

It is also important to realize that there is a “negative” version of exceptionalism, i.e. that the US has been exceptionally bad, racist, violent. While this is less a part of the common myths about American history, the attempt to compensate for American exceptionalism by emphasizing unique American evils is equally distorting. We need to think more about this matter, especially when we deal with racial divisions and gender prejudice. Is the US experience a variant on wider racial and gender patterns? While social history has provided new perspectives on the role of women, African Americans, and ethnics in the making of American history, has that new history discredited or qualified ideas of American exceptionalism?

The actual term “American exceptionalism” was originally coined by German Marxists who wished to explain why the US seemed to have by-passed the rise of socialism and Marxism. (Actually the US had much class conflict, some Marxist parties and theorists, and a lively socialist movement, though the latter was not on the scale of, say, France and Germany.) But exceptionalism is much more than about class conflict.

Some historians prefer the terms “differences” or “uniqueness?” Are these suitable substitutes? Whatever the terminology, the implications of American difference/uniqueness have long been debated. Some have said the difference was temporary, and eventually the US would be like other countries. Others have argued that American “specialness” stems from its political, intellectual, and even religious heritage, and is enduring.

Conclusions

Skeptic view on American Exceptionalism is valuable for different reasons some of which were listed by Stephen M. Walt in his The Myth of American Exceptionalism (Foreign Policy, November 2011)

The only thing wrong with this self-congratulatory portrait of America's global role is that it is mostly a myth. Although the United States possesses certain unique qualities -- from high levels of religiosity to a political culture that privileges individual freedom -- the conduct of U.S. foreign policy has been determined primarily by its relative power and by the inherently competitive nature of international politics. By focusing on their supposedly exceptional qualities, Americans blind themselves to the ways that they are a lot like everyone else.

This unchallenged faith in American exceptionalism makes it harder for Americans to understand why others are less enthusiastic about U.S. dominance, often alarmed by U.S. policies, and frequently irritated by what they see as U.S. hypocrisy, whether the subject is possession of nuclear weapons, conformity with international law, or America's tendency to condemn the conduct of others while ignoring its own failings. Ironically, U.S. foreign policy would probably be more effective if Americans were less convinced of their own unique virtues and less eager to proclaim them.

What we need, in short, is a more realistic and critical assessment of America's true character and contributions. In that spirit, I offer here the Top 5 Myths about American Exceptionalism.

Myth 1: There Is Something Exceptional About American Exceptionalism.

Whenever American leaders refer to the "unique" responsibilities of the United States, they are saying that it is different from other powers and that these differences require them to take on special burdens.

Yet there is nothing unusual about such lofty declarations; indeed, those who make them are treading a well-worn path. Most great powers have considered themselves superior to their rivals and have believed that they were advancing some greater good when they imposed their preferences on others. The British thought they were bearing the "white man's burden," while French colonialists invoked la mission civilisatrice to justify their empire. Portugal, whose imperial activities were hardly distinguished, believed it was promoting a certain missão civilizadora. Even many of the officials of the former Soviet Union genuinely believed they were leading the world toward a socialist utopia despite the many cruelties that communist rule inflicted. Of course, the United States has by far the better claim to virtue than Stalin or his successors, but Obama was right to remind us that all countries prize their own particular qualities.

So when Americans proclaim they are exceptional and indispensable, they are simply the latest nation to sing a familiar old song. Among great powers, thinking you're special is the norm, not the exception.

Myth 2: The United States Behaves Better Than Other Nations Do.

Declarations of American exceptionalism rest on the belief that the United States is a uniquely virtuous nation, one that loves peace, nurtures liberty, respects human rights, and embraces the rule of law. Americans like to think their country behaves much better than other states do, and certainly better than other great powers.

If only it were true. The United States may not have been as brutal as the worst states in world history, but a dispassionate look at the historical record belies most claims about America's moral superiority.

For starters, the United States has been one of the most expansionist powers in modern history. It began as 13 small colonies clinging to the Eastern Seaboard, but eventually expanded across North America, seizing Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California from Mexico in 1846. Along the way, it eliminated most of the native population and confined the survivors to impoverished reservations. By the mid-19th century, it had pushed Britain out of the Pacific Northwest and consolidated its hegemony over the Western Hemisphere.

The United States has fought numerous wars since then -- starting several of them -- and its wartime conduct has hardly been a model of restraint. The 1899-1902 conquest of the Philippines killed some 200,000 to 400,000 Filipinos, most of them civilians, and the United States and its allies did not hesitate to dispatch some 305,000 German and 330,000 Japanese civilians through aerial bombing during World War II, mostly through deliberate campaigns against enemy cities. No wonder Gen. Curtis LeMay, who directed the bombing campaign against Japan, told an aide, "If the U.S. lost the war, we would be prosecuted as war criminals." The United States dropped more than 6 million tons of bombs during the Indochina war, including tons of napalm and lethal defoliants like Agent Orange, and it is directly responsible for the deaths of many of the roughly 1 million civilians who died in that war.

More recently, the U.S.-backed Contra war in Nicaragua killed some 30,000 Nicaraguans, a percentage of their population equivalent to 2 million dead Americans. U.S. military action has led directly or indirectly to the deaths of 250,000 Muslims over the past three decades (and that's a low-end estimate, not counting the deaths resulting from the sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s), including the more than 100,000 people who died following the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. U.S. drones and Special Forces are going after suspected terrorists in at least five countries at present and have killed an unknown number of innocent civilians in the process. Some of these actions may have been necessary to make Americans more prosperous and secure. But while Americans would undoubtedly regard such acts as indefensible if some foreign country were doing them to us, hardly any U.S. politicians have questioned these policies. Instead, Americans still wonder, "Why do they hate us?"

The United States talks a good game on human rights and international law, but it has refused to sign most human rights treaties, is not a party to the International Criminal Court, and has been all too willing to cozy up to dictators -- remember our friend Hosni Mubarak? -- with abysmal human rights records. If that were not enough, the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the George W. Bush administration's reliance on waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, and preventive detention should shake America's belief that it consistently acts in a morally superior fashion. Obama's decision to retain many of these policies suggests they were not a temporary aberration.

The United States never conquered a vast overseas empire or caused millions to die through tyrannical blunders like China's Great Leap Forward or Stalin's forced collectivization. And given the vast power at its disposal for much of the past century, Washington could certainly have done much worse. But the record is clear: U.S. leaders have done what they thought they had to do when confronted by external dangers, and they paid scant attention to moral principles along the way. The idea that the United States is uniquely virtuous may be comforting to Americans; too bad it's not true.

Myth 3: America's Success Is Due to Its Special Genius.

The United States has enjoyed remarkable success, and Americans tend to portray their rise to world power as a direct result of the political foresight of the Founding Fathers, the virtues of the U.S. Constitution, the priority placed on individual liberty, and the creativity and hard work of the American people. In this narrative, the United States enjoys an exceptional global position today because it is, well, exceptional.

There is more than a grain of truth to this version of American history. It's not an accident that immigrants came to America in droves in search of economic opportunity, and the "melting pot" myth facilitated the assimilation of each wave of new Americans. America's scientific and technological achievements are fully deserving of praise and owe something to the openness and vitality of the American political order.

But America's past success is due as much to good luck as to any uniquely American virtues. The new nation was lucky that the continent was lavishly endowed with natural resources and traversed by navigable rivers. It was lucky to have been founded far from the other great powers and even luckier that the native population was less advanced and highly susceptible to European diseases. Americans were fortunate that the European great powers were at war for much of the republic's early history, which greatly facilitated its expansion across the continent, and its global primacy was ensured after the other great powers fought two devastating world wars. This account of America's rise does not deny that the United States did many things right, but it also acknowledges that America's present position owes as much to good fortune as to any special genius or "manifest destiny."

Myth 4: The United States Is Responsible for Most of the Good in the World.

Americans are fond of giving themselves credit for positive international developments. President Bill Clinton believed the United States was "indispensable to the forging of stable political relations," and the late Harvard University political scientist Samuel P. Huntington thought U.S. primacy was central "to the future of freedom, democracy, open economies, and international order in the world." Journalist Michael Hirsh has gone even further, writing in his book At War With Ourselves that America's global role is "the greatest gift the world has received in many, many centuries, possibly all of recorded history." Scholarly works such as Tony Smith's America's Mission and G. John Ikenberry's Liberal Leviathan emphasize America's contribution to the spread of democracy and its promotion of a supposedly liberal world order. Given all the high-fives American leaders have given themselves, it is hardly surprising that most Americans see their country as an overwhelmingly positive force in world affairs.

Once again, there is something to this line of argument, just not enough to make it entirely accurate. The United States has made undeniable contributions to peace and stability in the world over the past century, including the Marshall Plan, the creation and management of the Bretton Woods system, its rhetorical support for the core principles of democracy and human rights, and its mostly stabilizing military presence in Europe and the Far East. But the belief that all good things flow from Washington's wisdom overstates the U.S. contribution by a wide margin.

For starters, though Americans watching Saving Private Ryan or Patton may conclude that the United States played the central role in vanquishing Nazi Germany, most of the fighting was in Eastern Europe and the main burden of defeating Hitler's war machine was borne by the Soviet Union. Similarly, though the Marshall Plan and NATO played important roles in Europe's post-World War II success, Europeans deserve at least as much credit for rebuilding their economies, constructing a novel economic and political union, and moving beyond four centuries of sometimes bitter rivalry. Americans also tend to think they won the Cold War all by themselves, a view that ignores the contributions of other anti-Soviet adversaries and the courageous dissidents whose resistance to communist rule produced the "velvet revolutions" of 1989.

Moreover, as Godfrey Hodgson recently noted in his sympathetic but clear-eyed book, The Myth of American Exceptionalism, the spread of liberal ideals is a global phenomenon with roots in the Enlightenment, and European philosophers and political leaders did much to advance the democratic ideal. Similarly, the abolition of slavery and the long effort to improve the status of women owe more to Britain and other democracies than to the United States, where progress in both areas trailed many other countries. Nor can the United States claim a global leadership role today on gay rights, criminal justice, or economic equality -- Europe's got those areas covered.

Finally, any honest accounting of the past half-century must acknowledge the downside of American primacy. The United States has been the major producer of greenhouse gases for most of the last hundred years and thus a principal cause of the adverse changes that are altering the global environment. The United States stood on the wrong side of the long struggle against apartheid in South Africa and backed plenty of unsavory dictatorships -- including Saddam Hussein's -- when short-term strategic interests dictated. Americans may be justly proud of their role in creating and defending Israel and in combating global anti-Semitism, but its one-sided policies have also prolonged Palestinian statelessness and sustained Israel's brutal occupation.

Bottom line: Americans take too much credit for global progress and accept too little blame for areas where U.S. policy has in fact been counterproductive. Americans are blind to their weak spots, and in ways that have real-world consequences. Remember when Pentagon planners thought U.S. troops would be greeted in Baghdad with flowers and parades? They mostly got RPGs and IEDs instead.

Myth 5: God Is on Our Side.

A crucial component of American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States has a divinely ordained mission to lead the rest of the world. Ronald Reagan told audiences that there was "some divine plan" that had placed America here, and once quoted Pope Pius XII saying, "Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind." Bush offered a similar view in 2004, saying, "We have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom." The same idea was expressed, albeit less nobly, in Otto von Bismarck's alleged quip that "God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States."

Confidence is a valuable commodity for any country. But when a nation starts to think it enjoys the mandate of heaven and becomes convinced that it cannot fail or be led astray by scoundrels or incompetents, then reality is likely to deliver a swift rebuke. Ancient Athens, Napoleonic France, imperial Japan, and countless other countries have succumbed to this sort of hubris, and nearly always with catastrophic results.

Despite America's many successes, the country is hardly immune from setbacks, follies, and boneheaded blunders. If you have any doubts about that, just reflect on how a decade of ill-advised tax cuts, two costly and unsuccessful wars, and a financial meltdown driven mostly by greed and corruption have managed to squander the privileged position the United States enjoyed at the end of the 20th century. Instead of assuming that God is on their side, perhaps Americans should heed Abraham Lincoln's admonition that our greatest concern should be "whether we are on God's side."

Given the many challenges Americans now face, from persistent unemployment to the burden of winding down two deadly wars, it's unsurprising that they find the idea of their own exceptionalism comforting -- and that their aspiring political leaders have been proclaiming it with increasing fervor. Such patriotism has its benefits, but not when it leads to a basic misunderstanding of America's role in the world. This is exactly how bad decisions get made.

America has its own special qualities, as all countries do, but it is still a state embedded in a competitive global system. It is far stronger and richer than most, and its geopolitical position is remarkably favorable. These advantages give the United States a wider range of choice in its conduct of foreign affairs, but they don't ensure that its choices will be good ones. Far from being a unique state whose behavior is radically different from that of other great powers, the United States has behaved like all the rest, pursuing its own self-interest first and foremost, seeking to improve its relative position over time, and devoting relatively little blood or treasure to purely idealistic pursuits. Yet, just like past great powers, it has convinced itself that it is different, and better, than everyone else.

International politics is a contact sport, and even powerful states must compromise their political principles for the sake of security and prosperity. Nationalism is also a powerful force, and it inevitably highlights the country's virtues and sugarcoats its less savory aspects.

But if Americans want to be truly exceptional, they might start by viewing the whole idea of "American exceptionalism" with a much more skeptical eye.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News

[Jun 19, 2018] U.S. Humiliates South Korea, Threatens North Korea, by David William Pear - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... The declaration of the DPRK came after the US- backed Rhee declared the ROK and reneged on peninsula-wide elections that had been agreed to at the UN. I guess you can call it a civil war, but that really isn't germane to the question: Why can the US not stomach any rapprochement between the two de facto Koreas two-thirds of a century later, while it was willing to accept a reunification of a historically more aggressive Germany? ..."
"... According to I.F. Stone in his "Hidden History of the Korean War" (1952), the intent of the Korean War was to destabilize the Chinese Revolution which had consolidated power the year before. ..."
Jun 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

David William Pear January 17, 2018 2,800 Words 115 Comments Reply

Fearing that peace might break out with the two Koreas talking to each other, Washington instructed South Korean President Moon Jae-in to keep the message about anything but peace . It is not just Trump. A former top official for the Obama administration warned Moon that South Korea was not going to get anywhere with the North Koreans unless they have the "US behind them". Humiliating, that is like saying that Moon's "button" is not as big as Kim's. The metaphor is exactly how the Washington elite see South Korea: as Washington's obedient eunuch. The official went on to say, "If South Koreans are viewed as running off the leash, it will exacerbate tension within the alliance". Running off the leash! Now more humiliation, is South Korea a US poodle? Instead President Moon Jae-in is showing that he has teeth, and that South Koreans want their country back from US humiliating domination.

During the talks it was agreed for North Korea to participate in the Winter Olympics in February. The two countries will even march together under a common flag, and future talks between the two are planned to reduce tension. Trump continues to bluster, while the two Koreas have " engaged in the most substantive direct talks in years". Neocons such as John Bolton are outraged that North Korea has proven once again that it is willing to come to the negotiation table. Bolton says it is a dirty trick and that North Korea is "taking advantage of a weak South Korean government", adding more insulting humiliation. To Washington, South Korea talking peace is weak, running off the leash and going it alone without its US master. The North using the peace option is seen as a provocation and propaganda that Washington will not tolerate. In retaliation the US sent more nukes to Guam, and put the state of Hawaii on a full alert that a " ballistic missile was inbound ". The nukes outbound to Guam are real; the ones inbound to Hawaii were fake, just like the ability of the billion dollar THAADS to shoot them down. Too conveniently the Hawaii false alarm comes just as the US and its vassals are readying for what the US plots to be a show of solidarity and unity on killer sanctions against North Korea. The US wants its chorus to perform the tragedy of telling North Korea to obey or watch 500,000 of their children die. As Madeleine Albright said about Iraq's 500,000 dead children from US sanctions, " the price is worth it ". The US does not think the price of diplomacy is worth it though.

The US continues to block efforts at diplomacy, and express its contempt for South Korea's elected President Moon Jae-in. He was elected on a peace platform by the South Korean people. Moon's predecessor Park Geun-hye sang from the US hymnbook until she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. In 2017 the South Korean people went to the street and demanded the granddaughter of former dictator Park Chung Hee be impeached, and now she is in prison. Peace is not anything that Washington's plutocrats want to hear, although the South Korean people like the sound of it, and elected Moon their president by a wide margin. The self-interests in Washington preferred the corrupt warmonger Park. She carried the US's tune with perfect pitch, even ( allegedly ) conspired to assassinate the North's Kim Jong-Un. The message of the humiliation from US apparatchiks is that if Moon does not change his tune the US will try to undermine South Korea's democracy with a regime change project might be in his future. The US habitually meddles in other's elections, and wants to keep tensions high on the Korean peninsula, keep the South Koreans in line, make North Korea a boogeyman, frighten the American people, station 30,000 US troops in South Korea with wartime operational control, buy more multi-billion dollar THAADS from Lockheed Martin, and divide the Korean people. Even at the risks of a nuclear war, which the US proposes making easier .

The establishment nearly went to war with North Korea in 1994 until Bill Clinton negotiated peace. The neocons in Washington and the mainstream media keep saying that North Korea refused to come to the negotiating table. Clinton's decision to use diplomacy instead of threats proved the warmongers wrong again. It was the US all along that refused to talk, preferring belligerence and threats just as it does now. Once Clinton showed a willingness to bargain, then a nuclear deal was struck. The deal was called the Agreed Framework . What North Korea wanted then for it to suspend its nuclear program was for the US to halt the massive military exercises on North Korea's border, a non-aggression guarantee, compensation for abandoning its needed electric producing nuclear reactors, and relations with the US. Now the situation with North Korea is back to where it was in 1994. George W. Bush reversed the path of peace when he came into the White House. In 2001 he tore up the Agreed Framework, put North Korea on the Axis of Evil list in 2002, invaded Iraq in 2003, and hanged Saddam Hussein in 2006. Very predictably North Korea resumed its nuclear program for self-defense against a paranoid and unpredictable USA that sees enemies to attack under every bed.

Bush scrapped the Agreed Framework, and told then South Korean President Kim Dae-jung that future talks with North Korea were dead. Kim Dae-jung had come to visit Bush shortly after winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his Sunshine Policies of peace with North Korea. Instead of welcoming President Kim and his peace efforts, Bush humiliated him by shockingly calling North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il a dwarf. North Korea predictably withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and resumed work on its nuclear program. A month later Bush called out North Korea to pay particular attention to Libya as an example of how a country is welcomed into the international community when it unilaterally gives up its nuclear defense program. North Korea paid attention and it was listening when Muammar Gaddafi said in a 2008 speech that " one of these days America may hang us like they did Saddam ". In 2011 Gaddafi met a brutal death at the hands of US proxies; he was anally raped with a bayonet and left to rot on public display in a meat locker. Before Gaddafi's corpse was even cold a hysterically glowing Hillary Clinton cackled " we came, we saw, he died", hahaha ". Now fast forward to 2018 and the US is threatening war against North Korea again.

The US has been abusing Korea since 1871 when it first invaded it with an expeditionary force of Marines to forcibly open trade. Korea just wanted to be left alone, but the US forced Korea to sign an exclusive trade treaty in 1882 at the point of a gun. In exchange for that unequal trade agreement the US promised Korea protection. In 1910 the US proved that its promise was worthless. Instead of protection, President Theodore Roosevelt stabbed Korea in the back by conspiring with Japan. Roosevelt had enthusiastically supported Japan in the Russo-Japanese War. Japan pre-emptively attacked the Russian fleet at Port Arthur in a sneak attack. Teddy congratulated Japan for their brilliance in 1941 his nephew Franklin would call a Japanese sneak attack "a day of infamy". After Japan and Russia ground down to a bloody stalemate, Japan secretly appealed to Teddy to open negotiations. Roosevelt acted as a (dis)honest broker in negotiating the Treaty of Portsmouth, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Japan won the spoils of the war. Roosevelt had a secret deal that Japan could have Korea and the US would take the Philippines. In 1945 the US deceived Korea again. Instead of liberating Korea from the Japanese occupation, the US occupied Korea for 3 more years until 1948 and then blocked its independence. The US was largely responsible for the division of Korea and backing dictatorships in South Korea until 1993. Americans do not know the US treachery, but Koreans do. Why would they trust the USA now?

In order to understand North Korea, one must start with the "anticolonial and anti-imperial state growing out of a half-century of Japanese colonial rule and a half-century of continuous confrontation with a hegemonic United States", as Bruce Cumings writes in his book North Korea: Another Country . In order to understand South Korea one should take a similar approach. The Japanese colonization of Korea in 1910 was greeted with cheers from the USA. Teddy Roosevelt encouraged Japan to have its own Japanese Monroe Doctrine for Northeast Asia. The Japanese were harsh rulers, and Koreans remember colonial times as a national humiliation. Under the Japanese the Korean economy grew rapidly, but Koreans will rightly argue that little of it helped the average Korean. Like the Korean "comfort women" sex slaves during World War Two, Koreans were forced to obey their Japanese masters. Some Koreans complied reluctantly, some willingly and some enthusiastically. Many, but not all of the enthusiastic collaborators came from the landed aristocratic class of Koreans known as the yangban . Other collaborators were traitors that saw advancing their economic and social status by collaborating. After the division of Korea in 1945 many of the yangban class and collaborators fled to the South where they felt safe with the US occupation army, and for good reasons. The North was redistributing the yangban's vast landholdings. Many of the yangban and collaborators were safer in the US occupied south. Some went on to achieve leadership in business and government in South Korea. For instance, the future South Korean dictator Park Chung-hee (from 1963 until his assassination in 1979) had collaborated with the Japanese as a lieutenant in the Japanese army in Manchuria fighting against the Korean resistance fighters.

Korea has a long history of thousands of years. It united as one people in the 7 th century and remained so until after World War Two. The US had started planning for the occupation of Korea six months after Pearl Harbor, according to Bruce Cumings. The day after Japan surrendered a future Secretary of State Dean Rusk drew a line at the 38 th Parallel where the US proposed that Korea be divided, and the Russian allies agreed. Thousands of Koreans protested in the streets. They were told that a trusteeship was temporary until elections. Instead the US feared that the people would elect a communist government, and so they rigged a fraudulent election for a separate government in the South. The United Nations rubber stamped it. As in the South, the North then held separate elections for the Supreme People's Assembly which then elected Kim Il Sung, a famous anti-Japanese guerilla resistance leader since 1932. The US and South Korean propaganda portray that North Korea was a puppet and satellite project of the Soviet Union. This is probably the US projecting its own imperial intentions. Cummings says that no evidence exists that the Soviets had any long-term designs on Korea. They withdrew all of their military from North Korea in 1948.

North Korea has experience with US brutality. During the Korean War the US bombed Korea for 3 years, wiped out 20% of its population and destroyed every city, village and vital structure. President Truman threatened to bomb them with the atomic bomb, and General Douglas MacArthur planned to use 30 nuclear bombs which were shipped to a US base in Okinawa. Truman fired MacArthur not because MacArthur wanted to use nukes, but because Truman wanted someone more loyal he could trust with them. Truman preauthorized MacArthur's replacement General Matthew Ridgeway to use the nuclear bombs at his discretion. The US public is oblivious to US recklessness with nuclear bombs and is passive about what is done in their name. The Korean War (1950 to 1953) is called the Forgotten War because the US public has amnesia. Whatever propaganda they do remember is a flawed version of history put out by the US government. Oblivious, passive and amnesia are why all US wars of aggression are quickly forgotten as the US moves on to the next one.

After the US military occupation of South Korea from 1945 to 1948, South Korea was ruled by US backed repressive dictators until the first democratic election in 1993. The first despot that the US installed was Syngman Rhee in 1948. Rhee was a practically unknown in Korea because he had lived in the USA from 1912 until 1945, when he was flown back to Korea by the US military. The US pumped billions of dollars into South Korea to make it a showplace of US-style capitalism during the Cold War, but South Korea did not develop under either democracy or a free market, according to Ha-Joon Chang, the author of Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism .

For many decades North Korea outpaced South Korea in economic development and in their standard of living until the 1970's. With the 1991 demise of its most important trading partner the Soviet Union, North Korea fell on very hard economic times. Then it suffered two floods and a drought in the 1990′s that resulted in famines. On top of that the US has imposed killer economic sanctions. So now US propaganda constantly reinforces the belief that North Korea is an economic failure that cannot even feed its own people. While the US touts that South Korea is an economic miracle of democracy, capitalism and free markets. Little is ever mentioned about the economic collapse of South Korea in 1997, which the US had to rescue with a financial bailout package that reached $90 Billion. The package included IMF loans that came with humiliating conditionalities of austerity. The minister of finance Lim Chang Yuel went on TV, humiliated and begging for the South Korean people's forgiveness.

Despite all the propaganda otherwise, North Korea is not only willing to sit down at the table with the US, but it has long been proposing negotiations to a deaf USA ear. What North Korea says it wants today are the same things that were negotiated with Clinton in the Agreed Framework: security, compensation, and economic relations with the US. There is nothing unreasonable that North Korea is asking for, and that is probably why the US refuses to negotiate. It does not want peace for its own insane naked imperialism reasons. Instead the US wants continued hostilities; otherwise if it wanted peace it would welcome diplomacy.

It is the US that is unpredictable. One day Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says that the US is willing to hold unconditional talks with North Korea. Then he says the US won't . Trump says that he will destroy North Korea with fire and fury, and then he says he would " absolutely talk to North Korea's Kim on the phone". It is the US that is paranoid and finding enemies everywhere: Cuba, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia to name just a few. The US enemies list has nothing to do with democracy, freedom and human rights. If it did the US would not be friends, allies, and benefactors to brutal kingdoms, monarchies, dictators, fascists and human rights abusers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Honduras, Haiti, and Ukraine, for example. US foreign policy is based on hegemony, empire, power, corporate interests, corruption and self-interests of the high and mighty, not democracy and human rights.

Who is paranoid? Compare how much of a threat the US is compared to North Korea. Since World War Two North Korea has not invaded anybody. The Korean War (1950 to 1953) was a civil war and authoritative historians such as I. F. Stone, Bruce Cumings, and David Halberstam agree that the South was responsible for instigating it too. Korea itself has not invaded anybody since the 16 th century. The US has attacked at least 32 countries just since WW2. North Korea has a defense budget of only $7.5 billion , compared to the US $1 Trillion. North Korea has developed nuclear weapons because the US has been threatening it with nuclear destruction since 1950, introduced nuclear weapons into South Korea in 1957 in violation of the armistice agreement and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US keeps practicing regime change decapitation invasions and nuclear attacks against North Korea. North Korea has an estimated arsenal of 20 nuke bombs that are not a threat to the US's 15,000 nuclear arsenal. Instead the US is an asymmetrical and existential threat to North Korea and every other non-compliant small country. North Korea has nuclear weapons because it does not want to humiliate itself by being a US poodle. When are the American people going to wise up to the US propaganda and false cries that the evil wolf is at the door again?

References:

"North Korea: Another Country", by Bruce Cumings.

"The China Mirage: The Hidden History of American Disaster in Asia," by James Bradley.

"Korean Mind: Understanding Contemporary Korean Culture", by Boye Lafayette De Mente

(Republished from The Greanville Post by permission of author or representative)


Singh , January 19, 2018 at 12:33 am GMT

USA also culturally & spiritually enslaved many South Koreans।।
KA , January 19, 2018 at 3:49 am GMT
and the war that America forgot come back as peace and American can't handle it . Do they still ask themselves that question "Why do they hate us" ?
Nexus321 , January 19, 2018 at 5:03 am GMT
@KA

United Sh-thole of America. The people in Washington are degenerates. They want to murder millions of Koreans and tens of thousands of their own people.

Renoman , January 19, 2018 at 11:51 am GMT
Since World War Two North Korea has not invaded anybody. Not much more needs to be said.
sid18 , January 19, 2018 at 4:08 pm GMT
South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Singapore always have been usa poodles
reiner Tor , January 19, 2018 at 7:30 pm GMT
This article is too easy on the Norks, who are no angels themselves. It's quite unlikely that the South started the war, when the South didn't have adequate weaponry or effective armed forces, unlike the North. North Korea has done some horrible things in the past, most recently the (likely) sinking of a South Korean vessel.

But overall, yes, in the current situation the US could easily avoid war, but doesn't want to.

nsa , January 20, 2018 at 6:13 am GMT
Absolutely zero chance of JUSA attacking Korea for the obvious reason that there is nothing in it for the jooies. Why would the clever conniving jooies waste their satrap's military assets on Korea when they could be used to further the main jooie goal of destroying the ME and Iran? Think about it ..
sarz , January 20, 2018 at 6:30 am GMT
Could be that the Trump administration is playing a game of hyper-aggression that always goes 'wrong', uniting everyone against the empire and bringing America down in the least bad of hard landings from its imperial role. Trump's kind words vis-a-vis Kim might have served as an assurance that Kim could trust his channel. That purpose having been served, Trump was back in hyper-aggressive mode with his "I'd" versus "I" explanation.

Trump's statements regarding Jerusalem, Iran and Pakistan/Afghanistan all follow the same pattern.

We do have President Moon's statement, cited by a seemingly clueless Patrick Buchanan, that he is nonetheless grateful to Trump for bringing the North Koreans to the table. Trump's overtly bad behavior makes it easier for Kim to move against the entrenched forces on his own side.

Just a possibility. But it fits Trump's personality, if you go by indications over the decades rather than the last two years.

Biff , January 20, 2018 at 7:05 am GMT
The sex slave trade out of South Korea to America is massive, and forgotten too.
Anonymous Disclaimer , January 20, 2018 at 7:43 am GMT
@reiner Tor

So what? America is not an angel either. Doesn't give America the right to interfere. I'm glad other countries have the balls to give America a bloody nose. Never has there been such a dishonest and immoral country.

Where are you from Europe lol?

Hope your not expecting your obedience to pay off someday.

ThatDamnGood , January 20, 2018 at 8:00 am GMT
"When are the American people going to wise up to the US propaganda and false cries that the evil wolf is at the door again?"

The hippie paradigm, if the people have awareness, they will care and change things

I think you underestimate the % of people who don't care and those understand, better them than me. Trump was quoted as saying about the next Korean war, better Seoul nuked than us or something to that effect. Do Trump supporters mind what he said that the USA should take the oil at the very least with regards to Iraq?

Da Wei , January 20, 2018 at 9:56 am GMT
@Nexus321

Nexus321, please, a little respect for our own country. We are the United States of America. Do not curse the family. Now, we are, all of us, disappointed with misdeeds done in our name. But, we are Americans and we can fix this.

We should not judge the essence of ourselves as a nation by what some wayward politician whores do. Check their motives and see on whose behalf they are working. It ain't ours. If what they do keeps the war game alive, ask who benefits. Where does the buck lead? There lies the snake. Curse that. Bad deeds done in our government's name shame us all, but that shame should make us citizens mature and determined, not adolescent and whiny. I repeat, do not curse the family.

We are a good country founded on solid, moral principles. Act like a white man, Nexus321. Let's take this country back and delouse it.

padre , January 20, 2018 at 1:07 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

I don't know, what were you trying to say? That North Korea should be nuked, since they are "no angels"? no matter what your personal opinion of them is, the fact, that they didn't attack anybody is still true!

The Alarmist , January 20, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT
@Renoman

"Since World War Two North Korea has not invaded anybody."

North Korea inarguably invaded the South. The arguable point might be whether or not it was provoked and therefore a response.

I haven't read the histories the author cites, but I am aware of the history and the case that can be made, and it is generally consonant with the gist of this article. The declaration of the DPRK came after the US- backed Rhee declared the ROK and reneged on peninsula-wide elections that had been agreed to at the UN. I guess you can call it a civil war, but that really isn't germane to the question: Why can the US not stomach any rapprochement between the two de facto Koreas two-thirds of a century later, while it was willing to accept a reunification of a historically more aggressive Germany?

Anonymous Disclaimer , January 20, 2018 at 2:08 pm GMT
@ThatDamnGood

Absolutely. There are suburbs coast to coast that depend on weapons manufacturing and all things defense. They'll stick to the script. I'm disappointed the author didn't embellish the truth of the Korean war – the way the US went after civilians like the Nazis and used biological agents. Empire has a lot of secrets about fightin' communism they still hide.

bluedog , January 20, 2018 at 2:15 pm GMT
@Da Wei

Screw the "family" mafia for the family is just as corrupt as the leaders you curse, do you really think the family gives a shit about how many we killed in Asia, do you really think the family gives a shit about how many we kill in the Mid-East or anywhere else for that matter,and what the country was founded on has no bearing to what it is today, corrupt to the core, immoral degenerate with a fascist type government which the "family" is just as guilty of as its leaders .

TonyVodvarka , January 20, 2018 at 3:44 pm GMT
According to I.F. Stone in his "Hidden History of the Korean War" (1952), the intent of the Korean War was to destabilize the Chinese Revolution which had consolidated power the year before. As Iraq was told that it was acceptable to the USA if it reunified with Kuwait in 1993, so North Korea was suckered into attempting to reunify their country. Those thirty atomic bombs were not intended for Korea which had already been utterly destroyed by conventional weapons, they were meant for China. McArthur sacrificed a Marine division by sending it without support to the border of China and predictably brought that country into the war; he then demanded the nuclear bombing of China. Truman didn't go along and MacArthur was soon replaced. A fine article from Mr. Pear.
Anon Disclaimer , January 20, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
Lots of good stuff but too sympathetic to North Korea which is ruled by a truly vile regime. North Korea is not about nationalism. It's about dynasticism. Also, 'Kim Il Sung' was not the real Kim Il Sung. His real name was Kim Sung Ju and he appropriated the name of a guerrilla fighter. And his cult of personality was obnoxious.

Bak Jung-Hi worked for the Japanese, but collaboration is par for the course when resistance is futile. Resistance became futile under Japanese who were only defeated by great powers. Sukarno collaborated with Japanese too. And Kim collaborated with the Soviets. North Korea redistributed land to the peasants but then state collectivized the land, and the peasants became slaves of the state. The fact that Red China and communist Vietnam turned to market economics is proof that capitalism works better than communism. Communism is like City Hall running all the economy of a big city. Who wants that?

anonymous Disclaimer , January 20, 2018 at 4:49 pm GMT
The US has been threatening to use nukes against the DPRK during and since the war. Is it any wonder that they decided to nuke up themselves as a deterrent? They're not going to give up their nuclear deterrent under the bombast of threats of annihilation but are more likely to dig in and expand it. This doesn't seem to be particularly complex or difficult to understand. Where does the US think it can go from here, what does it think it could realistically do to them? It might be a good first step to stop the bluffing. Can we say 'self-inflicted' when it comes to this confrontation?
Avery , January 20, 2018 at 5:10 pm GMT
@anonymous

{ Can we say 'self-inflicted' when it comes to this confrontation}

The confrontation is not 'inflicted ' as such: it was and is carefully planned. This is not the first time South Korea has tried to approach North Korea: US previously also threatened SK leaders, and forced them to back off. US needs maximum tension on the Korean peninsula to have an excuse to keepa large contingent of armed forces in the region. If South and North Korean make peace, US will be asked to leave SK. Next might be Japan. Then US is completely cut out of the region.

So in desperation, US will do anything, possibly even instigating a military clash, to stay in SK and Japan. Last thing US MIC wants anywhere in the world is peace: it's bad for business.

Anonymous Disclaimer , January 20, 2018 at 5:43 pm GMT
What we need are more psyops like the recent drill in Hawaii. More fear and loathing so empire can create a virtual camp x-ray with live updates from Facebook and twitter to coddle the sheep. It's a shame North Korea can't buy Democracy to keep it from Dying in Darkness. But how dare Russia try to use our twitter weapon that we use on Americans that the Russians want to use on Americans too.

Pussy hat controlled resistance, doom porn and fake antiwar will continue to play an important part of the lives of the American porn consumer. In the name of security the CIA may give us the race war, or hatred of the wealthy or the ol' immigrant rat trap. The possibilities are endless but the dictatorship is making itself clear with endless promotion of scarcity through their scribes in social media.

Post on social media everyday – what you think matters!

Anonymous Disclaimer , January 20, 2018 at 7:01 pm GMT
To make matters much more confusing, we have hypocritical stealth DOD contractors like Code Pink play up fake resistance to the threat of war. Barging into meetings as if the whores on Capitol Hill are calling the shots is an uniquely insidious form of stunt based propaganda. The motive for groups like Code Pink is to have a group that part of the press can immediately call "far left, unpatrioric" endearing them to at least half the sheep who are convinced they are the real McCoy of antiwar dynamite.

Code Pink first crushes any questions about whether Democracy even exists in the USA. "Look at us, we are right here where it matters isn't the country wonderful"

Then the absolute suffocation of anyone who dares question empires' gun running operations outside of state approved stunt idiocy and clown show electoral politics.

Carroll Price , January 20, 2018 at 7:13 pm GMT
Dying North Koreans Prove US Sanctions are Working. https://www.rt.com/usa/416354-tillerson-un-sanctions-north-korea/
Hapalong Cassidy , January 20, 2018 at 7:47 pm GMT
It must be especially galling and humiliating to be dominated by a country that on average is 10 points lower in IQ (per the Lynn study).
reiner Tor , January 20, 2018 at 8:14 pm GMT
@Carroll Price

He managed to achieve Madeleine Albright level depravity after less than a year in office. Sad!

Alden , January 20, 2018 at 8:15 pm GMT
@Biff

Why did you omit the fact that the S Korean sex trade is completely run by S Koreans not Americans? I do remember an American colonel in the occupation forces stating that he basically ran a brothel.

EliteCommInc. , January 20, 2018 at 8:57 pm GMT
@Carroll Price

The US has had sanctions on N. Korea for more than forty years. During that period, more than one S, Korean government has entertained re-unification. The reason we might challenge that reunion if because should we actually have to go to war at some point with China, a friendly Korea with China would be a problem.

But what is driving unification at least when I visited was the population.

But the choice by Pres Trump to entertain conversation -- is a wise choice.

Carroll Price , January 20, 2018 at 10:02 pm GMT
@Alden

So? Most of the propaganda put out during the Cold War by the Soviet Union turned out to be more accurate and closer to the truth than propaganda put out by the United States government though the US State Department. For instance, Russia's version (at the time) as of what transpired immediately prior to and after Francis Gary Powers was shot down over Russia in 1959 (?) turned out to be much more accurate than the US's version which was essentially a pack of lies.

Carroll Price , January 20, 2018 at 10:20 pm GMT
@Carroll Price

Brief history of the Francis Gary Powers fiasco. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/u2-incident

daniel le mouche , January 20, 2018 at 10:58 pm GMT
@Joe Hide

No idea what you're talking about with 'the Truth'. This article is highly accurate, it seems to me: it's description of endless and ongoing US atrocities is absolutely true, as is the author's statement that never has such a rotten, lying government existed, a government that perpetually provokes any and all countries on earth, that hates peace, that destroys any attempts at decency. I have only read IF Stone, cited here, 'The Hidden History of the Korean War' or something similar. It is a staggering book. Essentially the war was a military exercise, a chance for troops to see action, test out new machines and weaponry. Most importantly, my interpretation here, it presented a vast theater for psy ops and 'country building' ie utter destruction. These kinds of great experiments are a Brit and by extension US govt specialty. This is really thinking big, thinking long term. Cut countries in two after first murdering millions and utterly destroying literally everything–in this case, for example, Seoul was literally first evacuated then set on fire by US troops, just kinda for fun. It's the kind of really big thinking going on now too (and in all the intervening years), eg with the utter destruction of Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Britain (a misnomer–it is really England but wants others to share the burden. I mean, the Welsh??) did this to Ireland four centuries ago, to India more recently, to mention nothing of Africa and others.

daniel le mouche , January 20, 2018 at 11:04 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

'Then there's a whole range of wild attacks and accusations going all the way back to 1871(!).' It's called history, not an American specialty. But rather important to understanding the present and future. Your whole post is very ignorant.

Seraphim , January 20, 2018 at 11:36 pm GMT
@sid18

You forgot Australia. The poodle who wants to play the pit bull.

JVC , January 21, 2018 at 12:35 am GMT
@The Alarmist

It was the same in VietNam–we installed a dictator (Diem) who had lived mostly in the US, and reneged on the national elections that had been agreed on as a part of the peace agreement after the French defeat.

After JFK tried and lost, nothing has been able to stop the Military bla bla bla complex that actually rules this country.

JVC , January 21, 2018 at 12:41 am GMT
@Vinteuil

If South Korea officially requested this, would the US refuse?

Of course the USG would refuse such a request -- it thinks it is master of the world. The greatest hindrance to world peace since WWII is the monster on the Potomac.

Erebus , January 21, 2018 at 1:07 am GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova

I do have to side with you this time.

Michael Kenny's comment ignores the fact that the rocket motors could have been airshipped from the Dnipro factory directly to DPRK, or even shipped by sea.
Maybe they came via China. The bottom line is we don't know when or how they got there.

What we do know is that Rocket Man's displays of prowess have brought things to a head in one of the Empire's critical nodes. The background for this crisis is ROK's desire to participate in China's BRI. The chaebols are drooling over the opportunities, but DPRK isolates them in the southern end of the Korean peninsula. Hence, Putin & Moon's joint announcement in Vladivostok of the "9 Bridges" initiative bringing DPRK into the Eurasian fold.

It would appear DPRK likes the idea, and the suddenness of the thaw in North – South relations is an indication that big wheels are turning behind the scenes. The US' recent statements indicate it finally dawned on them as well, and that they are, in their typically knee-jerk fashion, actively trying to torpedo further peaceful developments.

If ROK loosens its tethers to the US sufficiently to gain direct land access to the rest of Eurasia, Japan's Keiretsu will not allow themselves to be sidelined. Abe & Putin have met 17 times, perhaps as a result of the pressures Abe is already feeling from them.

The US' absurd statements, the patently silly "Vancouver Summit", the flip-flopping, all indicate that the US and its Imperial satraps have no idea what to do in the face of Rocket Man's exposure of their irrelevance in the N.W. Pacific.

Vinteuil , January 21, 2018 at 1:14 am GMT
@JVC

So let them, officially, invite us to leave. My bet – and certainly my hope – is that we'd bow out, more or less gracefully. And if we refused – well, that would certainly clarify things.

NJ Transit Commuter , January 21, 2018 at 1:20 am GMT
@The Alarmist

The Korean Peninsula is cursed by geography. Reunification of Korea would mean one of two things.

1. A Korean Peninsula allied with the US. This would put US troops on the Chinese border. No one should want this. Too easy for a border incident to escalate into a war between the two most powerful countries and economies on the planet.

2. A non-aligned Korean Peninsula. No way this would happen. Without US support the entire peninsula would become a Chinese satellite. Japan fought two wars because it saw Chinese / Russian control of Korea as an existential threat. Japan would get nukes if this happened and the entire NW Pacific would be greatly destabilized.

The sad reality is that a buffer state in the north part of the Korean Peninsula is in the best interest of South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the US. What everyone needs to figure out is how to make N. Korea more like East Germany, and less like Stalinist Russia at its worse.

Grandpa Charlie , January 21, 2018 at 1:27 am GMT
@Anon

"North Korea is not about nationalism. It's about dynasticism." -- Anon

Except that the current Kim may actually be a Korean nationalist, not a North Korean nationalist, in which respect he is in agreement with all the Korean people. Korea will become reunited, but the price of reunification may be, probably will be, that it will become part of Han China.

China regards Korea as it does Tibet, only more so -- as now and since ever throughout all time, as part of China, speaking and writing Mandarin, integrated into the PRC economically, culturally and politically.

I'm sure this will please the anti-USA crowd gathering here around this article by Pear -- as they always do to show support for any Leftist revisionist supporter of the "USA==Evil" dogma.

Anon Disclaimer , January 21, 2018 at 2:48 am GMT
@Grandpa Charlie

"Except that the current Kim may actually be a Korean nationalist, not a North Korean nationalist, in which respect he is in agreement with all the Korean people. Korea will become reunited, but the price of reunification may be, probably will be, that it will become part of Han China."

No, Little Rocket Man is a self-centered spoiled brat who puts himself above all else. He was raised as a spoiled princeling and acts like it.

"China regards Korea as it does Tibet, only more so -- as now and since ever throughout all time, as part of China, speaking and writing Mandarin, integrated into the PRC economically, culturally and politically."

No, China always regarded Korea as a separate kingdom and left it alone as long as Korea paid tribute. It was Japan that tried to swallow Korea twice, not China.
The only time Korea became part of Han Empire was when China itself was conquered by foreigners. Mongols conquered China and Korea. Later, Manchus, using Mongol archers, also conquered China and Korea. It was not China conquering Korea but non-Chinese conquering both.
Even so, the Manchus regarded Korea as a separate kingdom in the end.

Tibet is a different because of its small population. It's a huge area and had less than a million people when it came under Han hegemony. Same with the Turkic Northwest. It's like US could easily swallow Alaska and sparsely populated SW territories but didn't try to take Mexico proper.

In a way, Mongols really changed China and Russia. If not for Mongols, Russia might be much smaller and China too. Both Russia and China were conservative powers. Russian expansion was paradoxically defensive as, lacking sufficient natural barriers, Russia could only survive as an empire. Even so, Russians might not have been interested in East Siberia and North Asia if not for concerns of invasions from the East. Pacifying Siberia and North Asia became a priority because of the memory of threat from the East. Also, the Mongols proved that the vast area could be traversed if the people had the will to do so.

And if not for Mongols, Current China might be much smaller. Han China used to be much smaller and was restricted to the East Coast. Chinese were very conservative and not very adventurous, exploratory, and/or invasive. Instead of trying to conquer northern territories, China just built walls to keep the barbarians out. And Chinese had little interest in areas outside Han areas.

So, for most of Chinese history, their civilization was mostly along the east coast.

The massive expansion of Chinese borders happened under Mongols who were adventurous and expansive. Mongols not only invaded China but went far beyond.
Later, the Manchus, using Mongol archers and warriors, expanded much further into the West, regions that the Han Chinese mostly neglected. These semi-barbarian warlords had the aggressive zeal that the conservative Han Chinese lacked.

Thus, it was Manchu-Mongol ambitions that expanded the size of China, and when the Manchus and Mongols were either expelled from or dissolved into Han China, their conquests became absorbed into China. Mongolia would be part of China too if not for Soviets. Like Tibet, Mongolia is huge and sparsely populated. Easier for Chinese to control. Also, both Mongols and Tibetans are less developed than Koreans who are more adept at imitation.

Likewise, Byzantine Greeks had an empire they inherited from the Romans.

Anon Disclaimer , January 21, 2018 at 3:03 am GMT
@reiner Tor

"Highly unlikely. He called himself Kim Il Sung already when people who have met the original Kim Il Sung were still around. Such change of identity is not impossible, but not too easy either."

No, 'Kim Il Sung' was a fraud. He had been part of some resistance movement, but he was not THE Kim Il Sung who's more legend, like Robin Hood.

Kim was so unknown in Korea that Soviets initially had trouble installing him as leader. Most people saw him as Soviet stooge, which was what he was.
So, as in the South, the domestic patriots had to be repressed or executed, and a cult of personality had to be built up around Kim that became more and more ridiculous.

Kim was an unimaginative Stalinist.

That said, I don't see how his 'invasion' of South was a bad thing. How can a Korean invade Korea? The north/south divide was artificially imposed by great powers on a nation. As idiotic as both Kim and Rhee were, there was nothing wrong in their dream of reuniting the nation. The great wrong was in the (1) division of Korea itself (2) installing puppet rulers in both artificially created entities.

Suppose China and Russia divided Israel into north and south. Would it be wrong if either Israel, north or south, tried to reunify the nation? If north Israel entered south Israel to unify the nation once again, would that be 'invasion'?

Kim's Stalinism and personality cult would have been bad for Korea, but I don't see anything wrong with his desire to unify his nation. And in that, Rhee had every right to want to unify the nation.

Where Rhee and Kim were idiotic was in blaming one another instead of blaming the great powers that divided their nation. But how could either blame his sponsor? If not for USSR, Kim would not have been installed as leader of north. If not for US, Rhee would not have been shoehorned in as leader of south. They gained power as dogs to foreign masters.

If they really had sense, both would have stepped down as leader(as both were installed by empires) and graciously allowed for unification and new leadership chosen by the people than by foreign powers. But both had petty egos, and Kim wanted to be ruler of all Korea, and Rhee wanted to be ruler of all Korea. Neither blamed the great powers but just one another.

If Israel were divided by great powers, I think Jews would have enough sense to come together and act in unison. After all, Israel itself was created by the coming together of all kinds of Jews: capitalist, communist, socialist, liberal, conservative, secular, religious. Jews may be neurotic and crazy, but they have enough sense of world affairs and the nature of power.

But Koreans are a stupid people. Divide them and set them against each other like dogs, and they are like two pitbulls. A culture of slavish servitude and emotions-over-reason made them act like dogs than sensible humans.

Astuteobservor II , January 21, 2018 at 3:47 am GMT
@daniel le mouche

When the british empire ended, I think a lot of borders were drawn to create ever lasting problems/conflicts. Israel was also it's creation with american backing of course.

Astuteobservor II , January 21, 2018 at 3:56 am GMT

When are the American people going to wise up to the US propaganda and false cries that the evil wolf is at the door

I doubt the masses will ever awake from the constant propaganda. I mean, all major information outlet is controlled. and besides, the smart ones also believe it is necessary to keep their way of life.

ask any american if their way of life will end, everything will become 100% more expensive, they can no longer take vacations, work twice as hard for the same pay or less, they will instantly think nothing of the current wars

very, very very few people are selfless humanists.

I am just scare of the fact if usa attacks NK unilaterally in the near future, china will get involved = WW3 + maybe nuclear war.

Carroll Price , January 21, 2018 at 3:59 am GMT
@JVC

The United States uses the economic sanctions as a substitute for diplomacy.

Grandpa Charlie , January 21, 2018 at 4:40 am GMT
@Anonymous

I read similar drooling nonsense to what you just wrote all over the internet: "Look, first off, I don't support the guy but this is obvious lefty slander".

Ok. You don't support the guy but you need to qualify that non-support by saying he's being impuded. In other words you support the guy, warning of the coming leftists

– Anonymous

What am I supposed to asy? "I feel your pain" or what? I mean you have to read "similar drooling nonsense all over the internet" so what?

First off, it's not that I don't support Pear, but I actually condemn him as a Leftist revisionist. And then there's no' but', there's an 'and' it's obvious lefty drool. BTW, my "non-support" for Pear is unqualified, as is my disrespect for you,, Anonymous. Are yoo actually Pear writing under that pseudonym?

reiner Tor , January 21, 2018 at 11:15 am GMT
@Anon

No, 'Kim Il Sung' was a fraud. He had been part of some resistance movement, but he was not THE Kim Il Sung who's more legend, like Robin Hood.

He was made into such a legend by North Korean propaganda after Kim became the leader. He was the most daring Korean guerrilla commander, but that's not saying very much, because he couldn't do much against the Japanese.

Kim was an unimaginative Stalinist.

Oh, he had a lot of imagination and original ideas. They led to a dystopia, but original he was. He also was a skillful and daring politician, who managed to get rid of his pro-China and pro-Soviet factions simultaneously in the late 1950s, at a time when he depended on both. That was quite bold and required a lot of political skills. Founding a dynasty in a nominally Marxist-Leninist society was not very easy either. There was some opposition to it even among his otherwise loyal associates, who wanted a normal communist succession with one of the top dogs becoming the new leader.

Anon Disclaimer , January 21, 2018 at 4:32 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

"Oh, he had a lot of imagination and original ideas. They led to a dystopia, but original he was."

He was shrewd, not original. But then, he was surrounded by second-raters and hacks, not men of talent.

"He also was a skillful and daring politician, who managed to get rid of his pro-China and pro-Soviet factions simultaneously in the late 1950s, at a time when he depended on both. That was quite bold and required a lot of political skills."

No, purges were quite common in Stalinist systems. Stalin, Mao, Tito, and the rest all purged 'bad elements'. Nothing original about that.
And it's not so much that he got rid of pro-China-elements and pro-Soviet-elements as he balanced them out. If not for the Korean War, he would have leaned to the USSR. But China played such a huge role in the war that it gave him an opportunity to lean to China as well. so, he played on both USSR and China for aid. Now, where he was skillful was maintaining this balance even after the Sino-Soviet rift.

"Founding a dynasty in a nominally Marxist-Leninist society was not very easy either. There was some opposition to it even among his otherwise loyal associates, who wanted a normal communist succession with one of the top dogs becoming the new leader."

It turned out to be pretty easy because he did it and then his son did it too. It was easy because North Korea under Kim was more about the dynasty than ideology. People were raised to worship Kim, not to think ideologically. And Kim surrounded himself with yes-men and hacks. If there was overt opposition, it was easily dealt with. The gulag.

Kim was a stupid bumpkin who got to leader because Stalin saw him as pliable and obedient.

anon Disclaimer , January 22, 2018 at 5:01 am GMT
@AndrewR

Excellent point. Their only other neighbors are China and Russia.

Bach , January 22, 2018 at 8:05 am GMT
@David William Pear

Just a few corrections:

The US was largely responsible for the division of Korea and backing dictatorships in South Korea until 1993. Americans do not know the US treachery, but Koreans do. Why would they trust the USA now?

Most SKoreans do not know, either. And those who do and talk about it probably risk imprisonment for treason.

Moon's predecessor Park Geun-hye sang from the US hymnbook until she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar. In 2017 the South Korean people went to the street and demanded the granddaughter of former dictator Park Chung Hee be impeached, and now she is in prison.

She is the daughter.

Korea itself has not invaded anybody since the 16th century.

Korea was invaded by Japan in the 16th century. It's difficult to pinpoint when Korea invaded anyone. We'd have to go back to a time prior to their nominal unification at least in the 7th century.

Bach , January 22, 2018 at 8:15 am GMT
@NJ Transit Commuter

The Korean Peninsula is cursed by geography. Reunification of Korea would mean one of two things.

It's the 21st century. There's no curse of geography. It's a global village. Trade is global. Communication is global. Cultural exchange is global. It has a combined population of 70M. SKorea is technologically/economically advanced. Its biggest threat is its own lethargy/apathy.

The sad reality is that a buffer state in the north part of the Korean Peninsula is in the best interest of South Korea, China, Russia, Japan and the US.

No, that's only in the best interest of the US and Japan.

Bach , January 22, 2018 at 8:27 am GMT
@Alden

Why did you omit the fact that the S Korean sex trade is completely run by S Koreans not Americans?

Sounds familiar. That's what Japan says about WWII sex slaves.

I do remember an American colonel in the occupation forces stating that he basically ran a brothel.

The subtext being that SKorea turned itself into a brothel? US forces, war and starvation had nothing to do with women selling their bodies to survive?

hopsing , February 13, 2018 at 6:32 pm GMT
I agree. As much as I hate to admit as much, and also being a veteran, the USA government is rotten to the core. Manipulation and coercion all across the board. Hard to escape the feeling we will pay for these misdeeds somewhere along the way. Cosmic Justice demands as much. Neither nation nor person can continue on in such manner indefinitely. USA is the agitator. If the Koreans could just tell Uncle Sam (er . Sap) to pack his bags and get out of Dodge, they would be on their way to a much better future. nx
Josh Stewart , March 13, 2018 at 3:29 am GMT
@Singh

You're just going along with this article and making up shit. That's not something Americans did. Your people are the ones who are mentally and spiritually enslaved by the British till this day. Your people are so engrained with wanting to be White, even after your motherland was invaded, occupied, murdered by the British, that your people bleach their skin and praise, put a whites on a pedestal, and strive to be like their oppressors.

Josh Stewart , March 13, 2018 at 3:50 am GMT
@The Alarmist

The reason why the United States doesn't want the two Koreas to reunify, is because if they reunite, the United States loses its revenue. South Korea pays to have American soldiers stationed in their country. The U.S. sells it's weapons to South Korea, out of fear mongering. The longer the U.S. can keep the two Koreas separated, the more they can make money off of the fear of war. War creates revenue for the United States. That's why we keep going at it with the Middle East. It's always the U.S. going to war with others, usually, over false pretenses. Let's not forget, how we lied about weapons of mass destruction to go to war with Iraq. Fear mongering, allows the U.S. government to sell weapons to not only South Korea, but to other countries in Asia. That's why.

Josh Stewart , March 13, 2018 at 6:09 am GMT
@NJ Transit Commuter

Korea, is actually blessed by geography. They're not in Europe & part of the E.U. So they're not forced to have migrants by the millions in their country against their will, with open borders. They're not located where the U.S. is, where Latinos invade their country by the thousands. They're not where Japan is, to get butt raped by mother nature and thank goodness, they're not located where china is. I visited china. It was horrid. Korea's ecosystem is rich, diverse & unique because it's a peninsula. China, never controlled Korea. If anything, Korea fought against china, defeating them many times throughout history. They did this before America existed. Koreans are clever people who have a strong military and several decades of stockpiled weapons on hand, along with new ones. They don't need American soldiers in Korea after reunification, to protect them. Japan, is afraid Korea will reunify, because that means Korea will be even stronger. The same goes for china. A stronger one unified Korea, is a threat to other Asian countries.

Josh Stewart , March 13, 2018 at 3:51 pm GMT
@Daniel Chieh

You've worked for "Samsung." Lol. and I'm the King of England. China, has the highest suicide rate per capita. 22.24 for every 100,000. That makes them the country with the highest suicide rate in the world. Japan is close behind.

Josh Stewart , March 13, 2018 at 3:56 pm GMT
@Anon

By the way, japan, has the lowest birth rate in Asia. They're not reproducing enough male japanese babies to replace the old, sickly, & dying in the work place. Japan, is screwed. Again, deflecting other's short comings on to Korea.

Josh Stewart , March 13, 2018 at 6:44 pm GMT
@Anon

It's actually the Middle East, Dubai, that is the plastic surgery capital of the world. They get the most rhinoplasties. Plastic surgeons go there months out of the year, to make the most amount of money in the shortest amount of time. Then it's the United States & the UK close behind. Plastic surgery is on the rise in ethnic chinese countries, like taiwan, hong kong, & singapore, china, japan, & in southeast asian countries, like philippines, thailand, veitnam, and indonesia, more than ever. As of 2017, these asian countries get the most procedures done & they compete with each other in who does it the most percentage wise. No one wants to admit their race of people get plastic surgeries, so they deflect, finger point to others, especially to better looking people as an excuse as to why others are far more attractive than their ugly selves. (I'm pointing at you.) Asians do it out of jealousy. They can't stand seeing a Korean get compliments. Whites get the most plastic surgeries in the West, but asians don't finger point at them, unless they're discriminated by Whites, because asians think Koreans are far better looking than Whites. I'll have to remind you that if Korea, in which this is all true, have a technologically advanced country, are an advanced people, who excel in intelligence, inventions, sports, have a booming economy, are talented, have the most popular genres of music in the world and one of the most addictive forms of entertainment, (K pop) and Korean dramas, movies, have the most amazing style unlike other races & nationalities, both men and women have the best complexions, their skincare products are the most popular in the world, that do what they say, have two electrictronic companies in which one has completely dominated the globe, a successful car manufacturing industry, Korean foods & alcohol, that all races love, an amazing rich history unlike any other, which draws people in to want to learn more about Koreans, the first in asia to always break records and make history, before any other asian country, the most popular race in asia, and the best looking in asia and in my opinion, better looking than any other race of people other than some Whites. So with all these great attributes Korea has, there's no reason to think and hate on them or to think they're less in any way, unless one is a jealous person or a whole jealous race of people who only hate online, because they themselves, don't have any of these attributes the Koreans have, hence, making them haters like you, whether you're asian or not.

[Jun 19, 2018] Will the Real Donald Trump Please Stand Up by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's vision would seem to include protection of core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of "democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats. ..."
"... Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior. ..."
"... Trump's basic objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between Russia and the West. ..."
"... And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room. Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left." ..."
"... There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S., which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by terrorists. ..."
"... In Syria there have been two pointless cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will work. ..."
"... The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. ..."
"... And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't. ..."
"... Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war." As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present, it is not pretty. ..."
"... Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities. ..."
Jun 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

I had coffee with a foreign friend a week ago. The subject of Donald Trump inevitably came up and my friend said that he was torn between describing Trump as a genius or as an idiot, but was inclined to lean towards genius. He explained that Trump was willy-nilly establishing a new world order that will succeed the institutionally exhausted post-World War 2 financial and political arrangements that more-or-less established U.S. hegemony over the "free world." The Bretton Woods agreement and the founding of the United Nations institutionalized the spread of liberal democracy and free trade, creating a new, post war international order under the firm control of the United States with the American dollar as the benchmark currency. Trump is now rejecting what has become an increasingly dominant global world order in favor of returning to a nineteenth century style nationalism that has become popular as countries struggle to retain their cultural and political identifies. Trump's vision would seem to include protection of core industries, existing demographics and cultural institutions combined with an end of "democratization," which will result in an acceptance of foreign autocratic or non-conforming regimes as long as they do not pose military or economic threats.

Sounds good, I countered but there is a space between genius and idiocy and that would be called insanity, best illustrated by impulsive, irrational behavior coupled with acute hypersensitivity over perceived personal insults and a demonstrated inability to comprehend either generally accepted facts or basic norms of personal and group behavior.

Inevitably, I have other friends who follow foreign policy closely that have various interpretations of the Trump phenomenon. One sees the respectful meeting with Kim Jong-un of North Korea as a bit of brilliant statesmanship, potentially breaking a sixty-five year logjam and possibly opening the door to further discussions that might well avert a nuclear war. And the week also brought a Trump welcome suggestion that Russia should be asked to rejoin the G-7 group of major industrialized democracies, which also has to be seen as a positive step. There has also been talk of a Russia-U.S. summit similar to that with North Korea to iron out differences, an initiative that was first suggested by Trump and then agreed to by Russian President Vladimir Putin. There will inevitably be powerful resistance to such an arrangement coming primarily from the U.S. media and from Congress, but Donald Trump seems to fancy the prospect and it just might take place.

One good friend even puts a positive spin on Trump's insulting behavior towards America's traditional allies at the recent G-7 meeting in Canada. She observes that Trump's basic objections were that Washington is subsidizing the defense of a wealthy Europe and thereby maintaining unnecessarily a relationship that perpetuates a state of no-war no-peace between Russia and the West. And the military costs exacerbate some genuine serious trade imbalances that damage the U.S. economy. If Trumpism prevails, G-7 will become a forum for discussions of trade and economic relations and will become less a club of nations aligned military against Russia and, eventually, China. As she put it, changing its constituency would be a triumph of "mercantilism" over "imperialism." The now pointless NATO alliance might well find itself without much support if the members actually have to fully fund it proportionate to their GDPs and could easily fade away, which would be a blessing for everyone.

My objection to nearly all the arguments being made in favor or opposed to what occurred in Singapore last week is that the summit is being seen out of context, as is the outreach to Russia at G-7. Those who are in some cases violently opposed to the outcome of the talks with North Korea are, to be sure, sufferers from Trump Derangement Syndrome, where they hate anything he does and spin their responses to cast him in the most negative terms possible. Some others who choose to see daylight in spite of the essential emptiness of the "agreement" are perhaps being overly optimistic while likewise ignoring what else is going on.

And the neoconservatives and globalists are striking back hard to make sure that détente stays in a bottle hidden somewhere on a shelf in the White House cloak room. Always adept at the creation of new front groups, the neocons have now launched something called the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its founders include the redoubtable Max Boot, The Washington Post's Anne Appelbaum, the inevitable Bill Kristol, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. RDI's website predictably calls for "fresh thinking" and envisions "the best minds from different countries com[ing] together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond." It argues that "Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."

There are also the internal contradictions in what Trump appears to be doing, suggesting that a brighter future might not be on the horizon even if giving the Europeans a possibly deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves provides some satisfaction. In the last week alone in Syria the White House has quietly renewed funding for the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group. It has also warned that it will take action against the Syrian government for any violation of a "de-escalation zone" in the country's southwest that has been under the control of Washington. That means that the U.S., which is in Syria illegally, is warning that country's legitimate government that it should not attempt to re-establish control over a region that was until recently ruled by terrorists.

And then there is also Donald Trump's recent renunciation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), eliminating a successful program that was preventing nuclear proliferation on the part of Iran and replacing it with nothing whatsoever apart from war as a possible way of dealing with the potential problem. Indeed, Trump has been prepared to use military force on impulse, even when there is no clear casus belli. In Syria there have been two pointless cruise missile attacks and a trap set up to kill Russian mercenaries. Washington's stated intention is to destabilize and replace President Bashar al-Assad while continuing the occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground than there were on inauguration day together with no plan to bring them home. It is reported that the Pentagon has a twenty-year plan to finish the job but no one actually believes it will work.

The United States is constructing new drone bases in Africa and Asia. It also has a new military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if Israel goes to war and has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians. In Latin America, Washington has backed off from détente with Cuba and has been periodically threatening some kind of intervention in Venezuela. In Europe, it is engaged in aggressive war games on the Russian borders, most recently in Norway and Poland. The Administration has ordered increased involvement in Somalia and has special ops units operating – and dying – worldwide. Overall, it is hardly a return to the Garden of Eden.

And then there are the petty insults that do not behoove a great power. A friend recently attended the Russian National Day celebration at the embassy in Washington. He reported that the U.S. government completely boycotted the event, together with its allies in Western Europe and the anglosphere, resulting in sparse attendance. It is the kind of slight that causes attitudes to shift when the time comes for serious negotiating. It is unnecessary and it is precisely the sort of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin is referring to when he asks that his country be treated with "respect." The White House could have sent a delegation to attend the national day. Trump could have arranged it with a phone call, but he didn't.

Winston Churchill once reportedly said that to "Jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war." As one of the twentieth century's leading warmongers, he may not have actually meant it, but in principle he was right. So let us hope for the best coming out of Singapore and also for the G-7 or what replaces it in the future. But don't be confused or diverted by presidential grandstanding. Watch what else is going on outside the limelight and, at least for the present, it is not pretty.


Mishra , June 19, 2018 at 4:11 am GMT

The Establishment (which includes both major political parties) is furious that Trump may be defusing the (very real) nuclear threat from Kim for the price of a few plane tickets and dinners, while the Establishment was gung-ho for throwing away a few trillion dollars, hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, and our nation's once-good reputation in the process of neutralizing Saddam Hussein, who didn't even have any nukes to begin with. Yep, they're sore all right.
Kirt , June 19, 2018 at 4:20 am GMT
Phil nails it as usual. Like him, I'm not very optimistic. Whether overall one approves or disapproves of Trump (and count me as a disapprover), it is obvious that most of the government is operating outside his control and this includes many of his own appointees. The continuities of US policy are far deeper than the apparent discontinuities.

[Jun 18, 2018] 'Deep Throat' was fiction, the CIA had all the info, the CIA fake 'leaker' is another big distraction game getting repeated

Notable quotes:
"... Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents. ..."
Jun 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

Brabantian , Website June 18, 2018 at 8:42 am GMT

Nice account of 'getting woke' from Ron Unz quite appreciate the tidbits such as the mention of the once-very-famous Dorothy Kilgallen of the 'What's My Line?' TV show (1950-67)

Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.

Maybe even more hidden from public knowledge, is the truth of the Watergate 'Silent Coup' (Colodny / Gettlin book). Bob Woodward was a US Navy intelligence agent under Admiral Maurer, and when Maurer became head of the US Joint Chiefs and thus the entire US military, Woodward was planted at the CIA's Washington Post to be the fake 'brave reporter' for the coup d'état of 'Watergate', entirely a US Joint Chiefs -- CIA operation. Bob Woodward was apparently such an idiot re journalism at first he needed lots of remedial coaching to meet minimal standards.

'Deep Throat' was fiction, the CIA had all the info, the CIA fake 'leaker' is another big distraction game getting repeated (Daniel Ellsberg; Deep Throat; Wikileaks Assange who was admitted by both Brzezinski and Netanyahu to be fake, seems he isn't even really 'living' at the London Ecuador Embassy, faker Edward Snowden , first 'leaking' to the CIA's Washington Post, ha!, with Glenn Greenwald posing as the latest Jewish 'brave journalist'; Mossad-historian-supervised 'Panama Papers', etc.)

Another 'impeachment' farce was the Deep State 'Monica Lewinsky' nonsense against Bill Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands. For Clinton-Lewinsky, another Jewish figure, Matt Drudge, was propped up to play the Woodward role of 'great investigative reporter' When Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was 'acquitted' -- the bombings of Serbia began shortly afterwards. Clearly, the Deep State cannot even trust its highly pre-vetted White House occupants.

Now that the Unz site is on board with collusion in US President removals, we still have to get Unz site writers woke on the laughably fake 9 'trips to the moon' with 6 alleged 'moon landings' of 1968-72 regarding which director Stanley Kubrick even admitted before in March 1999 before he died, that he faked the 'moon landing' NASA videos (CIA movie studios, Laurel Canyon, California) 50th anniversary of the 'trips to the moon' starts this December a good time for Unz debunking

[Jun 18, 2018] In criminal investigations the first question always is 'who benefits'. The weird thing in political suspicious deaths is that this question is seldom asked

Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.
Notable quotes:
"... Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents. ..."
"... Ron's suspicions may be correct. However, I am bothered by two things left out of his article: the identity of the conspirators and their motivation. What was President Kennedy doing that had to be stopped? ..."
Jun 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

Not Raul , June 18, 2018 at 5:41 am GMT
One of the main reasons why "conspiracy theory" is used in the pejorative sense:

After JFK was killed, there were many articles and books written claiming a conspiracy. And then nothing happened.

At some level, most Americans are still convinced that the police and prosecutors are looking out for them: If it really were proved that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, of course the conspirators would be prosecuted, right?

The same is true of the "suicide" of Gary Webb, the man who uncovered Iran Contra. He was found with an alleged suicide note, and two gunshot wounds to the back of the head. The coroner ruled his death a suicide. Case closed.

Technomad , June 18, 2018 at 6:11 am GMT
The thing is, the kind of high-level people who're generally accused of wanting to murder poor, poor, innocent JFK both knew that at worst, he'd be gone by January 21, 1969, and knew more than enough about him to come up with a much better plan. Getting "Dr. Feelgood," with or without his conscious cooperation, to give JFK a "hot shot" would do the trick just fine, as would sending in a "bimbo" with a cyanide injector in her beehive hairdo. First rule of this as in many other things -- KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid!)

The kinds of scenarios I've seen from conspiracy believers are so complicated and iffy that they make Jimmy Carter's "Operation Eagle Claw" look like a sure-fire, can't-lose winner. Having Oswald be the only shooter makes sense, and comports with what we know of Oswald's personality. The men who've murdered other presidents were generally attention sponges with an exaggerated view of their importance in the scheme of things. Oswald thought he was rightfully a world-shaking hero, instead of the twerp he was, but compared to Charles Guiteau (who shot James Garfield) Oswald was a shrinking violet.

jilles dykstra , June 18, 2018 at 6:46 am GMT
In criminal investigations the first question always is 'who benefits'. The weird thing in political suspicious deaths is that this question is seldom asked.
This is the case with, to name a few, Sikorsky, Kennedy, Palme, Anna Lyndh, Hammarskjöld, Diana, Hess, Pearl Harbour, Sept 11, MH17, MH370, Bernadotte, Barschel, there must be more.

In the Kennedy case, he was killed some two weeks after he had threatened Israel not to sell weapons any more, if they continued building the atomic bomb.

utu , June 18, 2018 at 6:48 am GMT
Both patsies Harvey Lee Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan were selected with respect to the legends, real or synthetic, that could be used in the post assassination story spin off. In both cases the legends were to deflect the attention form the actual conspirators. In the case of Oswald it was his defection to the USSR. Involvement of Soviets in the assassination was an option that was not played in the media in the end but it could have been if the lone nut assassin narrative for some reason could not gain the traction. In the case of Sirham his legend as a disgruntled Palestinian who was upset with RFK's alleged support for Israel was played to the full extent. It was done for two reasons: (1) to decouple JFK assassination from RFK assassination; crazy lone nut Texan American and crazy lone nut Arab Palestinian had only one thing in common: being a crazy lone nut, and (2) paint RFK as a martyr for his pro Israel views. The second spin off was risky because it brought Israel into the story, nevertheless the conspirators thought it was important and took the risk so the could make out of RFK the first (and the only one so far afaik) American politician who died for his pro Israel position. This certainly pushed away any suspicions that Israel might have been involved or could have benefited from his assassination. Sirhan Sirhan legend was also used to foreshadow Palestinian terrorism that began to grow in the wake of the Six Day War of 1967.
Anon [138] Disclaimer , June 18, 2018 at 6:48 am GMT
Try taking a look at 'Prayer Man', most likely the image of Lee Harvey Oswald on the front steps of the TSBD building shortly after the shooting. A good introduction can be found at http://22november1963.org.uk/prayer-man-jfk-assassination
utu , June 18, 2018 at 7:07 am GMT
The 1991 Oliver Stone movie unblocked many Americans to think about and consider the conspiracy behind the assassination. Still four years earlier Stanley Kubrick was reinforcing the meme of Lee Harvey Oswald in Full Metal Jacket:
JohnnyWalker123 , June 18, 2018 at 7:09 am GMT
Excellent article, Ron. Thankyou for writing this.

On his deathbed, CIA Agent E. Howard Hunt confessed to being involved in the JFK assassination. He implicated other intelligence agents and Vice-President LBJ. Watch this short video here in which he confesses.

If anyone wants to understand the JFK assassination in more detail, I highly recommend watching Oliver Stone's movie JFK. Here's a very good part of the movie that explains how Oswald couldn't have shot JFK, as Oswald was behind JFK and JFK's head snaps back and to the left. So the true assassin must've been in the front (his shot knocked JFK's head back) – and couldn't have been Oswald. Watch the video below. "Back and to the left."

Here's an interesting video on how many JFK assassination witnesses died mysterious deaths. Start watching this video from 1:50. Particularly interesting is that on the day when the House tried to get George De Mohrenschildt (a close friend of Oswald and a very prominent socialite in Dallas) to testify, he was found death. The death was ruled a suicide.

Jack Ruby (the Dallas club owner who assasinated Oswald) claimed that LBJ had JFK assassinated. See video below.

He also claimed a conspiracy was keeping him from speaking. See video below.

When JFK was assassinated, there was a man with an umbrella who was right next to the president. It was an extremely sunny day in Dallas on that day. Why was the man holding the umbrella? Reporter Bill O'Reilly reports evidence that the "Umbrella Man" may have used the umbrella to fire a dart into JFK. Interestingly, the CIA had developed a dart weapon before that date. See this video below. Starts at 40 seconds.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw (who treated JFK's bullet wound and went on to become ) claimed that the entry points of 2 of the wounds he observed were in the front of JFK's throat. Therefore, the assassin must've been in the front and couldn't have been Oswald. He also claimed that the wound was tampered with to make it seem the bullet came from behind.

"Dark Journalist" has a very good video on the JFK assassination.

Here's an interesting video of Dan Rather lying about the JFK assassination. This news clip was made shortly after the assassination. Dan Rather told the American viewing public that JFK's head went forward after he was shot. Later, it would be revealed that Dan Rather had lied that day.

By the way, you always hear the Warren Commission found that there was no conspiracy and that Oswald was the "lone gunman." However, in 1976, the House of Representatives investigated the matter and concluded that there was a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination. The assasination involved multiple gunmen. The media never reports this.

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

The United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was established in 1976 to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and issued its final report the following year, concluding that Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. In addition to acoustic analysis of a police channel dictabelt recording,[1] the HSCA also commissioned numerous other scientific studies of assassination-related evidence that corroborate the Warren Commission's findings.[2]

JohnnyWalker123 , June 18, 2018 at 7:35 am GMT
LBJ wanted JFK dead sooner than that.

Here's a very persuasive History Channel video on how LBJ had JFK killed.

Also, the military-industrial complex wanted to escalate the war in Vietnam.

By the way, it's sort of interesting how the mysterious Gulf of Tonkin incident led to a huge war in Vietnam.

This video demonstrates how wildly implausible it was that Oswald pulled the trigger. The FBI couldn't replicate Oswald's supposed shooting with their best shooters.

FBI didn't find a palm print on Oswald's rifle. Then, a week later, a Dallas policeman found a palm print on the rifle.

"We're through the looking glass people. White is black – and black is white."

Biff , June 18, 2018 at 7:53 am GMT
@Technomad

One trip to Dealy Plaza, and the Oswald story crumbles. Keep trying though.

LondonBob , June 18, 2018 at 8:00 am GMT
Of course the highly reputable confessions by Chauncey Holt and E Howard Hunt have been studiously ignored.
Brabantian , Website June 18, 2018 at 8:42 am GMT
Nice account of 'getting woke' from Ron Unz quite appreciate the tidbits such as the mention of the once-very-famous Dorothy Kilgallen of the 'What's My Line?' TV show (1950-67)

Counting the shooting of JFK in 1963, and the shooting-wouding of Ronald Reagan in 1981 by a guy whose father was working for George Bush's brother (!), plus the two arguably-staged 'impeachments' of Richard Nixon (ending 1974) and Bill Clinton (ending 1999), you have a 40% removal-programme hit rate on the previous 10 US Presidents.

Maybe even more hidden from public knowledge, is the truth of the Watergate 'Silent Coup' (Colodny / Gettlin book). Bob Woodward was a US Navy intelligence agent under Admiral Maurer, and when Maurer became head of the US Joint Chiefs and thus the entire US military, Woodward was planted at the CIA's Washington Post to be the fake 'brave reporter' for the coup d'état of 'Watergate', entirely a US Joint Chiefs – CIA operation. Bob Woodward was apparently such an idiot re journalism at first he needed lots of remedial coaching to meet minimal standards.

'Deep Throat' was fiction, the CIA had all the info, the CIA fake 'leaker' is another big distraction game getting repeated (Daniel Ellsberg; Deep Throat; Wikileaks Assange who was admitted by both Brzezinski and Netanyahu to be fake, seems he isn't even really 'living' at the London Ecuador Embassy, faker Edward Snowden , first 'leaking' to the CIA's Washington Post, ha!, with Glenn Greenwald posing as the latest Jewish 'brave journalist'; Mossad-historian-supervised 'Panama Papers', etc.)

Another 'impeachment' farce was the Deep State 'Monica Lewinsky' nonsense against Bill Clinton, fired up when Bill balked in nausea, at the thought of ordering the war-crime bombing of Serbia that would kill thousands. For Clinton-Lewinsky, another Jewish figure, Matt Drudge, was propped up to play the Woodward role of 'great investigative reporter' When Clinton consented to approve the war as his way to stay alive, he was 'acquitted' – the bombings of Serbia began shortly afterwards. Clearly, the Deep State cannot even trust its highly pre-vetted White House occupants.

Now that the Unz site is on board with collusion in US President removals, we still have to get Unz site writers woke on the laughably fake 9 'trips to the moon' with 6 alleged 'moon landings' of 1968-72 regarding which director Stanley Kubrick even admitted before in March 1999 before he died, that he faked the 'moon landing' NASA videos (CIA movie studios, Laurel Canyon, California) 50th anniversary of the 'trips to the moon' starts this December a good time for Unz debunking

Laurent Guyénot , June 18, 2018 at 9:07 am GMT
Follow the Jack Ruby trail: If Oswald was "just a patsy," the first thing to do is to investigate on the man who silenced Oswald, thereby preventing any doubts being raised in a court case. Strangely enough, no one (not even Ruby's biographer Seth Kantor) seem to care that Jack Ruby's real name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein.

Allow me to quote from my earlier article, and add a few details: Ruby, the son of Jewish Polish immigrants, was a member of the Jewish underworld. He was a friend of Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen, whom he had known and admired since 1946. Cohen was the successor of the famed Benjamin Siegelbaum, aka Bugsy Siegel, one of the bosses of Murder Incorporated.

Cohen was infatuated with the Zionist cause, as he explained in his memoirs: "Now I got so engrossed with Israel that I actually pushed aside a lot of my activities and done nothing but what was involved with this Irgun war". Mickey Cohen was in contact with Menachem Begin, the former Irgun chief, with whom he even "spent a lot of time," according to Gary Wean, former detective sergeant for the Los Angeles Police Department. So there is a direct line connecting Jack Ruby, via Mickey Cohen, to the Israeli terrorist ring, and in particular to Menachem Begin, a specialist in false flag terror. We also know that Ruby phoned Al Gruber, a Mickey Cohen associate, just after Oswald's arrest; no doubt he received then "an offer he couldn't refuse," as they say in the underworld. Ruby's defense lawyer William Kunstler wrote in his memoirs that Ruby told him he had killed Oswald "for the Jews," and Ruby's rabbi Hillel Silverman received the same confession when visiting Ruby in jail.

Probably as a cryptic message to Johnson, whom he expected to pardon him, Ruby made the following odd statements to the Warren Commission: "There will be a certain tragic occurrence happening if you don't take my testimony and somehow vindicate me so my people don't suffer because of what I have done." He said that feared that his act would be used "to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith."

According to a declassified US State Department document, Israeli Foreign Minister Golda Meir reacted to the news that Ruby had just killed Oswald with this sentence: "Ruby is alive, Oy vaaboy if we get caught!" (quoted in Alan Hart, Zionism , vol. 2, p. 279).

Laurent Guyénot , June 18, 2018 at 9:27 am GMT
Make it three assassinated Kennedys, with JFK Jr. Hell, make it four, counting his unborn child : On July 20, 1999, the New York Daily News published a piece by Joel Siegel titled: "JFK Jr. Mulled Run for Senate in 2000". The page seems to have just been deleted, but I had saved it, so I reproduce the first lines : "A private poll in 1997 found that John F. Kennedy Jr. was by far the state's most popular Democrat, and two friends said yesterday they believed he would have run for office some day. Earlier this year, in one of the best-kept secret in state politics, Kennedy considered seeking the seat of retiring Sen. Daniel Moynihan " Moynihan was a former Kennedy associate, so it is likely that he would have supported JFK Jr.'s bid. And recall that the same seat had once been held by RFK. So JFK Jr. was walking on his father's and his uncle's footsteps. They saw him coming, and decided to eliminate him before his ambitions even became public. Guess who won the seat, after JFK Jr. died in a mysterious plane crash: Hillary Clinton.

What would JFK Jr. have done next if he had been allowed to walk this path? Well, if you want to know what was on his mind, check some of the covers of his magazine George on https://www.vfiles.com/vfiles/16372 You will see that he was obsessed with "conspiracy theories":

In a special "Conspiracy Issue", October 1998, George published a piece by Oliver Stone, director of the film JFK, titled "Paranoid and Proud of it". Earlier in December 1996, the cover announces an article on "TWA Conspiracy Theories" (about TWA 800). And in March 1997, another conspiracy theory under the title "Who was behind the killing of Yitzhak Rabin?". And so on.

Considering that JFK Jr.'s unborn child also died with him, and if we follow the logic of Ronald Kessler, author of The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded (1996) (a message to JFK Jr.?), then three generations of Kennedys were punished for "the sins of the father". That fulfills Exodus 20:5: "I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous god and I punish a parent's fault in the children, the grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren among those who hate me."

Chase , June 18, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT
@Not Raul

People conspire all the time. A board of directors gathering for their annual meeting is literally a conspiracy: they are conspiring to plan the company's trajectory over some period of time.

Do people ever conspire nefariously? Well, what is the first thing investigators will do when looking into a company like Enron? That's right, they will subpoena email records, because despite the negative connotation surrounding the term "conspiracy theory," people implicitly sense and really know that *this is exactly the kind of shit that happens all the time*.

For example, the Seth Rich murder, as its official story goes is literally a conspiracy. Two MS-13 members conspired to rob Mr. Rich while he was walking home from a bar. Why is it that people will believe that two people will conspire over a few hundred bucks, but refuse to believe powerful people will conspire over tens or hundreds of billions? Only because of media programming.

Once you unplug from the Matrix, so much that never made sense comes into clarity. Thanks, Mr. Unz for your tireless work and financial contributions to the American Pravda series. I've learned so much and it has been integral to my eyes being opened over the last four years.

kikl , June 18, 2018 at 10:08 am GMT
I think we all know the JFK-assassination was a conspiracy. Oswald was the patsy. But, we do not know for sure who participated in the conspiracy.

The report by the Warren commission was a cover up. CIA Director McCone was "complicit" in a Central Intelligence Agency "benign cover-up" by withholding information from the Warren Commission, according to a report by the CIA Chief Historian David Robarge released to the public in 2014.[24] According to this CIA report, CIA officers had been instructed to give only "passive, reactive, and selective" assistance to the commission, in order to keep the commission focused on "what the Agency believed at the time was the 'best truth' -- that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197

Witholding evidence in order to cover up a crime is usually done because of involvement in the crime. Thus, it is most likely that the CIA was involved in the Kennedy Assassination.

bj , June 18, 2018 at 10:16 am GMT
What evil consumes the innocents? What witch stages these mind control spectacles? I add one bread crumb to the Ron Unz Trail, through the deep dark forest of the fairy tale of our lives.

No matter who you are, we have a vector for you!

"Lane, it should be noted, was in U.S. Army intelligence in post-war Germany in 1945-47. This is the branch that became the C.I.A. after the war. Lane was paid some $5 million in legal fees by the Liberty Lobby, according to a veteran of the lobby. None of this is widely known among the people who read and support American Free Press. It is important because it shows how a Zionist Jew from the C.I.A. can actually control a movement that purports to be working for the American patriot audience. "

http://www.bollyn.com/the-liberty-lobbys-mark-lane-and-the-jonestown-massacre/

Anonymouse , June 18, 2018 at 11:01 am GMT
Ron's suspicions may be correct. However, I am bothered by two things left out of his article: the identity of the conspirators and their motivation. What was President Kennedy doing that had to be stopped? Fifty-five years have passed without any conspirator's deathbed confession. Gerald Posner's Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of J. F. K. seemed convincing to me when I read it many years ago. One fact that struck me as specially persuasive was that the kindly Quaker woman who was sheltering Marina Oswald and baby saw an ad in the paper for a job at the Book Depository building and pointed it out to Oswald who applied for the job and got it sometime before the route of the Kennedy drive past the building was chosen and published. Perhaps Mr. Unz might share his opinion of Posner's book with us.
Iris , June 18, 2018 at 11:06 am GMT
@syonredux

Take the pain to read actual eyewitness testimonies from medical personnel who attended President Kennedy when taken to Parkland hospital after being shot.

That may stop you from embarrassing yourself defending the ludicrous lone gunman theory.

justagoon , June 18, 2018 at 11:16 am GMT
Hmmm at this rate you'll question whether 19 Arabs with box cutters crashed planes into buildings by about 2049. /sarc

Well better late than never I guess.

jilles dykstra , June 18, 2018 at 11:22 am GMT
Wonder if anyone read the Warren Report. Reading it I got the same feeling as, in the seventies, when I still believed mainstream history, reading Churchill's memoirs: too good to be true. Harold Weisberg, 'Whitewash – the report on the Warren Report', 1965, 1966, New York tears Warren to shreds.
Bardon Kaldian , June 18, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT
It is a sad comment on mental pliability of US public that someone as perspicacious as Ron Unz could have for so long subscribed to "single gunman" (alright, he was not single, Oswald was married) "theory".

Whatever one may think of Stone's JFK, he is doubtless mostly correct in this short interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unpZuynt4Gw

Tyrion 2 , Website June 18, 2018 at 11:38 am GMT
I came of age much more recently and my encounters with JFK and RFK's assassinations were all about supposed conspiracies. If anything, there seems to be a conspiracy to make you think there's a conspiracy.

Furthermore, it is pretty easy to kill someone so, if there was a conspiracy to kill those two, goodness knows why the conspirators would not just use more subtle methods

All of these types of theories always seem to end up with their hypothesiser pointing out inconsistencies in the historical account of incredibly complex events while, at best, only proposing a much more inconsistent alternative.

Conspirator super genius: how shall we kill him?

Conspirator normal: we could give him an aneurysm so he dies in his sleep in the middle of the night. It would be utterly untraceable and medically unsuspicious. Indeed, if we do it when he has one of his girls round, then that will stop further questions.

Conspirator super genius: no, we should stage an assasination in the open. With bullets that might miss, a patsy who might blab or get away and our target could easily survive and take revenge. It will also make everyone suspicious and will need endless effort to keep quiet.

Conspirator B: wtf

CF , June 18, 2018 at 11:43 am GMT
If you examine the first page of JFK's death certificate, (easily done on your search engine) you will see that the President died of "gunshot wounds to the head and neck." and that he was killed by a "High Velocity Rifle". At that time a High Velocity Rifle had a muzzle velocity speed of 2500/600 feet per second, now I believe it is up to 3000 feet per second.

The only weapon associated with Lee Harvey Oswald on the day of the assassination was a Manlicher Carcano 6.5mm as agreed by the Warren Commission, Pozner (Case Closed) and Bugliosi. This rifle is not only notoriously inaccurate but has a muzzle velocity of 2000 feet per second and therefore could not have inflicted the wounds to JFK's head and neck that killed him.

Oswald may have tried to kill the President (personally I doubt it) from the sixth floor of the Book Depository overlooking Dealy Plaza but he didn't because JFK was killed by a High Velocity weapon and Oswald didn't have one.

Case Closed.

[Jun 18, 2018] The next year the strategic position of Ukraine might get worse

Jun 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

Beckow , June 16, 2018 at 12:24 am GMT

If Kiev wants to attack Donbas they better hurry. After World Cup, and definitely next year when the pipelines bypassing Ukraine will be ready, Ukraine's strategic situation will get worse. We are in a transition phase: sh..t happened in 2013-15 that is impossible to undo, but there were fortunately constraints on all sides that prevented a meltdown. In a year or two most of those constraints will be gone.

Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington was always stupid – there are forces in Europe, in all countries, who want a confrontation with Russia. Any event, real or fake, will be used to escalate. West cannot lose this one without another fight. And if they sit on their hands, they will eventually lose with a disillusioned Ukraine and slowly disintegrating EU. Populist energy needs to be re-directed eastward, and for that a more aggressive policy is required. This is not pessimism, there simply is no way for EU elite to climb down. How could UK make up with Russia without looking like complete idiots? Or Macron and Merkel? The hostility is at this point inherent in the situation – what started out as a badly thought-out attempt to get some quick goodies (bases in Crimea, Nato expansion, sell weapons) has evolved into a real death spiral.

We are one Franz Ferdinand moment away from a catastrophe. Let's enjoy the games while we still can. Trump knows this, so he is trying desperately to organize a summit or send some messages of conciliation. But he is powerless and it might be too late for that. Hubris never dissipates, it requires a disaster and an elite turnover to cure hubris.

Mattheus , June 16, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events. He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario, it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
byrresheim , June 16, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
As long as the Author keeps talking about Ukronazis, we know that he is not at all prepared to see any problems on the Russian side at all.

Which serves devalue his argument, even if there are a lot of valid points otherwise.

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 1:39 am GMT
@Philip Owen

I don't think you realize that armies need supplies. To break into Donbas cities would be hard enough, but to re-supply them would be impossible. Civilians would mostly evacuate, so there would be little to 'hide in'. Kiev cannot win militarily as long as Russia opposes it. Russia can always blast their bases from air, or with missiles. Don't kid yourself, if Russia has the will, they will prevail.

Since you mentioned 2014, there was a perfect opportunity for Maidanistas to avoid this. All they had to do was to be friendly and accommodating to its Russian minority. Offer them autonomy, re-assure them, promise that trade and ties with Russia would continue. Kiev did the exact opposite, an extremely bad tactic. US kept on telling them to cool it, that one doesn't win by attacking before ready. But in Kiev emotions prevailed, and so we are where we are.

Sooner or later a more accommodating government in Kiev will try the 'let bygones be bygones' tactic on Russia. If we are lucky enough to make it that far.

[Jun 17, 2018] As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of above, he must somehow understand (Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

m___ , June 17, 2018 at 9:24 am GMT

@mikkkkas

Dramatic shift in analysis of Saker,

As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other, territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.

Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.

As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of above, he must somehow understand (Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible actors as Putin, Trump, Xi (affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war cannot be anything more then policing.

To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse, after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior). No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.

Honest writing of Saker.

How good are these supranational, corporatacracy (another commenter), "globally organized elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough. Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods. It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual fate.

War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity, migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans. Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub, that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plague if not.

[Jun 17, 2018] the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro

Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington was always stupid
Bullshit. ...try to keep up with whats actually happening.

U.S. Is Trying to Kill Major Gas Deal Between Russia and Germany
By Tom O'Connor On 5/18/18 at 2:41 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/us-trying-kill-major-gas-deal-between-russia-germany-934603

The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that would run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project would threaten the security of its European allies.

Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern Germany. Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia could provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told reporters in Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in the region and that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop it, according to the Associated Press.

Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr 20, 2018 - A Europe-wide diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump administration to ease US sanctions targeting Russia, as fears mount that ...

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT

We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.

There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.

There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.

After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.

My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change that.

[Jun 17, 2018] Can the EU become a partner for Russia by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... comprador elite ..."
"... The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for Russia and the future does look rather bleak. ..."
"... They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense ..."
"... either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no Russia ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

First, there is no "EU", at least not in political terms . More crucially, there is no "EU foreign policy". Yes, there are EU member states, who have political leaders, there is a big business community in the EU and there are many EU organizations, but as such, the "EU" does not exist, especially not in terms of foreign policy. The best proof of that is how clueless the so-called "EU" has been in the Ukraine, then with the anti-Russian sanctions, in dealing with an invasion of illegal immigrants, and now with Trump. At best, the EU can be considered a US protectorate/colony, with some subjects "more equal than others" (say, the UK versus Greece). Most (all?) EU member states are abjectly obedient to the US, and this is no surprise considering that even the so-called "EU leader" or "EU heavyweight" – Germany – only has very limited sovereignty. The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe. The undeniable fact is that the so-called "EU foreign policy" has gone against the vital interests of the people of Europe for decades and that phenomenon is only getting worse.

Second, the single most powerful and unified organization in Europe is not even an EU organization, but NATO. And NATO, in real terms, is no less than 80% US . Forget about those fierce looking European armies, they are all a joke. Not only do they represent no credible force (being too small, too poorly trained, under-equipped and poorly commanded), but they are completely dependent on the US for a long list of critical capabilities and " force multipliers ": command, control, communications, intelligence, networking, surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition, logistics, etc. Furthermore, in terms of training, force planning, weapon systems procurement, deployment and maintenance, EU states are also totally dependent on the US. The reason? The US military budget totally dwarfs anything individual EU states can spend, so they all depend on Uncle Sam. Of sure, the NATO figurehead – the Secretary General – is usually a non-entity which makes loud statements and is European (I think of that clown Stoltenberg as the prefect example), but NATO is not run by the NATO Secretary General. In reality, it is run by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who is the head of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and these guys are as red, white and blue as it gets. Forget about the "Eurocorps" or any other so-called "European armies" – it's all hot air, like Trudeau's recent outburst at Trump. In reality in the EU, as in Canada, they all know who is boss. And here is the single most important fact: NATO desperately needs Russia as justification for its own existence: if relations with Russia improve, then NATO would have no more reason to exist. Do you really think that anybody will let that happen? I sure don't! And right now, the Europeans are busy asking for more US troops on their soil, not less and they are all pretending to be terrified by a Russian invasion , hence the need for more and bigger military exercises close to the Russian border . And just to cover all its bases, NATO is now gradually expanding into Latin America .

Third, there is a long list of EU governments which vitally need further bad relationships with Russia . They include:

  1. Unpopular governments which need to explain their own failures by the nefarious actions of an external bogyman . A good example is how the Spanish authorities blamed Russia for the crisis in Catalonia. Or the British with their "Brexit". The Swedes are doing even better, they are already preparing their public opinion for a "Russian interference" in case the election results don't turn out to be what they need.
  2. Governments whose rhetoric has been so hysterically anti-Russian that they cannot possibly back down from it. Best examples: the UK and Merkel. But since most (but not all) EU states did act on the Skripal false-flag on the basis of the British "highly likely" and in the name of "solidarity", they are now all stuck as accomplices of this policy. There is no way they are simply going to admit that they were conned by the Brits.
  3. EU prostitutes : states whose only policy is to serve the US against Russia. These states compete against each other in the most abject way to see who can out-brown-nose each other for the position of "most faithful and willing loyal servant of the US". The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars ). True, now that EU subsidies are running out, the situation of these states is becoming even more dire, and they know that the only place where they can still get money is the US. So don't expect them to change their tune anytime soon (even if Bulgaria has already realized that nobody in the West gives a damn about it ).
  4. Governments who want to crack down on internal dissent by accusing any patriotic or independent political party/movement to be "paid by the Kremlin" and representing Russian interests. The best example is France and how it treated the National Front. I would argue that most EU states are, in one way or another, working on creating a "national security state" because they do realize (correctly) that the European people are deeply frustrated and oppose EU policies (hence all the anti-EU referendums lost by the ruling elites).

Contrary to a very often repeated myth, European business interests do not represent a powerful anti-russophobic force . Why? Just look at Germany: for all the involvement of Germany (and Merkel personally) in the Ukraine, for all the stupid rhetoric about "Russia being an aggressor" which "does not comply with the Mink Agreements", North Stream is going ahead! Yes, money talks, and the truth is that while anti-Russian sanctions have cost Europe billions, the big financial interests (say the French company Total) have found ways to ignore/bypass these sanctions. Oh sure, there is a pro-trade lobby with Russian interest in Europe. It is real, but it simply does not have anywhere near the power the anti-Russian forces in the EU have. This is why for years now various EU politicians and public figures have made noises about lifting the sanctions, but when it came to the vote – they all voted as told by the real bosses.

Not all EU Russophobia is US-generated , by the way. We have clearly seen that these days when Trump suggested that the G7 (or, more accurately, the G6+1) needed to re-invite Russia, it was the Europeans who said "nope!". To the extend that there is a "EU position" (even a very demure and weak one), it is mostly anti-Russian, especially in the northern part of Europe. So when Uncle Sam tells the Europeans to obey and engage in the usual Russia-bashing, they all quickly fall in line, but in the rare case when the US does not push a rabidly anti-Russian agenda, EU politicians suddenly find enough willpower to say "no". By the way, for all the Trump's statements about re-inviting Russia into the G6+1 the US is still busy slapping more sanctions on Russia .

The current mini-wars between the US and the EU (on trade, on Iran, on Jerusalem) do not at all mean that Russia automatically can benefit from this . Again, the best example of this is the disastrous G6+1 summit in which Trump basically alienated everybody only to have the G6 reiterate its anti-Russian position even though the G6+1 needs Russia far more than Russia needs the G7 (she really doesn't!). Just like the US and Israeli leaders can disagree and, on occasion, fight each other, that does not at all mean that somehow they are not fundamentally joined at the hip. Just think of mob "families" who can even have "wars" against each other, but that does not at all mean that this will benefit the rest of the population whom all mobsters prey upon.

The Ukrainian crisis will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe . There is a very high probability that in the near future the Ukronazi regime will try to reconquer Novorussia (DNR/LRN). I submit that the outcome of such an attack is not in doubt – the Ukronazis will lose. The only question is this: to whom will they lose:

I will admit that there is still a small possibility that a Ukronazi attack might not happen. Maybe Poroshenko & Co. will get cold feet (they know the real condition of the Ukie military and "dobrobat" death squads) and maybe Putin's recent not-so-veiled threat about " grave consequences for the Ukrainian statehood " will have the needed effect. But what will happen even if this attack does not take place? The EU leaders and the Ukronazi regime in Kiev will still blame Russia for the Ukraine now clearly being a failed state. Whatever scenario you find more likely for the Ukraine, things there will only get worse and everybody will blame Russia.

The crisis in Syria will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe. It is becoming pretty clear that the US is now attempting a reconquista of Syria or, at least, a break-up of Syria into several zones, including US-controlled ones. Right now, the US and the "good terrorists" have lost the war, but that does not stop them from re-igniting a new one, mostly by reorganizing, retraining, redeploying and, most importantly, re-branding the surviving "bad terrorists" into "good ones". This plan is backed by Saudi money and Israeli firepower. Furthermore, Russia is now reporting that US Special Forces are already working with the (new) "good terrorists" to – you guessed it – prepare yet another fake chemical attack and blame it on the Syrians. And why not? It worked perfectly already several times, why not do that again? At the very least, it would give the US another try at getting their Tomahawks to show their effectiveness (even if they fail again, facts don't matter here). And make no mistake, a US "victory" in Syria (or in Venezuela) would be a disaster not only for the region, but for every country wanting to become sovereign (see Andre Vltchek's excellent article on this topic here ). And, again, Russia will be blamed for it all and, with certifiable nutcasts like Bolton, Russian forces might even be attacked. As I wrote already many times, this is far from over . Just as in the Ukrainian case, some deal might be made (at least US and Russian military officials are still talking to each other ) but my personal opinion is that making any kind of deal with Trump is as futile as making deals with Netanyahu: neither of them can be trusted and they both will break any and all promises in a blink of an eye. And if all hell breaks loose in Syria and/or Iran, NATO will make sure that the Europeans all quickly and obediently fall in line ("solidarity", remember?).

The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for Russia and the future does look rather bleak.

One objection to my pessimism is the undeniable success of the recent Saint Petersburg summit and the Parliamentary Forum. However, I believe that neither of these events was really centered around Europe at all, but about the world at large (see excellent report by Gilbert Doctorow on this topic here ). Yes, Russia is doing great and while the AngloZionist media loves to speak about the "isolation" of Russia, the truth is that it is the Empire which is isolated, while Russia and China are having tremendous success building the multi-polar world they want to replace the Empire with. So while it is true that the western leaders might prefer to see a liberal "economic block" in the new Russian government, the rest of the world has no such desire at all (especially considering how many countries out there have suffered terrible hardships at the hands of the WTO/WB/IMF/etc types).

Conclusion :

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission. Vladimir Putin put it best when he said " They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense ".

However, if the EU is, for all practical purposes, non-existent, Russia can, and will, engage with individual EU member states. There is a huge difference between, say, Poland and Italy, or the UK and Austria. Furthermore, the EU is not only dysfunctional, it is also non-viable. Russia would immensely benefit from the current EU either falling apart or being deeply reformed because the current EU is a pure creation of the US-backed Bilderberger types and not the kind of Europe the European people need. In fact, I would even argue that the EU is the single biggest danger for the people of the European continent. Thus Russia should use her resources to foster bi-lateral cooperation with individual EU member states and never take any action which would strengthen (or even legitimize) EU-derived organizations such as the EU Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, etc. These are all entities which seek to undermine the sovereignty of all its members, including Russia. Again, Putin put it best when he recently declared that " either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no Russia ".

Whatever the ideology and slogans, all empires are inherently evil and inherently dangerous to any country wanting to be truly sovereign. If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple. Instead, Russia needs to engage those countries, political parties and forces who advocate for what de Gaulle called " the Europe of fatherlands ". Both the AngloZionist Empire and the EU are undergoing the most profound crisis in their history and the writing is on the wall. Sooner rather than later, one by one, European countries will recover their sovereignty, as will Russia. Only if the people of Europe succeed in recovering their sovereignty could Russia look for real partnerships in the West, if only because the gradually developing and integrating Eurasian landmass offer tremendous economic opportunities which could be most beneficial to the nations of Europe. A prosperous Europe " from the Atlantic to the Urals " is still a possibility, but that will happen only when the current European Union and NATO are replaced by truly European institutions and the current European elites replaced by sovereignists.

The people of Russia, EU and, I would argue, the United States all have the same goal and the same enemy: they want to recover their sovereignty, get rid of their corrupt and, frankly, treacherous elites and liberates themselves from the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire. This is why pushing the issue of "true sovereignty" (and national traditional values) is, I believe, the most unifying and powerful political idea to defeat the Empire. This will be a long struggle but the outcome is not in doubt.


peterAUS , June 17, 2018 at 12:54 am GMT

The usual Saker, but, there are a couple of not bad snippets:

The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella.

They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense".

As for this:

If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple.

can't wait

Mattheus , June 16, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events. He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario, it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
renfro , June 17, 2018 at 5:34 am GMT
@Beckow

Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington was always stupid

Bullshit. try to keep up with whats actually happening.

U.S. Is Trying to Kill Major Gas Deal Between Russia and Germany By Tom O'Connor On 5/18/18 at 2:41 PM (http://www.newsweek.com/us-trying-kill-major-gas-deal-between-russia-germany-934603

The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that would run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project would threaten the security of its European allies.

Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern Germany. Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia could provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told reporters in Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in the region and that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop it, according to the Associated Press.

Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr 20, 2018 – A Europe-wide diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump administration to ease US sanctions targeting Russia, as fears mount that

JR , June 17, 2018 at 7:55 am GMT
EU clueless?

http://www.imi-online.de/2015/06/26/expansion-assoziation-konfrontation/

Yes, the EU is immoral , imperialistic megalomaniac but definitely not clueless.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/war-in-ukraine-a-result-of-misunderstandings-between-europe-and-russia-a-1004706.html

Kiza , June 17, 2018 at 8:18 am GMT
@Beckow

Excellent comment as usual Beckow, I could have typed the same. In fact, I have been commenting online since 1992 that neither EU, nor most European states can be friends of Russia. This was based on how those treated Yugoslavia/Serbia during the recent Balkan wars that the same entities helped initiate. Because Serbia is Russia without nuclear weapons. Russia would have gotten exactly the same treatment (Barbarossa 2) as Yugoslavia if it did not have them. Nobody expected Russia to recover so quickly from Yeltsin and even develop the world leading stand-off weapons on a budget. This is the only reason that Barbarossa 2 will never happen. But they cannot stop hoping for a US-lead miracle.

Yet, the economic interest is there and if China and Russia manage to economically integrate Europe and Asia, then the Euro-doggies will stop yapping and biting at the Russian heels and will fall in line. What else could one expect from such pathetic shameless trash? Give the One-Road another 15 years and watch this unfurle.

Finally, although I believed that Ukronazis would attack Novorussians, I now think that Ukraine may have run out of suicidal dumb maniacs. It is much cheaper to make noise and beat your Galician chest then to engage the enemy protected by Russia. Ukraine is, unfortunately, already a total economic basket case, plus all One-Road plans circumvent it (as MH17 should have, due to instability). Will there ever be a better example than Ukraine of the benevolent influence of the Anglo-Zionist on a country?

The Anglo-Zionists versus OneRoad.
For more information disregard the dumb title and watch this Pepe Escobar interview: http://thesaker.is/interview-of-pepe-escobar-the-world-is-waiting-for-the-apocalypse-if-there-is-a-conflict-between-america-and-russia/
I watched his other interviews and it is interesting how Pepe is not so open when interviewed by the Westerners.

m___ , June 17, 2018 at 9:24 am GMT
@mikkkkas

Dramatic shift in analysis of Saker,

As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other, territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.

Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.

As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of above, he must somehow understand(Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible actors as Putin, Trump, Xi(affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war cannot be anything more then policing.

To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse, after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior). No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.

Honest writing of Saker.

How good are these supranational, corporatacracy(another commenter), "globally organized elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough. Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods. It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual fate.

War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity, migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans. Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub, that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plage if not.

jilles dykstra , June 17, 2018 at 9:56 am GMT
@Quartermaster

The CIA seems to have spent five billion $ in Ukraine.
Who wants to incorporate Ukraine in the west therefore is not clear, the USA, NATO or EU, or all of them ?
In any case, many in Europe see Putin just as an honest gas supplier.
Trump's gas is much more expensive.

Heros , June 17, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT

The usual Saker

Definitely. He stays well within the Judeo-Overton window. He is kosher, so to speak. Sure, like Alex Jones, he will make the occasional slap at Israel or Zionism, but he will not verge outside of the window's "Nazi Germany was the ultimate evil" or the holy 6 million martyrs. I also have never read any of his work where he delves into 9/11, and what it means about everything that has happened since.

You have three "not bad snippets" that I don't really agree with:

The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe.

It is not that they don't give a damn, it is that they take their orders from a higher source. Euro-serfs see the coerced passage of Lisbon and Maastricht, the ongoing 3rd world invasion, the restriction of free speech, the increasing criminality, the ECB destruction and removal of elected officials in Greece and Italy. They know it is a sham, they just don't understand why, because they are constantly being lied to. Saker is not helping here.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella.

Saker is not willing to tell us exactly who this entity is. He is not going to take us outside of the Judeo-Overton window.

They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense

With this dog whistle he is treading on thin ice. Sure, "their problems" could describe past crimes like Maidan that may be catching up with them, but it could also cover such things as Gaza, the Liberty, the King David Hotel, or even the targeting of Nagasaki in 1945. As usual though, he won't confront the serpent.

Jake , June 17, 2018 at 11:26 am GMT
"At best, the EU can be considered a US protectorate/colony, with some subjects "more equal than others" (say, the UK versus Greece)."

That nails it as well as it can be done, though I'd say that some states are far more equal than others and add Germany to the UK in that category.

Jake , June 17, 2018 at 11:57 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

Yes, but also while allowing Germany to dominate the EU in every way, especially economically to the detriment of other EU states.

Miro23 , June 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT

The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars).

Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with "historic enemy" Russia?

There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.

bj , June 17, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT
@Heros

"targeting of Nagasaki in 1945″ ..

"For targeting purposes, the bombing crew used St. Mary's Urakami Cathedral, the largest Christian church in East Asia. At 11:02 a.m., on Aug. 9, 1945, when the bomb was dropped over the cathedral, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan."

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/09/the-very-un-christian-nagasaki-bomb/

annamaria , June 17, 2018 at 4:31 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Hey, Quartermaster, why don't you tell us more about the amazing progress achieved by Ukraine after the Kagans-sponsored revolution of 2014? For instance, you could tell us (proudly?) about the rise of neo-Nazi power in Ukraine and about certain Kolomojsky, the Ukrainian/Israeli thug, and his financing of the Azov battalion.
The EU countries put people in prison for questioning the tight official narrative/numbers of holocaust biz.

The same AngloZionist "elites" are content with the desecration of Jewish cemeteries in Ukraine by the local neo-Nazis: http://www.stalkerzone.org/banderists-came-ukraine-march-center-odessa/

"Antisemitic Hate Crimes Thrive in Ukraine:" https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/04/21/antisemitic-hate-crimes-thrive-in-ukraine/
"Symbols of the 1st Galician SS Division are not considered to be Nazi symbols in Ukraine:" http://eu.eot.su/2017/05/20/symbols-of-the-1st-galician-ss-division-are-not-considered-to-be-nazi-symbols-in-ukraine/
"The roots of fascism in Ukraine: From Nazi collaboration to Maidan:" http://liberationschool.org/the-roots-of-fascism-in-ukraine/

annamaria , June 17, 2018 at 4:49 pm GMT
@byrresheim

What is wrong with using the word "Ukronazis?" How would you name the happy warriors beholden to the memory of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)?

http://liberationschool.org/the-roots-of-fascism-in-ukraine/

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/stepan-bandera-nationalist-euromaidan-right-sector/

"The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation.
The Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will continue to fight with the Allied German Army against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign and united State and a new order in the whole world.

Long live the Ukrainian Sovereign United Ukraine! Long live the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists! Long live the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian people – STEPAN BANDERA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Ukrainian_State_Act

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
@renfro

We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.

There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.

There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.

After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change that.

[Jun 17, 2018] After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes

Notable quotes:
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
"... Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm. ..."
"... And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :). ..."
"... On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade. ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT

... EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.

There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.

There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.

After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.

My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change that.

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 11:10 pm GMT

@Kiza

Thanks. Current trends strengthen Euro-asia (and thus China and Russia), so West will have to do something, otherwise they get weaker over time.

There has been a maximalist group in the West who believe that ' anything is possible ', that even with nukes it is possible to defeat and dismember Russia. The key factor would be internal instability inside Russia. Maidan, Saaksavilli's mad dash in 2008, and the support for Caucas separatists were all done with that in mind. It has mostly failed with Russia becoming more united in the process.

Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm.

And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :).

On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade.

[Jun 17, 2018] On Polish Russophobia

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

Miro23 , June 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT

The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars).

Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with "historic enemy" Russia?

There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.

[Jun 17, 2018] In the German parliament Merkel and her supporters battle to continue their anti German policy against the CSU even in the CDU (Merkel's party) there are courageous people who that remind Merkel by whom she is paid, and to who she has obligations.

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , June 17, 2018 at 11:16 am GMT

http://www.achgut.com/artikel/wir_truemmerfrauen_nach_dem_merkelsturz

Im Bundestag kämpfen Merkel und ihre Treuesten derweil darum, ihre Anti-Deutschland-Politik unter anderem gegen die CSU durchzusetzen -- sogar in der CDU gibt es erste Mutige, die sich daran erinnern, wer sie bezahlt und wem sie eigentlich verpflichtet sind.

Rough translation:

" In the German parliament Merkel and her supporters battle to continue their anti German policy against the CSU -- even in the CDU (Merkel's party) there are courageous people who that remind Merkel by whom she is paid, and to who she has obligations. "

There are German rumours that Merkel will fall this week.

Historians from time to time write how curious it is that apparently unrelated events in different parts of the world change history.

I wonder if the Trump election with the realisation, long overdue, in Germany, that the migrants are a burden in stead of a contribution to the economy, may combine to Merkel's fall,in her wake maybe the implosion of the EU, and the end of the euro.

It was Merkel who prevented Greece leaving the euro.

[Jun 17, 2018] "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , Website June 16, 2018 at 4:28 am GMT

From my free on-line book:

http://www.g2mil.com/strategy.htm

Military Strategists

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."

H.L. Mencken

[Jun 16, 2018] Putin and orthodox religion

Jun 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

Frankie P

It is completely unnecessary and foolish to bring up and try to argue about the faith of another man, especially by superimposing one's own views onto the matter. It's clear that you believe it is impossible or highly unlikely to have high intelligence and be a true believer, but to me that is neither here nor there.

The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands Orthodox Christianity. Yes! Russia's history and the levers of power were wrenched away from its traditional Orthodox roots by those intent on revenge, those with a mad desire to unite the world under the banner of international communism, bringing about (so they hoped and continue to hope) the birth of their messiah. Thankfully that chapter of history is over, but it's not over for the chosen: intent on revenge on Russia, just as they are forever intent on their innocence in all historical matters, they have moved on and rooted themselves into another host: the USA. They will be smacked down and put in their place again, but I hesitate to estimate the scheduling. The main question is how many human lives will they end through their machinations before the smack down.

Frankie P

EugeneGur , June 15, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT

@Frankie P

The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands Orthodox Christianity.

No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his least attractive features.

Thankfully that chapter of history is over

It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.

The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is – to borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song – is more alive than the living. The Soviet period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in every area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.

It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet standards – culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does – the Soviet Union will live one.

[Jun 16, 2018] Current Russian regime got bad roots. It cares not for people. Current increase of retirement age is another testament to this

Russia still is a neoliberal country. What do you expect ?
It is interesting that Russia which oppose neoliberal globalization in foreign policy, implements neoliberal reforms within the country. The current pensoin reform is clienly neoliberal in spirit, even if it does not include privatization. there is a big different between those who work at factories and those who work at offices.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't share your and some other commenters' fixation on Jews. I believe it's a red herring. Elites, Jewish and gentile, are equally repulsive and guilty of most ills that afflict our world. Despite its many failings, one of the redeeming qualities of communism was that it called for confiscation of the possessions of moneyed elites. In reality, they were mostly hanged or shot. Considering what they are doing to the US and other countries, this was amply justified. ..."
"... Basically there were real issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism regime. ..."
"... Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake. ..."
"... I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical sites all over Europe. ..."
"... I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these "reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact, American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US level). ..."
"... I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent research in Russia now than there was in the USSR. ..."
"... Huge inequality is another negative, especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that regress rather than progress. ..."
"... On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be damned. ..."
Jun 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 2:40 am GMT

@Frankie P

Maybe it is presumptuous to express my opinion about another person's faith, but let me remind you that Putin was a KGB officer and a member of the communist party. As such, he was (or pretended to be) a militant atheist. Now he publicly goes to church and remains there throughout the service (mind you, Russian Orthodox Christmas and Easter services are all-night affairs). Thus, he either lied then or is lying now about his faith. Take your pick.

Yes, Orthodox Christianity was one of the pillars of Russian culture. But again, let me remind you that one of the greatest Russian writers, Leo Tolstoy, was excommunicated by the church. What's more, current patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox church, was photographed with a watch worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, owns an apartment in the center of Moscow, likely worth millions of $, and a collection or rare books in this apartment with a huge value. If you are a Christian, you should know that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24; also Mark 10:25).

I don't share your and some other commenters' fixation on Jews. I believe it's a red herring. Elites, Jewish and gentile, are equally repulsive and guilty of most ills that afflict our world. Despite its many failings, one of the redeeming qualities of communism was that it called for confiscation of the possessions of moneyed elites. In reality, they were mostly hanged or shot. Considering what they are doing to the US and other countries, this was amply justified.

Sergey Krieger , June 15, 2018 at 9:25 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

I frankly do not think that communism requires redemption. It was first attempt at moving humanity towards next step in social evolution and it did not happen under the best conditions. It happened in the country ridden with accumulated problems from previous regime mishandling the country for a couple of centuries with those issues coming to a head and after so much pressure it resulted in massive eruption of violence which would have been even worse without Bolsheviks as it would lead to Russia disintegration and Russian state death., There would have happened something similar to modern Ukraine.

Basically there were real issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism regime.

Current Russian regime got bad roots and I do not believe anything good will come out of these bad roots. The system is freakish and rotten at the core. It care s not for people. Current increase of retirement age is another testament to this. Bolsheviks when they started made their intentions rather obvious in destroyed and poor country. They assured real human rights while current system removed those rights and there is no guarantees that we as a soviet citizen used to enjoy. Obviously things were not perfect. They never are.

Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake.

I also wonder what do you think of spontaneous life appearance? I read some books on this issue including Dawkins' and Behe, but considering your experience and professional background it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts.

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical sites all over Europe.

I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these "reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact, American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US level).

I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent research in Russia now than there was in the USSR.

Huge inequality is another negative, especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that regress rather than progress.

On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be damned.

[Jun 16, 2018] Remember general plan Ost

Jun 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

Plan Ost , June 16, 2018 at 11:09 pm GMT

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

German Plan Ost to exterminate " inferior races "

Percentages of ethnic groups to be destroyed and/or deported to Siberia by Nazi Germany from future settlement areas.[15][16][3]

Ethnic group/Nationality Population percent subject to removal

Russians[17][16] 50–60% to be physically eliminated and another 15% to be sent to Western Siberia
Estonians[3][18] almost 50%
Latvians[3] 50%
Czechs[16] 50%
Ukrainians[16] 65%
Belarusians[16] 75%
Poles[16] 20 million, or 80–85%
Lithuanians[3] 85%
Latgalians[3] 100%

[Jun 15, 2018] The West, not Putin, organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county

The "collective West" clearly pursued its own goals in Ukraine, and the last thing they were concerned was well being of Ukraine people. Russia also viewed Ukraine mainly from the position of its own interests, although being isolated they provided somewhat better terms for economic cooperation, just to counter influence of the EU and the USA.
The USA wanted the Ukraine to became yet another Baltic republic as a part of its geopolitical efforts of encircling Russia and, if possible, installing another Yeltsin-style comprador government. EU wanted a market for its good and to exclude Russia from using Ukrainian resources as well as the leverage to get better prices for Russian natural resources.
So the Ukrainian people got on the receiving end of those efforts and paid a huge price. Was it unavoidable or not is difficult to say. May be less bloodshed was possible but economic decimation of Ukraine and conversion it into a debt slave was in the cards, and probably was not avoidable. It just occurred faster and the drop of the standard of living went deeper that in other circumstance.
For all his corruption and thugishness Yanukovich tried to play Russia against the West and get some concession from both. Now such a policy is impossible as the country de-facto lost independence as happens with any debt-slave.
So the conflict in Donbass became important for Poroshenko government as the mean of uniting people, who became disillusioned in the results of EuroMaydan and pointing to Russia as a scapegoat for all their difficulties. In a way Poroshenko now needs Donbass conflict to survive politically.
Jun 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Quartermaster , June 14, 2018 at 12:37 pm GMT

While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there, some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead. Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is likely he knows what is going on.

While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly, that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist appropriate as well.

Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path, he impoverishes his people even more.

EugeneGur , June 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.

The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted should we be so inclined?

It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.

He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed for that.

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. "

What did he do there ?
And what did the CIA do there ?

fredyetagain aka superhonky , June 14, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American))) advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

[Jun 15, 2018] Russia, the Neoconservatives, and the Real Issues Involved by Boyd D. Cathey

Pathological Russophobia of neocons is explanation by two factors: (1) they are lobbyists for MIC and this is the way MIC wants the US foreign policy to be execute; (2) this is the way of earning money for people, many of whom are good no nothing else.
Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... reductio ad Hitlerum ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... The Weekly Standard ..."
"... Two Hundred Years Together ..."
"... The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, ..."
"... Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or ..."
"... From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." ..."
Jun 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Almost one year ago the United States Congress (with only a handful of "nay" votes) adopted new and severe sanctions against Russia for its supposed attempt to influence and interfere in the 2016 national elections. Included in that legislation was a provision -- specifically placed there by Russophobe Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) -- that President Trump cannot alter or lift any of the sanctions without future Congressional approbation.

The government of Vladimir Putin, in response to this provocation, announced that the American diplomatic presence in Russia would be reduced by 755 persons, a drastic move by any standards. But we cannot say it was unexpected -- or undeserved.

That sanctions vote was fascinating as it illustrated during the first year of the contentious Trump presidency a rare point of political unity between the socialist Left, the Democrats and the mainstream media -- formerly noted for their "soft" and favorable attitude to the old and unloved Soviet Communist Russian regime -- and the conservative/GOP mainstream, dominated by the Neoconservatives. Of course, perspectives and approaches to the question differ, whether it was the Trump campaign that was colluding with Moscow, or if it was Hillary and the Clinton Foundation that had collaborated in some way, but their target remained the same: that man in the Kremlin and the country he governs.

One thing was clear: the result of the 2016 presidential election had the most unheard of and remarkable result in recent American political history: a de facto alliance of these supposedly antipodal political forces. And what we have witnessed is a phalanx of the pseudo-Right Neocons and the formerly pro-Soviet Left linked together, competing to see who could be more "anti" and who could come up with the more far-fetched Russia conspiracy theories, and -- as with the 2017 sanctions -- the latest unwarranted, over the top legislation.

Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons & Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges "the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."

Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally left the Fox News network in March 2018 )

When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum .

Of course, such examples aren't rare in the establishment "conservative movement" media. Pick up any issue of National Review or The Weekly Standard or listen to the Glenn Beck radio program and you can find the same hysteria, largely laced with faked quotes or disinformation (e.g., "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad nauseum ).

Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils lost big time financially in his manipulations in Russia, as investigative journalists Philip Giraldi and Robert Parry have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir Putin.

For the Neoconservative leaders of what passes for "conservatism" these days, it is as if nothing has changed since 1991, since the ignominious fall of Communism. It's even arguable that their hostility to Moscow has increased since then.

Let me suggest several reasons for this: First, many of the more prominent Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II. [See the partially translated excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together at: https://200yearstogether.wordpress.com , and the commentary ]

Putin, despite his strong support from native Russian Jews and from the Moscow Rabbinate, is a Russian nationalist and fervent supporter of the traditionalist Russian Orthodox Church, and those two factors bring up painful memories of the "bad old days" of discrimination and Jewish persecution for the Neocons.

A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."

Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).

Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, " George Soros Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent, " January 19, 2018]

But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros defend?

Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or Russia, itself. Unlike the weak and pliant Boris Yeltsin, Putin the nationalist ended the strangle-hold of Russian industry, in particular control of Russia's important energy sector, by those few international businessmen, the oligarchs (many of them Jewish), most of whom fled the country. That could not stand! How dare Russia -- and its president -- oppose the economic diktats of Bruxelles and Wall Street!

Lastly, we should add one more reason for hostility, and that is Russia's remaining international presence, in particular, in Syria. It is very simple: you don't go from being one of the world's two "superpowers" to all of a sudden a second-rate, economically-handicapped "has been" without some remorse. As a patriot and nationalist President Putin has, understandably, attempted to reassert Russian prosperity and power -- certainly, not as much or in the same manner as the old Communist leaders. But, from his reasonable point of view, the largest country in the world does have interests, and not just in what goes on in neighboring nations where millions of Russians (formerly within Russia) reside, but also with long-time allies such as Syria.

Is not this same criterion true for the United States and its dealings with its neighbors and allies?

More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel."

And thus, the revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received. But, as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality.


Anon [425] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 4:22 am GMT

The BitChute Interview
Carlton Meyer , Website June 14, 2018 at 4:50 am GMT
Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.

He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring Europe, as Fred Reed explained:

https://fredoneverything.org/dulce-et-decorum-est-if-someone-else-has-to-do-it/

Mikhail , Website June 14, 2018 at 6:18 am GMT
Nothing new in the above article. That such people are elevated to the stature of cushy mainstream propping and ridicule by some non-mainstream others is a tell all sign on what's wrong with the coverage.

Regarding this excerpt:

A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."

Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).

Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, "George Soros Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent," January 19, 2018]

But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros defend?

JRL promoted a recent Kirchick piece:

http://russialist.org/newswatch-the-soviet-roots-of-invoking-fears-about-world-war-iii-brookings-james-kirchick/

The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.)

A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistically references the Cold War period with present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of "lazy".

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 7:22 am GMT
To me it is all quite simple.
FDR's aim was to rule the war with junior aides USSR, China and a smaller Britain.
Stalin had other ideas.
Even in 1946 FDR's main backer, Baruch pleaded for a world government, a USA government, in my view.
Deep State still tries to impose this world government.
Despite Trump 'America first' we see a Bolton in the White House, as many see 'the neocons are back'.
Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State.
The big mistake of the British empire was unwillingless to realise that it could no longer maintain the empire.
This already began before 1914, when the two fleet standars became too expensive, the one fleet standard expressed the inability to maintain the empire.
Obama was forcedto reduce the two war standard to one and half.
What a half war accomplishes we see in Syria.
Alas, seldom in history did reason rule.
If it will in the present USA, I doubt it.
Milton , June 14, 2018 at 8:23 am GMT
Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Sanctions are in fact an act of war. Putin's mistake was in thinking he could reason with the Neoconservatives. The Neocons are not guided by pragmatic or rational concerns. Of course, many are starting to think Putin was just "part of the show" all along, as evidenced by his recent capitulation to Netanyahu.
Dante , June 14, 2018 at 9:40 am GMT
That was a very good read and you make some excellent observations, Certainly worth sharing, Thanks very much.
Renoman , June 14, 2018 at 9:51 am GMT
The American Government are a bunch of morons. I ask again "what has Russia ever done to the USA"? A real thin book as far as I can see, time to grow up and be big boys, there's money over there.
Jon Halpenny , June 14, 2018 at 10:48 am GMT
The American diplomat, Bruce P Jackson, who is credited with expanding NATO, made a statement several years ago. He heavily criticized Putin, saying he was responsible for "the largest theft of Jewish property since the Nazis."

So there we can see a motive for hatred of Putin.

War for Blair Mountain , June 14, 2018 at 11:06 am GMT
In 2018, Russia is Conservative Christian .

In 2018, America is homosexual-pedophile-mutilated tranny freak

Anon [436] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 11:14 am GMT
@Milton

Bad start.

S=W-1

S=W

Which is it?

Kirt , June 14, 2018 at 11:15 am GMT
Excellent analysis by Dr. Cathey of the roots of the anti-Russian hysteria. This is also reflected in popular culture – Hollywood movies and the various spy/covert ops novels of people like Ted Bell and Brad Thor, who has hinted that he may run against Trump in the 2020 Republican primaries. Russians have replaced Arabs as the go-to villains.
Wizard of Oz , June 14, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
@Jon Halpenny

Was Jackson referring to some of the oligarchs who had fallen out with Putin and was he suggesting Putin rather than the state benefitted? Would he have included the Orthodox Khordokovsky as Jewish?

Parbes , June 14, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
The neocons are a collection of sick, murderous, fanatical supremacist ideologues who have turned the U.S. into the most despicable criminal regime on earth. Because of their control and influence over the U.S. imperial military/political assets, combined with their psychopathic mentality and ideology, these scumbags pose a clear threat to the entire world, but especially to Russia and Europe (and to the U.S. itself, of course). The irony in all of this is that, although these mostly Jewish bottom-feeders like to smear any foreign leader they'd like to demonize as "the new Hitler" etc., they themselves are more nefarious and dangerous to the planet than Hitler and his German Nazis ever were.

Nothing will change until the major members of the neocon collective start getting individually singled out and receiving the harsh punishments they deserve.

War for Blair Mountain , June 14, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT
Who wages war against Christian Russia every night on MSNBC?

Answer:The biological mutant IT .Rachel Maddow .an IT .

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 11:38 am GMT
@Jon Halpenny

I wonder what jewish property Putin stole.
In the USSR there was hardly any private property.
What was stolen, sold for ridiculously low prices, was state property, to former USSR managers, and/or foreign 'investors'.
As far as I understand it, some crooks have been persecuted.
Any foreigner who, after 1990, went to live in a former USSR state can explain it.
Some did to me.
Possibly Jackson is referring to how Putin threw out Soros, and his Open Society indoctrination organisation.
Hungary just now also threw him out.
Timmermans of the EU again threatened the E European nations, for refusing to let migrants enter.
Soros wants multi ethnic countries

Jake , June 14, 2018 at 11:48 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

"Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State."

And that means that the US Deep State can NOT have a Jewish creation, because it existed a long time before 1948, a long time before 1939, a long time before the creation of the Federal Reserve.

There is a reason that Neocons love Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln: the former was an apologist for the nascent American Deep State, and the latter its perfect tool right down to being ready and able to slaughter huge numbers of non-Elite whites so the then virtually 100% WASP-in-blood Elite Deep State could totally control the growing nation.

The source of the American Deep State is the same as England's Deep State: Oliver Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges and made precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities.

That is exactly what the Neocons are determined to continue, and they are correct whenever they assert that they are being loyal to the history and heritage of the Puritans and of Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party and of the US in the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and World War 2.

What is different about today's Neocons and, say, the growing number of Jews with major voices among the British Deep State at the height of Victorianism is that now the original junior partner has become the acting partner, the dominant partner.

But the original alliance is the same.

You cannot separate the Neocon problem from the WASP problem. You cannot solve the Neocon problem without also solving the WASP problem.

Anonymous [320] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 12:26 pm GMT
Russia sucks. The only things beautiful about it are the natural landscapes and some of the women.

Russia treats it's poor with utter indifference. It's hospitals are pathetic.

Housing is drab and depressing.

Alcoholism, drug use and prostitution are rampant.

Unless you come from money in Russia, education and opportunity seems non existent. Save for the few poor exemplars.

Yet it has lots of weapons.

Russia is not a great country.

It's basically a bunch of white people acting black.

Quartermaster , June 14, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

In 2018, Russia is Conservative Christian .

This is true only in the loosest sense. There is a huge difference between holding church membership, or attending church, and being a Christian. Putin may have done the 1st two, but the last is utterly unknown to him.

anonymous [739] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs with their machetes.

We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=wYcqmOzk&id=3B43263DD48F82D1FEC205044FBE66DCDA30A42F&thid=OIP.wYcqmOzkZCrNMrWlfuDUigHaJu&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.occidentaldissent.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f06%2frussians-out.jpg&exph=1280&expw=974&q=occidental+dissent+farstar&simid=607993335092480560&selectedIndex=3&ajaxhist=0

Quartermaster , June 14, 2018 at 12:37 pm GMT
While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there, some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead. Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is likely he knows what is going on.

While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly, that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist appropriate as well.

Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path, he impoverishes his people even more.

DESERT FOX , June 14, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
The business of the Zionist controlled U.S. gov is WAR and this has been the agenda since 1913 and the establishment of the Zionist FED and the Zionist IRS and thus began the WAR agenda and the American people were set up to pay for the Zionist created wars and the Zionist agenda of a Zionist NWO.

Thus the Zionists need an enemy and have created enemies where none existed, the case in point being Russia and lesser created enemies the case in point being any given country in the Mideast that Israel and the Zionists wish to destroy. In the case of Russia the Zionists have the added incentive of trying to destroy a Christian country as Russia is now and historically has been Christian with the exception of the Satanist Zionist takeover of Russia in 1917 and the murder of some 60 million Russian people by the Satanist ie Zionist communists.

The U.S. gov is under satanic Zionist control and proof of this is the fact that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with and every thinking person knows this to be the truth, may GOD help we the people of America.

Cleburne , June 14, 2018 at 1:35 pm GMT
@Jake

Jake:

While I defer to no one in my loathing and contempt for the WASPs of the Northeastern U.S., whose career of mischief began with the brutal war of conquest against my native South, I'd would like to point out what I see as some problems in your assigning to Oliver Cromwell to baleful title of WASP the first.

To wit: "Oliver Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges."

This simply isn't true. Menasseh ben Israel did indeed present a "Humble Address on Behalf of the Jewish Nation" to the Lord Protector and the Counsel of State in 1655. Readmission was opposed by most of the English people and of the Puritan pastorate. However, there was no Act of Parliament, proclamation by Cromwell or notice from the Council of State allowing readmittance. Some historians have "deduced" that Cromwell have Menasseh "verbal assurance that they'd be allowed it, but those are deductions and speculation and no more. As far as sa subsequent petition for Jews to be allowed to practice Judaism in their homes and have a burial place outside the City of London, Cromwell referred that to the Council of State, which took no action.

Who did grant the Jews religious tolerance and naturalized a number of Jews by an Act of Parliament? Why, Charles II – after the Restoration.

You wrote: "made precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities."

I can only assume you are referring to the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, which began in May 1649. I assume you're aware that Ireland had been engulfed in a bloody and brutal civil war since 1641; indeed, one of the precipitating causes of the English Civil War was the matter of who would control the army raised to suppress the rebellion (Charles I or Parliament). Also as you know, England was swept by fear that Charles meant to bring an Irish army to England to suppress Parliament (and, indeed, there's probably more evidence that this was the actual case than there is that Cromwell cut a deal with the Jews). At any rate, there is no one single shred of evidence or even contemporary speculation that the Cromwellian conquest was at the behest of the Jews. It should be instead regarded in the context of the 17th century wars of religion, rather than 21st century conspiracy theory. Cromwell ended the civil war and pacified Ireland – in a brutal fashion, of course, but probably less vicious than Wallenstein in Germany.

Or are you referring to the Scots, crushed at Preston, Dunbar and Worcester? Again, the quarrel with the scots was over the matter of church governance, and the English unwillingness to impost the Presbyterian system on England. If Cromwell stood for anything, it was religious tolerance for the various sects that exploded after the Civil War; the sort of forced conformity demanded by the Scots displeased him (see the letters to Major Crawford in 1643).

And while both the New Englanders and English are labeled "Puritan," may I point out that the Puritan movement was a large one, with considerable variance. Cromwell favored tolerance and theologically tended toward a sort of univeralism (to judge by his pastors, eg Jeremiah Burroughs); I imagine that if he had gone to New England, he'd have been chased out along with Sarah Hutchinson and Roger Williams by the fanatical shits of Boston.

Boston is the "urgrund" of the WASP plague; not Cromwell. And while there's any number of things to fault him for, creation of the WASP was not one of them. In theological and existential terms, Cromwell and the New Model were probably closer to the Puritan "pioneers" of the Appalachian and Southern frontiers – many of whom were descended of troops planted in Ireland by Cromwell – and who of course made up the rank and file of the Confederate States Army.

You might want to take a look at the history of the Unitarian movement. You'd find everything you need to support your dislike of the WASP plaque there; I certainly have.

anon [228] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
1 undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."
Think of Israel. But no don't think of Isreal. That is anti Semitism
2 "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad nauseum)."

Think of US – harking back to the past of Roosevelt and Reagan and Eisenhower or to Monroe

Think of Pap Bush working for CIA
Thinks of thousands of people – leaders, trade unionists, communist, socialists killed by USA

3 Bill Browder, the grandson of -- – have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir Putin."

Think of -
be afraid of the screwing the neocons They will move to China or India and denounce US sue the country, and poison the well of the democracy and the well of the justice ,media, religious organizations to get back at US

4 James Kirchick: -- efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants "

Think of the perversions of the beliefs and attitudes within the psyche of this false man
He is of the same mindset that encourages Islamophobia among the clueless , zealous fervent bible thump er and among the poor indigent uneducated misinformed white populations of France USA Australia and Poland . He does same to the military and leftists secular outfit of Richard Dawkins .
He then encourages to dismember Arabs countries . The half-baked moron Richard Dawkins type, and military, and the white trash fall for it and get ready to pick up the gun for the invisible pervasive psychopathic chants of Kirchick. He also makes sure that each and every members of the opposite conflicting groups never stray way from kowtowing to Zionism who is the enemy of the Islam and the Christianity and the of the respective people.

Jews definitely feel comfortable in all weather and among the separates and in all kind of geography

anon [228] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 1:56 pm GMT
4 Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States."

And America felt validated , accepted and elevated by the media -mental -act of the bastards who should have met the fate of Saddam long time ago.

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. "

What did he do there ?
And what did the CIA do there ?

Anonymous [128] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 2:30 pm GMT
The more Christian that country and its leaders become, the more the atheistic west hates them. Too bad "Uncle Joe" wasn't still the Premier. We would treat that murderous atheist as a beloved relative, maybe even hand him over half of eastern Europe like we did last time. Instead, we send in LGBT protesters to disturb their new found faith.
jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Jake

From the other side of the Atlantic, what is the WASP problem ?
Whatever one thinks of the USA, protestants from NW Europe created the USA.
Their descendants, in my view, defend their culture.
Hardly any culture in the world goes under without a fight.
Some, maybe many, Germans, again the exception.

WHAT , June 14, 2018 at 2:40 pm GMT
@Anonymous

>muh bad housing
> muh alco and drugs
> muh poor
> muh no money fo dem pogroms
> muh weapons everywhere

I love how all this boilerplate wailing can be readily applied to US.

WHAT , June 14, 2018 at 2:44 pm GMT
Also waiting for that other nut who always comes with his tirades about "surrendering ukraine to Putin", no matter what article is about.
Mike something, was it?
Wally , June 14, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

"talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator."

Classic garbage in, garbage out.

fact: Hitler and the Germans did not, could not have committed the crimes they are alleged to have committed.

"we've often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn't have the evidence."
- so called "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg,

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

Wally , June 14, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT
"Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II."

There is no proof of these "pogroms" and the fake "wave of anti-semitism after World War II".
The source of such claims are Jews who benefit / profit from making such claims.

Recall the fake '6M' since 1823.

http://www.codoh.com

Michael Kenny , June 14, 2018 at 3:11 pm GMT
The umpteenth serving of the classic US hegemonist pro-Putin/anti-EU line. The distinction is thus not between those who favour the maintenance of US global hegemony and those who oppose it. It is whether Putin is still useful as a battering ram to destroy the EU precisely so as to maintain US global hegemony into the indefinite future. The most logical explanation of the known facts surrounding the Ukrainian coup is that Victoria Nuland was in cahoots with Putin. Behind Nuland, of course were the US neocons. The split came when Putin waded into the Syrian civil war on Assad's side. By doing so he made himself a threat to Israel and, for the neocons, the whole point of maintaining US global hegemony is to prop up Israel. Logically, therefore, their priority became Putin's defeat and removal. The other side of the US hegemonist camp, which seems to be motivated by something like hubris or a master race delusion, still believes that Putin can be used to break up the EU. That's the position Mr Cathey is arguing.
I don't think Putin is still viable as an anti-EU battering ram. The American groups that have been financing far-right nationalism in Europe have got caught in the web of their own contradictions. On the one hand, they preach national identity and sovereignty to us but then, as Mr Cathey is doing here, they justify Putin's refusal to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and the Ukrainian national identity. Secondly, European nationalism is essentially "anti-other". That means that it is inherently anti-American, which makes newly nationalist Europe the inevitable enemy of US domination. It also means that anti-Semitism is inherent in European nationalism, which is probably what has Soros up in arms. The final contradiction is that, very often, the same people who preach nationalism at us in Europe preach white nationalism in the US. If white Americans are a single ethnic group and entitled to live in a single political entity, then we white Europeans must also be a single ethnic group and should also live in a single political entity (the EU, for example).
I never cease to be amused at the way in which the various American anti-EU scams cut across each other and cancel each other out!
Dan Hayes , June 14, 2018 at 3:13 pm GMT
@anon

anon[228]:

Actually within the last several years Putin also made the statement that there is only one superpower and it is the United States!

Cleburne , June 14, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

"WASP" in the "USA" refers fairly specifically to the Protestants of New England and New York who as a result of the War of Northern Aggression attained complete power over the development of the American empire. Their interests were concentrated in banking, railroads, industry and so on. While descended from the Puritans of New England, most of them had lost any traditional religious fervor by, oh, 1700 or so and gradually moved into loopy, nonsensical ideologies like Transcendentalism, Unitarianism, the Social Gospel, and various other creation-fixing endeavors like temperance, abolitionist, progressivism and so on. To them can be attributed the Gnostic notion of the United States as God's appointed righter of wrongs around the world, with quite coincidentally matched up with their commercial interests. On the whole about as nasty and horrible group of people that ever walked the earth; however. WASP does not include the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants of Appalachia, the Deep South, Texas and so on. The Bush family are WASPs. Robert E. Lee was not a WASP. Jake is correct to disdain them; he's wrong in saying Cromwell was the archetype.

anon [317] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 3:53 pm GMT
@ Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement.. yes but the Lenin crowd were from Salonkia (1908) and Hertzl's Germany @ many above Exactly, the by name, rank and serial number identification including dual nationalities, corporate by name ownership, board membership, and positions, management, advisory positions or whatever.

Deeper yet into the deep state might identify the corporate officers, directors and outside auditors who serve the needs of those identified. Bureaucrat who echo deep state intentions might be a problem?

Who cannot name the few corporations and their owners and directors that strongly support the neocon ideology on the Internet? Which does the intelligence gathering (spying), which processes the data(data mining), which produces and sells OS(limits user security), which makes sleuthing back doors for browsers and application software, which make the devices that negotiate the bits between hardware (CPU) and software (OS), you know one bit for you the user and a duplicate bit of your bit for deep state intelligence units.

At the next level is the global benefactors(Profiteers) . expensive war equipment makers, oil well production gear makers, robot makers, transport organizations, phantom for hire mercenary armies labor agencies, Democrat and Republican candidates managers to be placed on the "vote for 5 election" ballots, inventors of the fake, producers of "the fake" into propaganda, distributors of the propaganda designed fake news to masses in the public, and access managers who gate, for massive fees, lobbyist into see and deal with politicians, media giants, and power wielding bureaucrats.

As I looked through this list I realized that if the public were to deny its elected government authority to support its neocon capitalist, the entire economy would be forced to switch from Global to Domestic.. showering all kinds of benefits on the governed sheep . No wonder the government is so insistent: without globalism there is no neocon-ism, without neocon-ism open competition would flourish, the restrictions on human progress in copyrights and patents would disappear and prices would move from controlled levels to competitive levels.

But I do not think the neocons are "ideologues" ; unless lawless disregard for humanity in search of profit, is an ideology. I am not even sure they are tightly organized, they are not colonist, they are monopolist (meaning any profit potential (tangible or intangible) will soon belong to them or be within their control. They will write laws, or get nations to sanction, start wars, regime change, terrorize, whatever to advance and to protect their exclusive right to competition free profit making); you might call it ownership of all of the factors of production by whatever means is necessary. I look at them as capitalist, who have co-opted many different governments, who have forgone their humanity, who independently profiteer, interactively, and for a multitude of different reasons, to produce a common collective set of extremely effective outcomes.

nickels , June 14, 2018 at 4:34 pm GMT
Interesting, the video asserts that part of Leo Strauss's philosophy was the introduction of Plato's 'Noble Lie', which, in this case, was the bugaboo of an evil Russian Empire as a foil to bring Americans together and avoid the inevitable collapse of liberalism into nihilism. I wonder if anyone can confirm this as part of Strauss's gift the the neopsychoticons?

Also, pretty obvious reason for hatred of Russia is the closeness of the State and the Church. Strauss here talks about how the secular sphere has but one purpose, providing room for the meddlers to thrive:

Cyrano , June 14, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
The Neocons are mad at Russia for standing in their way of taking over the world. All in the name of "democracy" of course, nothing sinister there. Russia, and as a matter of fact, the whole world stood by and let the US have their way for almost 25 years. What did they accomplish? Diddly. So now, they want Russia to get out of the way for another (at least) 25 years, so they can spread some more "democracy". Let me tell you something, if they couldn't do it with virtually no opposition between 1991 -2014, and on a trillion dollar "defence" budgets, maybe there is something else that should be blamed other than Russia. Maybe it's their incompetence.
anon [228] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT
@Dan Hayes

Now tell us the difference or differences between the two.

anon [228] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 5:02 pm GMT
@anon

James Kirchick: by encouraging balkanization of ME per the plans advocated by PNAC now FDD and Friends of Syria or SITE -Sharon-Netanahyu Joe Lieberman Kirchick favorite White Helmet or Jishs Fishas Islam Whitewash ludicrous Jihadist and cemented in stone by Yoneen Yidod ( or what ever is the name of that Jew ) sends those same muslims he encourages the "deplorable" to feel suspicious and hate and same time advocating the acceptance by the countries .

fredyetagain aka superhonky , June 14, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American))) advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 14, 2018 at 5:16 pm GMT
My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative's manifesto:

10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and mobility . Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with practical programs grounded in fact and reason.

Amazing! There are two parts to this. The "openness and mobility" is a nod towards their status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 14, 2018 at 5:18 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA .

Wow. At least Rodrigo Duterte is kinda funny.

Anon [425] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 5:21 pm GMT
"We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States."

No, the ONE power is the Empire of Judea. US is its Jewel in the Crown.

Rurik , June 14, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT

Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and equality".

more so even than any concern for Jewish supremacy or glorification of sodomy or all the other shibboleths oozing out of the gaping orifices of Jewish fudge packers like Kirchick, is a visceral, unearthly animosity (hatred) for the Western world and its (comparatively) beautiful, well-adjusted, happy and prosperous people.

Indeed, it is the 'happy' part that drives them insane with stinging malice and seething, rancorous rage.

I remember as a kid celebrating Christmas, and how the Jewish children I knew were not allowed. This is all part of the carefully constructed paradigm that the Jewish elite impose on their people to keep them resentful and envious. Eventually metastasizing into a deep-seated hatred.

They want to see all those ruddy-cheeked Christians pay! for their pain during those terrible years.

Like the boy who was picked last for sports or never 'got the girl', they develop a psychological imperium of wrath, which their religion bolsters in spades.

That is why when ever they get the drop on the Gentiles (who tormented them with good-natured hails of 'Merry Christmas!, which stung to their core, because all that love and happiness was not for them. ) – regardless of the obvious sincerity of the Christians. – [which made it even worse]

Eventually it roils and burns in their ids like an acid. And they want revenge. And that's why the Palestinians, and the Syrians and Lebanese are menaced day and night.

That's why the Russians and Ukrainians and Estonians and Poles, and so many others

suffered to monstrously under the cruel Jewish, Bolshevik yoke.

It has nothing to do with fear over a re-ascendant Russia. Hardly. That's laughable.

Rather, the reason they can't abide Russians going to church and thriving and prospering, is because it means the Russians have become happy again, and that drives them absolutely bonkers with murderous, Talmudic rage.

Them Guys , June 14, 2018 at 6:23 pm GMT
@Parbes

Good description of them. Basically I see all their anti Russian crap, as a revenge minded attitude so often seen from jews. They tried to overtake the largest nation, of mainly Whites and Christians, at least once prior to 1917 jewish revolt against Russia. That was I believe in 1905, it ended when the $$$ ended. But with another better funded, by usa and german fellow jew banksters, attempt in 1917.

Those Bolshevik jews took over Russia first, then every eastern nation which also was mainly a White and Christian peoples nation's. They did so basically by mass Murdering aprox 1/2 of orig populations in those nations. And now 100 years later, after Russian soviet commies has crashed, and a huge return to prior Christian ways etc, is going gangbusters Due to Bolsheviks and jews for the most part getting that Big Boot Out jews are so famous for.

So now here in America we have inherited most of those Children and especially Grand Kid jew commies of the Orig 100 years ago Russian Bolshevik butchers, torturers, and mass murderous bastards. And besides infiltrated into All what matters in usa society and govnt and culture, they also have as a "side agenda" of sorts a massive huge Lusting for typical jewish blood thirsty revenge upon Russia and its Christian Whites,and of course its leader Putin. Those jews had Russia in palm of hand, then totally Lost it. They began with around 8.5 to maybe 10-million jews in Russia/Poland soviet and today have around less than 27o,ooo total jews within Russia iirc.

Likely it was Putin more than all other issues or reasons those, mostly jewish swindlers, finally were also Booted Out and their scammed assets from their Raping of Russia resources etc Taken away from them Being such mamon/money worshipers they are also so famous for, no other thing would so piss them scamming jews off eh.

I also believe that after the jewish 1917 revolt in Russia, when top control jews there with plans to use control of Russia as largest nation on earth, to gain their foamed at mouth lust of a JWO control made reality. That it finally dawned on them that in order to Rule as a JWO one world govnt of jewry Vs all gentile others, they could never do so without a huge Navy like usa has.

You must have Navy ships to Carry Jet fighter planes To distant areas you wish to rule over, because most other nations wont simply agree to being jew-ruled with a JWO clan of fanatical jewry. Ergo you need also Ocean Waters, warm waters to Park said ships and navigate those waters to get to those other reluctant nations. Russia failed for such scheme plans for jewry.

So since so many of the tribe were in usa already .Just join fellow tribe in usa, and turn America and its military etc into a huge Tool of international jewry so to complete jwo plans that Russia didn't fulfill.

And both the agenda of jewish revenge, as well as their desired jwo plans probably play an equal part within those evil nasty minds that they are also so famous for having.

Dan Hayes , June 14, 2018 at 6:45 pm GMT
@anon

anon[228]:

In response to your query, the difference between the US and Russia is that in geopolitics the latter has performed well above the cards it has been dealt with.

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 14, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
@Cleburne

And where, dear sir, can we find any "religious fervor" in the likes of that beau ideal of the Southern antebellum statesman, John C. Calhoun? Calhoun began life as a Calvinist (a Presbyterian) and ended it as a kind of Unitarian. This is almost the exact trajectory as the religious life of the Boston Yankee culture. The Old Nullificator was backcountry Scotch-Irish – as opposed to WASP – but Unitarian crap is Unitarian crap no matter where it exists.

Calhoun was, of course, a giant among those of the 1830s and '40s who pushed the South from the 18th century American conception of slavery – as something that should be contained until its eventual death – to a new conception that exclaimed, vigorously, that slavery was a legitimate part of the American way of life. No, no. I cannot abide this poison. If you all want to condemn Hamilton and Sumner and all, go ahead. I'll agree. But when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the American republic as the protection of slavery, he was right. And he was neither fanatical nor alone in his view. To this day, we tend to conflate Lincoln and the anti-slavery bloc with the radical Republican abolitionist bloc. This is unfair.

General Meade, the victor of Gettysburg, was condemned by the radical Republicans in Congress because of their hatred for Lincoln. Some unity there.

The Anti-Federalist Marylander Luther Martin was right to criticize the powerful framers for allowing the slavery problem to go on, for enshrining it in the Constitution. Too many antebellum Southern elites decided that the likes of Martin were wrong.

You will find few "Northerners" more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin. One was even born in Pennsylvania, and fought in his own hometown during Lee's invasion.

But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter. No one in the North forced the Southern elites to accept a conception of black slavery as a "positive good" (i.e. James Henry Hammond). The idea of a "War of Northern Aggression" is convenient and cute, but I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I have. And it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had, then it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and the Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were in Boston.

P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern "Anglo-Saxons" (As General Lee described himself) weren't so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.

AnonFromTN , June 14, 2018 at 6:51 pm GMT
There is a lot of truth in this piece, but I think that the overall spin is misleading. Putin's orthodox faith (likely pretended; he seems to be too intelligent for a true believer), history of Jewish persecution in Russia, etc., are secondary factors. The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired) are mad that the world refuses to be unipolar. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and many lesser countries, arouse "righteous indignation" of the robbers because they refuse to let themselves be looted and bossed by the US elites. All sorts of thieves joined the choir: Jewish and gentile, "right" and "left", military and civilian, the only common denominator being that they stole a lot and resent being thwarted from stealing even more. Moreover, the almighty dollar is about to be exposed as a king with no clothes by various countries switching the trade to their own currencies, undermining the Ponzi schemes of the US dollar and US government debt. The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain, like all dominant Empires before it, but cannot do anything about inevitable course of history.
John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 14, 2018 at 6:59 pm GMT
@Cleburne

P.S. Check this out for an opinion you may find controversial – but note the person posting his opinion is relying on primary sources: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-non-celtic-confederacy.120973/

Them Guys , June 14, 2018 at 7:07 pm GMT
@Wally

Wally, by keeping Americans always focused on Hitler and Nazis and SS storm troops, they will not have time, nor ever find out what the Real True 20th century crimes against humanity were. When starting in 1917 JEWS that invented communism, and Used it as main means to mass murder almost 1/2 of eastern euro nations and Russia itself Those crimes and mass killings jewry should get blame for makes whatever bads or evils done by Hitler and Nazis Pale in comparison, and makes german Nazis look like small kindergarten kiddies at play in back yard sand box with wooden swords.

Thanks to internet over past 15 years, many usa folks are waking up and getting very jewized up.

Which we know is main reason such massive attempts at internet censorship has been occurring. And is happening at a furious pace like no other agenda we have seen in our lives. Plus the EU and Canada nations non stop Prison terms for truth tellers of any jew issues. Soon to arrive here in usa with 99.9% of us senate and congress full approval votes when pressed by AIPAC and 599 Other jewish usa orgs.

We can toss out our sun glasses as our American future does Not look bright at all. Unless we see soon a massive wake up call and enough armed citizens willing to take back America. That too looks very dim so far.

SunBakedSuburb , June 14, 2018 at 7:47 pm GMT
I think Jake should say WASP elites rather than just WASP. The majority of the US Anglo-Saxon stock are working class and middle class who, along with the Catholic Irish, German, and Italian, have made this country what it is; and in their demographic decline we see the decline of the United States. The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
jack daniels , June 14, 2018 at 7:48 pm GMT
@Anon

In every political question we should remember to look past grandiose abstractions and see the operative gut loyalties, both our own and those of the competing sides. What is going on with Russia is simply Jewish mania to prevent Russia from being Russian and keep it under Jewish or surrogate rule. Similarly, NATO and the EU are now just enforcers of political correctness. The Slavs and other illiberal peoples of central and eastern Europe are to be re-subjugated now that Communism is not there to persecute the priests and re-educate the sexists. The author, in citing ancient persecutions of Jews to excuse the machinations of current Jews, attempts to meet his critic half-way. Some day perhaps we will be able to state the truth without the dance of apology.
Here is an analogy: Suppose in the 90s we thought it critical to weigh in on the Northern Irish Question. Suppose we had a Department of Irish Affairs to formulate US policy, and it was staffed by Clancy, Reilly, Finnegan, O'Toole and O'Meara. Would anyone hesitate to raise the issue of objectivity? Or suppose our middle-eastern team consisted of 5 guys named Muhammad. Do you think there might be questions?

Rurik , June 14, 2018 at 7:51 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)

ah, so it was Dubya all along!

what a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage!

So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of ((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !

sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!

The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain,

what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel – at the direct and catastrophic expense of America and the American people.

I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?

Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the ZUSA?

Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?

EugeneGur , June 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.

The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted should we be so inclined?

It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.

He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed for that.

redmudhooch , June 14, 2018 at 7:56 pm GMT
War on the poor and defenseless, it what the Neocon and Zionist-puppet traitors do best. Terrorists in Syria (white helmets) getting 7 million in new funding from Trump, just as Russia warns of new chemical attack false flag is in the works. Must kill evil dicktater Assad for protecting those Christians inside Syria

Russia Warns "Credible Information" Of Impending Staged Chemical Attack In Syria

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-14/russia-warns-credible-information-impending-staged-chemical-attack-syria

White House Tied to Terrorists, Trump Authorizes $6.6M in Aid to White Helmets

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/06/14/white-house-tied-to-terrorists-trump-authorizes-6-6m-in-aid-to-white-helmets/

Starvation Holocaust in Yemen.

Yemen – The Starvation Siege Has Begun

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/06/the-starvation-siege-on-yemen-has-begun.html#more

By the time the American people realize that the war on terror was designed for them to be the final victim, it will be too late.

Anon [698] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 8:19 pm GMT
@Rurik

Hell of a lot of projection in this comment

Cleburne , June 14, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

Thanks for your eloquent response. A few thoughts:

1. I wouldn't extend Calhoun's religion, ot the lack thereof, to the "common soldier" of the Confederacy. You might take a look at Fehrenbach's "Lone Star" history of Texas; he understands the "puritanism" of the South.

2.

But when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the American republic as the protection of slavery, he was right.

–> sorry, I don't think "original sin" is attributable to nations. History is a bloodbath, and always will be, and the whole notion that slavery is some sort of "sin" demanding atonement is quite ridiculous. That's the sort of gnosticism practiced by the Bostonians that played sure a huge part in causing the War of Nort.. er. War for Southern Independence. Far as antebellum slavery itself, might I recommend the work of Genovese and Fogelberg on the character of American slavery? A review of how exactly the victorious Yankees and their Republican bosses provided for the liberated slaves after Appomattox is enlightening.

3.

But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter.

Saint Abe himself admitted he connived South Carolina into opening fire.

4.

I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I have.

So we have that in common!

5.

nd it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had, then it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and the Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were in Boston.

This is speculation on your part, so hardly the truth. Stonewall Jackson, of course, would have been happy to bring fire and sword to the North. Probably Edward Ruffin, too. But at the same time, the South was primarily acting a defensive capacity during the war, not as a force of invasion.

5.a: "

Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were in Boston."

hellfire and brimstone in what sense?

6,

P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern "Anglo-Saxons" (As General Lee described himself) weren't so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.

-- yes, AND? What's your point? what's this to do with anything? When the Confederate memorial in Beaumont, Texas was dedicated around the turn of the last century, the local rabbi gave opening remarks. Different creeds tended to get along somewhat better in Dixie. That's a well known fact.

7.

You will find few "Northerners" more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin.

I appreciate that, sincerely.

Cleburne , June 14, 2018 at 8:49 pm GMT
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

P.S. Check this out for an opinion you may find controversial – but note the person posting his opinion is relying on primary sources: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-non-celtic-confederacy.120973/

Why would I find that controversial? Are you suggesting I was arguing for a "celtic south"? I always thought the notion ridiculous. I know Grady McWhiney and others push it, but it's inaccurate to say the least.

Seamus Padraig , June 14, 2018 at 9:02 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Khordokovsky's father was Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky#Early_years_and_entrepreneurship_in_Soviet_Union

AnonFromTN , June 14, 2018 at 9:03 pm GMT
@Rurik

Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader.

However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

See comment 51:

The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.

[Jun 13, 2018] Note on Us strategy

Notable quotes:
"... Erster General-Quartiermeister ..."
"... The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. ..."
"... Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional "war" it's pretty cheap ..."
Jun 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

In truth, infinite war is a strategic abomination, an admission of professional military bankruptcy. Erster General-Quartiermeister Ludendorff might have endorsed the term, but Ludendorff was a military fanatic.

Check that. Infinite war is a strategic abomination except for arms merchants, so-called defense contractors, and the " emergency men " (and women) devoted to climbing the greasy pole of what we choose to call the national security establishment. In other words, candor obliges us to acknowledge that, in some quarters, infinite war is a pure positive, carrying with it a promise of yet more profits, promotions, and opportunities to come. War keeps the gravy train rolling. And, of course, that's part of the problem.

Who should we hold accountable for this abomination? Not the generals, in my view. If they come across as a dutiful yet unimaginative lot, remember that a lifetime of military service rarely nurtures imagination or creativity. And let us at least credit our generals with this: in their efforts to liberate or democratize or pacify or dominate the Greater Middle East they have tried every military tactic and technique imaginable. Short of nuclear annihilation, they've played just about every card in the Pentagon's deck -- without coming up with a winning hand. So they come and go at regular intervals, each new commander promising success and departing after a couple years to make way for someone else to give it a try.

... ... ...

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: "Enough! Stop this madness!" Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation's gratitude and the support of the electorate.

Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity. No doubt Saudi and Israeli leaders will cheer, Europeans who remember their Great War will scratch their heads in wonder, and the Chinese will laugh themselves silly. Meanwhile, issues of genuinely strategic importance -- climate change offers one obvious example -- will continue to be treated like an afterthought. As for the gravy train, it will roll on.


Anon [323] Disclaimer , June 7, 2018 at 9:57 pm GMT

"The United States of Amnesia."

That's actually a universal condition.

unseated , June 7, 2018 at 11:00 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

1. WW1 had total casualties (civilian and military) of around 40M. WW2 had total casualties of 60M. So yes WW2 was more deadly but "pales in comparison" is hardly justified, especially relative to population.

2. Marshal Foch, 28 June, 1919: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years."
WW1 inevitably led to WW2.

c matt , June 8, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
"Enough! Stop this madness!"

The only politician with a modest national stage to have said that (and meant it) in the last 50 years was Ron Paul, who was booed and mocked as crazy. Trump made noises in that direction, but almost as soon as the last words of his oath echoed off into the brisk January afternoon, he seemed to change his tune. Whether he never meant it, or decided to avoid the JFK treatment, who knows.

No, as I believe Will Rogers said, democracy is that form of government where the people get what they want, good and hard.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , June 8, 2018 at 2:08 pm GMT
@c matt

Yes.

I supported Ron Paul in 2012. But after his candidacy was crookedly subverted by the Establishment (cf., Trump's) I vowed never to vote again for anyone that I believe unworthy of the power wielded through the public office. I haven't voted since, and don't expect to until the Empire collapses.

Carlton Meyer , Website June 8, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
Kirk Douglas starred in a great film about fighting in World War I: "Paths of Glory." I highly recommend the film for its accuracy, best described in Wiki by the reaction of governments:

Controversy

On its release, the film's anti-military tone was subject to criticism and censorship.

In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently criticized the film -- and its portrayal of the French Army -- after it was released in Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European distributor) to not release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in 1975 when social attitudes had changed.[17]

In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining relations with France;[18] it was not shown for two years until after its release.

In Spain, Spain's right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.

In Switzerland, the film was censored, at the request of the Swiss Army, until 1970.[18]

At American bases in Europe, the American military banned it from being shown.[18]

Mike P , June 8, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT

No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders.

I'd say both. The generals have greatly assisted in stringing along the trusting public, always promising that victory is just around the corner, provided the public supports this or that final effort. Petraeus in particular willingly played his part in misleading the public about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His career would be a great case study for illuminating what is wrong with the U.S. today.

As to the apparent failure of the Afghanistan war – one must be careful to separate stated goals from real ones. What kind of "lasting success" can the U.S. possibly hope for there? If they managed to defeat the Taliban, pacify the country, install a puppet regime to govern it, and then leave, what would that achieve? The puppet regime would find itself surrounded by powers antagonistic to the U.S., and the puppets would either cooperate with them or be overthrown in no time. The U.S. are not interested in winning and leaving – they want to continue disrupting the peaceful integration of East, West, and South Asia. Afghanistan is ideally placed for this purpose, and so the U.S. are quite content with dragging out that war, as a pretext for their continued presence in the region.

TG , June 8, 2018 at 7:44 pm GMT
An interesting and thoughtful piece.

I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence."

This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.

So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't like the status quo.

After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises – and he was quickly beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.

No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are simply being ignored.

Left Gatekeeper Dispatch , June 8, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this Boy's State civics crap? You're calling on political leaders to stop war, like they don't remember what CIA did to JFK, RFK, Daschle, or Leahy. Or Paul Wellstone.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/tribute-to-the-last-honorable-us-senator-the-story-of-paul-wellstones-suspected-assassination-2/5643200

Your national command structure, CIA, has impunity for universal jurisdiction crime. They can kill or torture anyone they want and get away with it. That is what put them in charge. CIA kills anybody who gets in their way. You fail to comprehend Lenin's lesson: first destroy the regime, then you can refrain from use of force. Until you're ready to take on CIA, your bold phrases are silent and odorless farts of feckless self-absorption. Sack up and imprison CIA SIS or GTFO.

James Kabala , June 9, 2018 at 11:24 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Since Spain was smart enough to stay out of both World Wars (as was Switzerland, of course), I wonder what Franco was thinking when he banned the film. Anyway, the final scene may be the best final scene in the history of movies.

exiled off mainstreet , June 10, 2018 at 1:15 am GMT
This writer, a retired military officer whose son died in service to the yankee imperium seems to have as good a grasp as any if not a better grasp than any about the nature of the yankee system of permanent war.
smellyoilandgas , June 13, 2018 at 4:48 am GMT
@TG

While I agree the slave-American is ignored, I think the elected, salaried members of the elected government are also ignored.. The persons in charge are Pharaohs and massively powerful global in scope corporations.
Abe Lincoln, McKinnley, Kennedy discovered that fact in their fate.

Organized Zionism was copted by the London bankers and their corporations 1897, since then a string of events have emerged.. that like a Submarine, seeking a far off target, it must divert to avoid being discovered, but soon, Red October returns to its intended path. here the path is to take the oil from the Arabs.. and the people driving that submarine are extremely wealthy Pharaohs and very well known major corporations.

I suggest to quit talking about the nation states and their leaders as if either could beat their way out of a wet paper sack. instead starting talking about the corporations and Pharaohs because they are global.

Mr. Anon , June 13, 2018 at 4:49 am GMT
The yawning silence accompanying the centennial of the Great War is baffling to me. It was the pivotal event of the 20th century. It was the beginning of the unmanning, the demoralization of Western Civilization. It was the calamity that created the World we inhabit today.

I've heard nary a peep about it in the U.S. over the last four years. It's as if it were as remote in people's consciousness as the Punic Wars.

MarkinPNW , June 13, 2018 at 5:49 am GMT
The World Wars (I and II) can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading British Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, with the material, human, and moral cost of the wars actually accelerating the empire's demise.

Likewise, the current endless "War on Terra" can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading American Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, again with the material, human, and moral cost of this war actually accelerating its demise.

But in the meantime, in both examples, the Bankers and the MIC just keep reaping their profits, even at the expense of the empires they purportedly support and defend.

animalogic , June 13, 2018 at 8:14 am GMT
@Mike P

Good points Mike P.

Author says: "strategy has ceased to exist".

In a traditional sense the author is right. Strategy is the attainment of political goals, within existing constraints. (diplomatic, political, resources etc)
"Goals" traditionally means "victories". (WWI is a great example of the sometimes dubious idea of victory)
Has the US ceased to have a strategy ? No. (Their strategy is myopic & self destructive – ie it's not a "good" strategy)

The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. Afghanistan, at (relatively) minimal cost, US controls key land mass (& with possible future access to fantastic resources). Threaten, mess up Russian – Chinese ambitions in this area. Iraq: Israeli enemy, strategic location, resource extraction. Syria: Israeli enemy, strategic location, key location for resource transfer to markets (EU esp). Deny Russia an ally. Libya: who cares ? Gaddafi was a pain in the arse. Iran: Israeli enemy, fantastic resources, hate them regardless.

Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional "war" it's pretty cheap ( which is funny, because it's such a yummy gravy train for the 1% sorry, actually, forgot the FIRST core principle of US strategy: enrich all the "right" people)

Tom Welsh , June 13, 2018 at 10:05 am GMT
'There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one–on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for the war. The pulpit will– warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity.

Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as earlier– but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and all– will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception'.

- Satan, in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" (1908)

annamaria , June 13, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

European politicians, the war on terror, and the triumph of Bankers United: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/06/12/europe-brainwashed-normalize-relations-russia/
"Europe has not had an independent existence for 75 years. European countries do not know what it means to be a sovereign state. Without Washington European politicians feel lost, so they are likely to stick with Washington .

Russian hopes to unite with the West in a war against terrorism overlook that terrorism is the West's weapon for destabilizing independent countries that do not accept a unipolar world."

The world is ripe for barter exchange. Screw the money changers.

[Jun 13, 2018] Leaving the past behind ... by TTG

Notable quotes:
"... Yes your last paragraph explains the neocon hysteria, their bitterness tastes sweet. ..."
Jun 13, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Bolton must be "turning and burning." Good! Will Kim survive this at home? We will see. Will the North Koreans actually follow through on this? We will see. Will the US follow through on this? We will see. Who will be the poor bastard who will be the first McDonald's manager in Pyongyang? Will he end his days in the Gulag? What will Nancy Pelosi say about this? Where was Kim's dishy sister during the Singapore expedition? She is the head of propaganda in NOKO. pl

TTG , 20 hours ago

I couldn't be happier with the outcome of this summit. No one is talking war in Korea anymore. So Trump gave away future military exercises on the Peninsula and characterized them as provocative. So what? In exchange we have a North Korea feeling a little less threatened. The idea of a denuclearized Peninsula could lead to a minimal or even nonexistent US presence along with a complete dismantling of the North's nuclear weapons program. That would be grand. There will be a lot of fault found in this summit and its outcome, but I don't care. This was a bold and courageous move on Trump's part. Some may think it was a courage born out of ignorance, but it was also born out of a willingness to try something new, a willingness to deal with KJU as a partner. This is refreshing. Trump done good and the world is better today than it was a few short months ago.

Perhaps Trump can apply this same reasoning to other military deployments and exercises. Recognize their potential provocativeness and withdraw. Withdraw from Syria. Withdraw from Europe. Apply the same type of conciliatory engagement to Iran, Cuba and others that he showed to North Korea. Now that would be a legacy.

Eric Newhill -> TTG , 9 hours ago
TTG,

Trump is blowing holes in old paradigms. The concepts he's applying aren't particularly genius; rather just sensible, but he's the only one who seems to be able think outside the box enough to even consider making a try for a new way. I'm sure that a lot of prep work went into this historic meeting; lots of wheeling and dealing. However, the simple yet elegant, idea behind it all is that it's better for all parties to be friends than enemies. Trump has transcended all the moralizing that holds back others (e.g."But North Korea has gulags!"). He realizes that redemption of bad actors is possible through friendship and prosperity. An adversarial relationship fixes nothing unless an actual existential war is waged and one winner emerges from the carnage- and war is costly. This kind of acting on cost/benefit analysis is one reason why some of us voted for a businessman as opposed to a career pol. Glad you are able to give credit where it's due.

TTG -> Eric Newhill , 6 hours ago
Eric Newhill,

Now if Trump can just blow holes in the old paradigms concerning Iran and Cuba. Now would be the time to do it. Obama was doing that in the case of Iran and Cuba and the neocons and Republicans gave him holy hell for daring to question those old paradigms. If Trump could get over supporting anything Obama supported, I believe he could carry these policies of reconciliation to fruition despite the opposition. He's like the honey badger. He just don't give a f#ck. And that's just what the situation calls for.

TTG -> TTG , 6 hours ago
The ultimate paradigm that needs holes blown into it is Israel's parasitic relationship with the US. I've said it before. The sooner Trump realizes our policies regarding Israel are a cost center, the better off we will all be.
Eric Newhill -> TTG , 5 hours ago
TTG,

IMO, he'll get there. First he needs to build momentum and trust. He has to prove himself to the world. NoKo is a great place to start. The neocons and borg are less invested in certain outcomes there - therefore the probability of sabotage is lower. Trump has to deal with both the external powers as well as the internal (I think the internal are the bigger barriers to success). I don't think he really gives a flying f###k about how Kushner or his daughter feel about Israel. He tossed Israel and the US rightwing a bone w/ the embassy move. That's as much as they'll get from here on out if they get too pushy. Despite some Islamic quarters making big noise about it, I don't see them actually doing anything more than protesting and getting shot for it. We've annihilated Iraqi uniformed forces twice in recent history. That serves as an object lesson to the rest of the countries in the region. So a cost free bone toss by Trump as far as he is concerned.

Rob -> TTG , 15 hours ago
Yes your last paragraph explains the neocon hysteria, their bitterness tastes sweet.
LeMoore00 -> TTG , 8 hours ago
Hello TTG,

I agree largely with your post, however I just cannot see how it can lead to further withdrawals, simply because it kind of implies the US is there for the benefit of others and not for themselves. They could pull out of Europe now. Pretty sure everyone knows Russia is not going to invade Europe, right?

But yes, Trump has shown good faith, and lets hope NK reciprocate. I think they will. The idea that Kim wants his country in its current state is just ignorant.

Pat Lang Mod -> LeMoore00 , 7 hours ago
Explain to me how the presence of US forces in Europe or Syria benefits the US.
LeMoore00 -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
I'd say the same reason why the US has bases all over the world. Please excuse my ignorance, I am just a lay man with a keen interest. Why have bases in Japan? Or indeed anywhere? Hegemony, no? Why not pull out years ago? Genuine questions. The US seems to want to check EU growth - why would they pull out their military presence there? Or, say, Japan? There are no "allies", just overlapping interests, right?
Babak Makkinejad -> LeMoore00 , 6 hours ago
Since Commodore Perry's mission to Japan in 1853, what has US gained except war and unemployment in her interactions with Japan? Would it not have been a superior policy to leave Japan alone to wallow in her brutal feudalism and delay or prevent the unleashing of that brutality on the rest of East Asia?
LeMoore00 -> Babak Makkinejad , an hour ago
Yes.

One could say the same about all empires I guess. The pursuit of power and domination seems to cloud all judgment. So, in your opinion, should the US have any bases outside of the US? I am from the UK, so there are still bases lingering from our own days of rule. They really just kept as forward operating positions, right? For example, the UK base in Cyprus used for ME operations.

Pat Lang Mod -> LeMoore00 , an hour ago
The two Cyprus bases are just springboards for adventurism. IMO we should abandon NATO as a vestige of the Cold War an leave you Europeans to your own devices. Korea? We should leave as soon as Trump can arrange it. Australia? Why are we there? So that we can meddle in Asia? Where else? I can't think of anywhere we should stay off our own territory.
Pat Lang Mod -> LeMoore00 , 6 hours ago
LeMoore00 "Hegemony" as a goal or reward has no value except to the collective ego of the Borg. If there was some economic value derived from these commitments and deployments there would be some basis for your remark but there is not.
LeMoore00 -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
Agree. But the"benefit" part of my comment was from the perspective of said Borg, not the people. So I think we're in agreement here.
Pat Lang Mod -> LeMoore00 , 5 hours ago
And the benefit is a psychological benefit.
LeMoore00 -> Pat Lang , 5 hours ago
So is Trump genuinely trying to extricate the US from these situations? There is a view amongst the commentariat that perhaps he is trying to alienate allies in order for them to begin cutting lossening ties with the US, causing the very isolation Trump made a significant part of his campaign. Thoughts?
Babak Makkinejad -> TTG , 19 hours ago
North Korea will not denuclearize...

US bid for Caesarism, in the absence of a new Peace to replace that of Yalta, will only make nuclear war more probable, in my opinion.

Yes, Trump might have reduced tensions on the Korean Peninsula but the fundamental insecurity of North and South Korea remains.

Who will guarantee the continued existence of the North Korean state?

Rob -> Babak Makkinejad , 9 hours ago
South Korea is strong and rich enough to look after the North. The complicated matter of how reunification will occur will be for them to work out between them. The nuclear issue is really the easy part.
Babak Makkinejad -> Rob , 6 hours ago
Seeing is believing.

We have seen this show 5 times already.

The necessary framework for nuclear disarmament or re-unification is a Global Peace - a la Peace of Yalta - is lacking; in my opinion.

We have entered a period of Warring States - waiting, I suppose, for the Shi, Hwang Ti moment - but until such time a multipolar world does not make itself conducive to such strategic settlements - certainly not with NATO still existing.

When one considers the fact that Arms Control is dead, NPT is dead, Peace of Yalta is dead, JCPOA is dead then one cannot rightly expect a strategic settlement on the Korean Peninsula between US and DPRK.

Jaime -> Babak Makkinejad , 4 hours ago
No doubt, for what can the NK leadership conclude when they have seen a consistent foreign policy -be Republican or Democrat- of destroying any nation whose policies are seen as a threat by the US? There is no basis of trust.
Michael -> TTG , 19 hours ago
Thanks TTG,
I fully approve and share this happiness

(ex Charles Michael according to disqus)

FB , a day ago
Today the world has seen a historic day...

Trump deserves huge credit for the way he handled himself with a man who has been demonized by our propaganda ministry media and the deep state criminals who have been trying to pull a regime change in Washington since January 2017...

I have to admit I gave up on Trump quite a while ago...today changes everything...

Is it surreal that President Trump is the most moderate and sensible voice not only in the room but in the entire country...?

This is what the people voted for...and this is what 'presidential' looks like...Trump is headed for the history books in a very very large way...

I have to believe that he is consolidating control of the machinery of state...I was actually first surprised by Pompeo's breakthrough and surprise visit to DPRK...and even Bolton has turned out not to be the spoiler I had feared...

What in the world is going on here...?

Did the universe just turn upside down...?

All of the questions Col Lang asks are relevant, but just the huge success that this day has become overshadows everything for now...

What next...will Putin and Trump finally get together and really start putting the screws to the enemies of mankind that are besetting both men...?

Let us dare to hope...

sbnat1ve -> FB , a day ago
Which enemies of mankind would that be? Climate change, famine, water scarcity? THAT would be miraculous!
Babak Makkinejad -> FB , 18 hours ago
Great day for North Korean diplomacy.
JohnA -> FB , 11 hours ago
Gregory Copley is interviewed by John Batchelor in these two episodes explaining the whole thing in geopolitical terms:

How will Trump strategically transform North Korea and North Asia?

https://audioboom.com/posts...

What do Tokyo and Moscow want strategically from the Trump taming of Kim?

https://audioboom.com/posts...

Very enlightening. Very hopeful.

sbnat1ve , a day ago
This seems to be the meat of the summit from the George Stephanopoulos interview:

G: Did you talk about pulling troops out? U.S. troops out of South Korea.

T: We didn't discuss that, no. But we're not gonna play the war games. You know, I wanted to stop the war games, I thought they were very provocative. But I also think they're very expensive. We're running the country properly, I think they're very, very expensive. To do it, we have to fly planes in from Guam -- that's six and a half hours away. Big bombers and everything else, I said, 'Who's paying for this?' I mean, who pays, in order to practice.

Apparently the South Koreans were caught by surprise (again).

I'm assuming canceling war games once in a while is fine....but what happens to readiness if they are cancelled over a long time and how important (and specific to a North Korean context) are these games? Experts...please weigh in? How long would it take North Korea to take over South Korea with conventional troops and weapons?

Makoshark -> sbnat1ve , a day ago
Kim invading SK, its 600,000 effectives (3mln reserves), 30,000 US servicemen & nukes & Carrier strike group, on the eve of a diplomatic breakthrough that could end up with engraving his name in gold throughout history...

Sounds a bit like Assad gassing his civilians right on the brink of a strategic victory. But on a devastating, enormous, monumental scale.

sbnat1ve -> Makoshark , a day ago
I wasn't thinking he would do it right away...and he sure would wait til Trump had pulled those expensive troops out of there.
SurfaceBook -> sbnat1ve , 16 hours ago
i dont know if you aware that south korean military is estimated 5x stronger compared to NK , and it is a folly to compare the 1950 SK and NK in term of combat strength , readiness and whatnot
Pat Lang Mod -> SurfaceBook , 10 hours ago
Yes, I know that. The small US ground force are just hostages to insure a US nuclear response to successful invasion.
william mcdonald , 9 hours ago
I can't help but think that events like this might have occurred earlier in his term if not for this Russian collusion thing.
Sid Finster -> william mcdonald , 6 hours ago
That is precisely why the Deep State has pushed Russiagate so hard.

It delegitimizes Trump and restricts his freedom of action to do things neocons don't like.

Pat Lang Mod -> Sid Finster , 6 hours ago
It SEEKS to delegitimize Trump.
TTG -> william mcdonald , 6 hours ago
william mcdonald,

The key condition that triggered this series of events was NK's development of a nuclear weapon and delivery capability. That put KJU in a position to make conciliatory moves towards SK and the rest followed. However, Trump's disposition to try something

TTG -> william mcdonald , 6 hours ago
william mcdonald,

The key condition that triggered this series of events was NK's development of a nuclear weapon and delivery capability. That put KJU in a position to make conciliatory moves towards SK and the rest followed. However, Trump's disposition to try something new was also instrumental... and fortuitous.

Pat Lang Mod -> TTG , 5 hours ago
It is inherent in his character, not fortuitous.
TTG -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
pl,

I meant it's fortuitous for us. I agree it's inherent in his character. That's why i think it's entirely possible he and/or his organization conspired with Russians to circumvent election laws and norms to gain some kind of advantage in the election. He would feel no inhibition to trying something new. It's inherent in his character.

Pat Lang Mod -> TTG , 4 hours ago
Thus fsr you have no proof whatever that he "conspired" with the Russians.
Valissa Rauhallinen , 17 hours ago
Hurray for peace-making!

Here's a fascinating tidbit on the Trump Teams PR efforts...
White House Created Production Video to Assist Singapore Summit Talks With North Korea . https://theconservativetree...
Details are surfacing of a video put together by the White House to assist in diplomacy messaging toward Kim Jong-un and the team of North Korea negotiators. According to reports, toward the end of the talks between President Trump and Kim Jong-un the video was shared in both Korean and English languages to the audience of both teams. The video was also shared with the international media audience prior to President Trump's remarks at the press conference
------------------------

The 4 min video is very well done, and as one commenter pointed out is a great example of positive propaganda.

You can also watch it at YouTube

Play Hide
ex-PFC Chuck , a day ago
As for
Bolton must be "turning and burning."


Perhaps his hiring as NSC chief was a case of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Or as LBJ put it, "Have them inside the tent pi**ing out."

Babak Makkinejad , a day ago
This is the 5-th time we have seen this show.
The Beaver , a day ago
Colonel

Kim's sister was in Singapore. She is the one who handed him all the documents to be signed , after bringing him the pen which has been dusted and verified by a NOKO agent.

Pat Lang Mod -> The Beaver , a day ago
Good I am looking forward to seeing more of her. She would clean up beautifully.
David Lewis , a day ago
Seems like Trump echoed what I assume is a N Korean view..no nukes anywhere around the Korean peninsula which, I'd imagine, in the view, would include S. Korea and Japan and perhaps...and in return POTUS gets to build some resorts on N Korean beaches...I hope I'm wrong but that seemed the between the lines message

No more war games with S. Korea??? as added inducement for Kim..to sign an agreement that didn't expand beyond previous agreements with respect to nukes?

Pat Lang Mod -> David Lewis , a day ago
"and in return POTUS gets to build some resorts on N Korean beaches." If this is not irony you may actually be too stupid for SST. that would put you in an elite group.
David Lewis -> Pat Lang , a day ago
This is the age of Trump...today's irony is tomorrow's reality..http:// www.businessinsider.com/tru... .
Eric Newhill -> David Lewis , 9 hours ago
A lot of people totally miss that Trump jokes around quite a bit.
FB -> Pat Lang , a day ago
LOL...
Bill Herschel , a day ago
If you want some insight into DT's or Kim's personalities, look at the list of people Sammy "The Bull" Gravano murdered. DT and Kim are both criminals who have risen to the "top" through criminality. This current claptrap is DT trying to bring out the base for the midterms. How are things in Yemen these days?
Fred -> Bill Herschel , a day ago
I'm pretty certain that zero of Trump's supporters live in Yemen. How about the Obama replacement 2020 candidate; are they going to run on liberating Yemen? I'm sure that will pull the democratic base out to vote.
Pat Lang Mod -> Bill Herschel , a day ago
I didn't know you were a Democrat. Something new every day. Yemen?

[Jun 13, 2018] If Only We'd Listened To Ike... - Inside The Deep State

Jun 13, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Submitted by Kevin Paul,

Many Trump supporters, and even some on the left, like to talk about the "Deep State" secretly having complete control of our government, thus rendering our elected leaders to be nothing more than meaningless figureheads. Let's investigate.

Long before the term 'Deep State' became popular, the term "Military Industrial Complex" was coined by President Dwight Eisenhower.

He gave his now famous Military Industrial Complex (MIC) speech on Jan 17, 1961.

During his ominous farewell, Ike mentioned that the US was only just past the halfway point of the century and we had already seen 4 major wars. He then went on to talk about how the MIC was now a major sector of the economy. Eisenhower then went on to warn Americans about the "undue influence" the MIC has on our government. He warned that the MIC has massive lobbying power and the ability to press for unnecessary wars and armaments we would not really need, all just to funnel money to their coffers.

Jump to Ike's warning about the "unwarranted influence... by the Military-Industrial Complex" at 8:41

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OyBNmecVtdU

His warning though proven correct, was sadly not heeded. Within a few years JFK was assassinated shortly after giving his "Secret government speech" warning the American people about "secret governments and secret organizations that sought to have undue control of the government.

JFK was in his grave for less than 9-months before Gulf of Tonkin incident which was a series of outlandish lies about a fictitious attack on a US naval ship that never happened, which caused the US to enter the Vietnam war.

President Johnson lied his way into a war with North Vietnam and within less than a year would joke that "maybe the attack never happened". By the time the war ended in 1973, Johnson's bundle of lies had killed 2.45 million people.

The MIC however, saw the Vietnam war as a great victory and a template for the future success to their objectives. Ever since the Vietnam War, the MIC has urged the government to enter into as many ambiguous and unwinnable wars as possible, since unwinnable wars are also never-ending. Never-ending wars equate to never-ending revenue streams for the war industry.

Eisenhower warned us about the concept of one particular industry taking control of our government, but sadly his predictions fell of deaf ears.

Since Eisenhower's time several other over "Industrial Complexes" have followed the MIC example and taken control of our government to suit their needs as well. Their objective is to buy out politicians in order to control the purse strings of Congress and they have been highly successful.

The list of these ÏC industries includes, but is not limited to the companies below:

1. The Drug Industrial Complex. (DIC)

The prescription drug industry has massive control of our government and our health care system. A recent Mayo Clinic study concluded that 70% of Americans are on at least one prescription drug.

The most tragic example is opioids, though similar arguments can also be made in reference to the anti-depressant epidemic, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

The sicker America is, the better it is for the DIC.

The drug lobby is 8x larger than the gun lobby and is indirectly responsible for the deaths of between 59.000 and 65,000 people in 2016 alone, but if we dig deeper, that number could easily be 2 or 3 times higher, Since deaths related to opioids from infection related to opioid related infections are extremely common Anti-depressants are being prescribed 400% more than they were in the 1990's. They are commonly prescribed to adolescent women and we live up to the name "Prozac Nation" when we realize that 1 in 5 women between the ages of 40 and 59 are taking antidepressants. The list of other prescription medicines to enhance the DIC revenue streams is extensive.

There are two primary industrial complex rules when it comes to prescription drug centric treatment:

Firstly, no curing is allowed, ever. Treatment of conditions with temporary benefits is allowed, but healing is not permissible, since it interrupts revenue streams.

And second, any and all "natural" or homeopathic treatment whether it be related to diet, supplements vitamins, anti-oxidants or physical exercise/meditation should all be relegated to "quackery." Doctors who do not adhere to the prescription drug method of treating patients should also be referred to as adherents to "quackery" and should be reprimanded, fined and in extreme cases have their medical licenses revoked.

2. Real Estate Industrial Complex. (RIC)

Goal: Keep housing prices rising as much as possible, year after year after year.

How this is implemented: Endorse the borrowing of money to entice people into buying excessively large homes in order to promote the "dream" of home ownership. Once people buy into this scheme, they are then saddled with massive home taxes to their city and the burden of the taxes utilities that go along with owning an excessively large home. Stigmatize anyone who is over the age of 25 and lives in the same domicile as a parent or grandparent.

Make sure all media channels repeat over and over incessantly that high real estate prices are "signs of a great economy," while ignoring the crippling effect high home prices have on working class families who can barely pay their mortgage.

3. College Industrial Complex (CIC)

The average tuition in 1971-1972 was $1832.00 and now it is officially over $31,000.00.

There are over 60 colleges and universities where the tuition has already exceeded $60,000.00 per/year.

A college education used to be something that people saved and paid cash for, but now there has been a cultural shift where students are expected to take out loans that are often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain a college degree.
Why is this all so expensive? When we look at our universities and colleges, we see an obsession with elaborate new buildings and sports stadiums, more than actual learning.

There are several emerging/innovative ideas to make a college education better, faster and far more affordable. Such concepts probably won't take hold until the inevitable collapse of the entire educational system takes place.

4. Health Insurance Industrial Complex (HIC)

Much of the US healthcare system is now governed by the "Healthcare Affordability Act" passed by the Obama administration in 2010.

The HIC proved how powerful they were when Congress was not allowed to read the legislation before voting for it, publicly displaying that the HIC who wrote the bill behind closed doors is more powerful than Congress itself.

What transparent public committees were behind this important legislation?

In reality, there was no transparency at all, this is stated clear as day by Healthcare Affordability Act primary architect Jonathan Gruber stated: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."

The Speaker of the House at the time was Nancy Pelosi, who famously said from the leadership podium as House Speaker: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'

Our elected officials were not allowed to read the most important legislation of the past 30 years before voting for or against it. There is no greater testimony to the level of dysfunction in Congress than the Healthcare Affordability Act, formed by secret committees and then not allowing Congress to read it before voting.

* * *

Let's think back to 1961 when Eisenhower warned us about what would become the Vietnam War. The American people's ignoring his warning caused arms manufacturers and big business to assume nearly complete control of US government.

If we had listened to Ike, millions of people would not have died in the wars of the last 57 years and we would have trillions of dollars less in debt. Perhaps we still have time to heed his warning before our entire country collapses under the weight of corruption, crippling debt and never-ending wars, let's hope so.

* * *

Kevin Paul is the founder of Alternativemediahub.com, which refers to itself as "The megaphone of independent journalism." Born in MA, he came within 2% of winning the R party nomination to oppose Ted Kennedy in 2006 and holds degrees in business and political science.

[Jun 13, 2018] Egor Kholmogorov Stalin Is Not Great, by Anatoly Karlin - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... It is our joy that during the hard years of the war the Red Army and the Soviet people were led by the wise and experienced leader of the Soviet Union – the GREAT STALIN. ..."
"... "He found Russia working with wooden plows and left her equipped with atomic piles" ..."
"... "Wait, if the revolution hadn't happened, Russia would have simply frozen at 1913 levels forever?" ..."
"... "If Tsarist Russia was so industrially backward, where did her working class come from, with the Bolshevik Party as its self-proclaimed leadership?" ..."
"... physical eradication ..."
"... Petropavlovsk ..."
"... History of a Town ..."
"... so deep ..."
"... Map of the "Future Europe" (not like Wilhelm II would have liked it!) ..."
"... lesser ..."
"... starets ..."
"... Children of the Arbat ..."
"... In turn, this makes me wonder–had an independent Ukrainian state limited to central and western Ukraine been created, how viable would it have been? After all, this state would have been landlocked ..."
"... with the caveat that I do not consider it politically realistic even for the USSR ..."
Jun 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

Egor Kholmogorov: Stalin Is Not Great Anatoly Karlin June 8, 2018 6,500 Words 796 Comments

Vladislav Pravdin – GREAT STALIN (1949) . It is our joy that during the hard years of the war the Red Army and the Soviet people were led by the wise and experienced leader of the Soviet Union – the GREAT STALIN.

Translator's Foreword (Fluctuarius Argenteus)

And now for something completely different. Instead of snippets from larger works, here's Egor Kholmogorov's two-part takedown of the notion of "Stalin as a Russia national hero" merged into a single text.

The relationship of Russian nationalism and Neo-Stalinism is a torturous one. Modern Neo-Stalinism emerged in the early 2000s as one aspect of an anti-Yeltsinist and anti-Liberal consensus, an attempt to reconcile the Imperial and Soviet past under the banner of a broadly defined Russian patriotism and do away with the kind of historical nihilism that painted Stalin as the ultimate expression of a "millennium-old Russian yearning for slavery". Many, including the author of the article and its translator, paid lip service to this movement in their younger years.

By approximately 2005, the movement had gone mainstream, and by 2012, it completely morphed into a cancerous outgrowth. The nerve of early Neo-Stalinist rhetoric was the belief that Stalin had made a U-turn from (((Old Bolshevik cosmopolitanism))), legalised some forms of Russian national consciousness, and generally put Russian history back on track (i.e., was not true Marxism, and it was good ). The Neo-Stalinism of The New Tens is virulently hostile towards the slightest hint of Russian patriotism and a positive appraisal of pre-1917 Russia, going as far as to condemn liking Alexander Nevsky and Peter the Great (both lionised under Stalin) as "Vlasovism" (oh the sweet irony).

Needless to say, this text provoked some gnashing of teeth in the Neo-Stalinist camp.

AK's Foreword

After my takedown of Lenin , some people suggested that I extend it to Stalin. But what point is there when we have Kholmogorov? I agree with this 90%, down to the biographical details of my own modest (if still regrettable) quasi-Stalinophile sentiments a decade ago.

This is something that afflicted many Russian patriots of that time, being part of a general rejection of the Russophobic narratives of the liberal elites. Support for Stalin became intensely tribal, and a means to troll those people. However, it has now gone on for far too long. That particular culture war is no longer relevant, and lingering Stalinophilia now only serves to distort Russian history and Russia's self-image of itself. It is time to put that mustachioed, medals-bedecked Halloween costume back into the cupboard.

Although we may quibble with some details – I had quite a few myself as I edited this – this piece may be considered to be as close to a Russian nationalist statement on Stalin as any.

If you appreciate these translatinos, please feel free to give Kholmogorov a tip here: http://akarlin.com/donations-kholmogorov/

***

Part I: Pharaoh of the Plow and Atom

Original : https://tsargrad.tv/articles/faraon-sohi-i-reaktora_71311

38% of Russian citizens polled by Levada Center put Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I, Gagarin, Leo Tolstoy, Georgy Zhukov, Catherine II, Lermontov, Lomonosov, Mendeleev, and even Brezhnev and Gorbachev. The only non-Russians who made it to the top are Napoleon, Newton, and Einstein.

Well well well This is an obvious disgrace. If trustworthy, it reveals than the average Russian doesn't have the vaguest idea about the course of Russian and world history and the true importance of historical figures. To be fair, sociologists aren't that far from the masses, mixing in the same poll politicians, generals, writers, and scientist, whose relative importance just can't be measured by the scale. Essentially, this a list of the best-advertised personalities.

The absolute disaster here is that, in 2017, almost a good half our citizens are confident enough to place Stalin at #1 in Russian and world history. Of course, the Generalissimo here is playing the part of an epic or even mythological hero; the details and real achievements do not matter. For our people, Stalin is a byword for "a strong Russia to be reckoned with in the global arena". And this strength acts as an acceptable rationale for everything else: millions of murdered Russians, from great scientists to common villagers, demolished churches and martyred priests, a completely fleeced countryside Everything is pardoned and justified, following Isaac Deutscher's formula : "He found Russia working with wooden plows and left her equipped with atomic piles" (which is frequently misattributed to Winston Churchill instead of this obscure Trotskyite and has "atomic piles" replaced with the "atomic bomb").

In other words, Stalin is seen by the Russian consciousness as the architect of our incredible grandeur, which was enabled by the tremendous industrial leap forward and Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This grandeur is enough to excuse his transformation of Russia into a hellish bloodbath of terror.

If we put mythological and epical thinking aside and deal with historical facts, is Stalin's #1 place among the greatest personalities in world history, afforded by our compatriots and sociologists, in any way justified?

I have never been into anti-Stalinist hysterics. I even published multiple articles calling to refrain from cartoonish nihilism while evaluating Stalin's contribution to our country's Victory in the Great Patriotic War. I am an even stauncher opponent of identifying Russia with Stalin, of using Stalin's horrifying atrocities as a pretext to erase our national heroism and demand "reparations", "territorial concessions", and other vile nonsense. I couldn't care less about Stalin being distasteful to other countries and nations – the Russians are blameless before them.

What really concerns me is Stalin's place in the history of the Russian people. And it is in this domain, no thanks to meddlesome "National Stalinists" who go as far as to put Stalin on icons , where the role of this historical figure is inflated to infinity and beyond. It now turns out that it wasn't Stalin's good fortune that the Russians stayed loyal to him during the military debacle of 1941, as he claimed himself in his famous Victory Toast . No, it was a great honor and mercy for the Russians on Stalin's part, because he condescended to rule them, shoot them, exile them where they could plow permafrost, let them get slaughtered in Nazi encirclements, and starve them with famines. It turns out that we Russians are allegedly unworthy of Stalin, our Messiah.

This boundless and hypertrophied propaganda poisoning the minds of our countrymen is sometimes even more obscene than the cult of the Great Leader as it existed in his lifetime. To heighten Stalin's pedestal, they keep placing more and more falsehood at its base, be it myths of a pathetic backward Tsarist Russia or new slander against victims of the regime, long rehabilitated by state security and never held in contempt by the nation or history. Even the greatest of victims, such as Nikolai Vavilov , are now dragged through the mud, and the most despicable of rogues, such as Trofim Lysenko , are now lionized, for the sole purpose of keeping Stalin's halo intact.

That is why we have to return to the question of Stalin the historical figure and not Stalin the myth, and enquire into the degree and character of his greatness.

The first foundation stone of Stalin's pedestal is the Industrialization. Allegedly, the very Russia that languished in backwardness under the pathetically incompetent Tsars made a huge industrial leap under Stalin, storming into global industrial leadership, beating Hitler, and becoming a superpower.

This claim is false in several respects. First, Tsarist Russia wasn't backward either in industry or in military technology. The country was developing dynamically, and there is no reason to suggest she would have reached a lower level of industrial progress than the one attained by the USSR in 1939. When we were little kids, Soviet textbooks hypnotized us with diagrams of industrial development compared to "Russia in 1913". And no one would pose the question: "Wait, if the revolution hadn't happened, Russia would have simply frozen at 1913 levels forever?" . And here's another naïve question no one came to ask Soviet history teachers: "If Tsarist Russia was so industrially backward, where did her working class come from, with the Bolshevik Party as its self-proclaimed leadership?"

Russian industrialization began in the 1890s mostly thanks to the efforts of Count Sergei Witte, who was a follower of the great German economist Friedrich List, the theorist of the forces of production (a term later plagiarized by Karl Marx) and protectionism. An active ally of Witte's was Dmitry Mendeleev, not only a famous chemist but also an economist who organised the Russian oil industry and also followed List's principles of economic protectionism.

Enjoying the complete support of Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II, Witte achieved an impressive surge in industrial development. However, he was often criticised for overstraining the Russian peasantry to achieve said surge, which backfired with the unrest of 1905-06 that coincided with a cyclic crisis in world economy. In 1909, Russia saw the start of a new economic boom and a new wave of industrialization overseen by Peter Stolypin.

Stolypin's approach was much more merciful to the peasantry than Witte's. The countryside stopped being an economic donor and became a full-fledged partner, reaping the benefits of industrialization together with urban areas. The Great War, despite extreme conditions, gave an even greater boost to Russia's military and industrial development. It was was the Bolshevik Revolution, as well as the ensuing "War Communism" and Civil War, which caused the terrible desolation that almost plunged the country into a new Stone Age. As a member of the Bolshevik leadership, Stalin was directly responsible for that.

Evidently, to endure as a Great Power (and, consequently, protect the Bolshevik dictatorship from being deposed by a foreign invasion), Russia couldn't stay at the rock bottom where Bolshevism had flung her. Hence the idea of resuming industrialization, now under a new Communist management and based on Communist ideas. Stalinism didn't attempt anything new here, because industrialization had already been running for a quarter of a century under the Tsars and was in any case supported by all rival Communist factions. Stalin's contribution to industrialization is limited to inventing a new method, not based on strong-arming the countryside (as with Witte) or robbing it blind (as proposed by Trotsky and Pyatakov ).

Stalin's industrialization was powered by the physical eradication of the Russian countryside via forced collectivization, punitive expeditions, mass exile, famine, and terror. Yes, this method of industrialization had been previously unknown to the wider world and could be perfectly dispensed with, as demonstrated by Tsarist Russia. But can the invention of cannibalism be considered a contribution to the culinary arts? Probably not.

To Stalin's credit, he was very successful in simultaneously bleeding the country dry to gain funds for industrialization with exploiting the vicissitudes of the global market. The Great Depression engulfed the entire world, flooding the market with cheap imported machinery and tractors, as well as jobless American engineers. In this respect, Stalin's industrialization turned out to be cheaper for the USSR than if it had happened at the peak of the global business cycle. But let's not forget that Russian bread and Russian exports also became cheaper cheaper. To turn a profit, Soviet industrialization needed not just cheap labor, but a slave-like one, spurred by a famine stemming from Stalin's 1930-31 attempts at monopolizing global grain exports. As grain prices kept falling during the Great Depression, the Soviet Union was forced to increase export volume and thus physically decimate its own citizenry with starvation and terror.

In 1929, the Soviets exported 1.3 million metric tons of grain worth $68 a ton, earning $88 million. In 1930, the exports amounted to 4.8 million tons worth $45 to $60 a ton, netting a marvelous $288 million in profits. However, in October 1930, grain prices on the world market collapsed. After completely fleecing the peasantry and exporting 5.2 million tons, Stalin earned a paltry $72 million. At the same time, a mass urban exodus from the countryside required greater grain procurements for the domestic market as well. Combined with plummeting grain harvests in 1931-32, this would lead to a terrible famine, now appropriated by Ukrainian nationalists under the name of "Holodomor" and "genocide" (in reality, the Kuban and Volga regions didn't suffer any less).

Stalin's great contribution to industrialization consisted in employing slave labor not in a Bronze Age or plantation economy, but in an economy of the Industrial Age, a feat hitherto unknown to human history. Stalin surpassed the kings of Egypt because the Pharaohs used slave labor to build the Pyramids only in Soviet textbooks. In reality, the work teams of peasants that took part in those colossal construction projects were well remunerated and had decent working conditions by Ancient Egyptian standards. Stalin demonstrated that Southern slave owners could compete with the industry of the Union if only they had abandoned their paternalistic views of their slaves and sent them, overseen by cruel taskmasters, to build factories, roads, and mines

Low labor costs, achieved through extreme coercion and terror, did make the USSR capable of undertaking projects that hadn't been considered economically viable in Tsarist Russia, such as the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, dependent on both Kuznetsk coal and Urals ore. When capital was the main factor of production, such projects wouldn't have made a profit. The historical Russian model of industrialization was capital-intensive: the Morozovs, Ryabushinkys, Tereschenkos, Putilovs, Konovalovs and other tycoons invested in costly machinery, often more advanced than in neighboring Germany. Based on this trend, the Russian-American economist Alexander Gerschenkron wrote of the advantages of "economic backwardness", that is, a belated industrialization.

The Bolsheviks blew the old Russian industry to smithereens. However, the Great Leader and the Great Teacher successfully triumphed over the laws of economics. The leading economic factor in Soviet industrial projects, in Soviet circumpolar canal-digging and railroad construction, was labor . Slave labor. The profitability of most industrial projects soared, as a train full of Gulag convicts acted as a replacement for costly machinery, which was doubly economical: money was saved on both expensive equipment and maintenance for the workers themselves.

Stalin sought to apply the same principle of making labor the main industrial factor while lowering the importance of capital everywhere, including science. Sharashkas and threats of arrest turned out to be a better stimulus for scientific progress, in the short run at least, than German sausages and American mansions with swimming pools. Alas, biology is different from mechanics: Vavilov couldn't get wheat chromosomes to vernalize even at gunpoint, which ended in his elimination and the rise of Lysenko, who promised to impose Stalinist labor discipline even on plant life

Is enriching global economic thought with the principle of forced labor superiority to the capital enough to make Stalin the greatest person in history? I don't think so. Russia used to have its own model of industrialization, which had produced excellent results and created an industrially developed economy integrated into the global economic system. Of course, it wasn't without its failings, and had patent elements of financial dependence. But didn't the USSR have the same kind of dependence on foreign credit, both during and after the industrialization, though only working harder to conceal it? Professor Katasonov's calculations reveal that all profits from Soviet exports, all the gold pillaged from the Church and the general populace, all the money made from art sales couldn't pay for the equipment imported by the USSR. This meant that the Soviets were systematically dependent on foreign loans, which Stalin himself acknowledged on multiple occasions in his correspondence. In this respect, the Great Leader merely differed from the Tsar in hiding his debts from the masses.

World War II caught Stalin's Soviet Union in the midst of an incomplete industrialization, dependent on foreign imports in many types of machinery, up to the eyes in debt, with a part of the populace – oftentimes the intellectually and economically superior one – exterminated or jailed, and with a unique slave-labor driven industrial economy. Any organic path of Russia's development, especially Stolypin's, would have given Russia much better historical prospects.

But perhaps the Stalinist Soviet Union developed some kind of unique technology that was beyond the powers of old Russia? Nope. Stalin did bequeath us the proverbial atomic piles, using slave labor and nuclear espionage to save the billions of dollars spent by the USA on the Manhattan Project, which the Soviets simply didn't have. God forbid me from chastising Stalin for that act of espionage – actually, it was one of his greatest and most innocent achievements that cost only two human lives (the Rosenbergs) and saved millions of them.

However, Stalin kept dreaming of Soviet battleships for the entirety of reign, but the USSR never managed to complete its large warships program. The naval contribution to the defense of Leningrad in WWII consisted of Gangut and Petropavlovsk , two Tsarist battleships built by Admiral Grigorovich and paid for by a Duma browbeaten into submission by Stolypin. Soviet aircraft carriers at that time were also a complete impossibility.

The story of Stalin's fighter planes turned into a tale of endless anguish for engineers, constructors, and pilots, which the Great Leader himself confirmed by mass imprisonment of the apparatchiks responsible for the wartime aircraft production (the so-called "Aviation Affair"). The same thing happened with bombers: It would suffice to mention that the Soviet Tu-4 was a reverse-engineered copy of the American B-29.

These examples have nothing to do with the myth of Russia's backwardness. Quite to the contrary: Russia, by virtue of NOT being a backward country and having amassed a huge intellectual and technological potential, could survive the emigration and mass murder of scientists and engineers and the savagery of the slave labor system, and advance to new technological horizons. However, almost all of these new horizons were revealed to us by "old-schoolers". The most prominent of the Soviet scientists involved in the nuclear and missile projects came almost exclusively from the ranks of the "enemy class

These examples have nothing to do with the myth of Russia's backwardness. Quite to the contrary: Russia, by virtue of NOT being a backward country and having amassed a huge intellectual and technological potential, could survive the emigration and mass murder of scientists and engineers and the savagery of the slave labor system, and advance to new technological horizons. However, almost all of these new horizons were revealed to us by "old-schoolers". The most prominent of the Soviet scientists involved in the nuclear and missile projects came almost exclusively from the ranks of the "enemy class" of the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, receiving their education either before the Revolution or in the 1920s, when the old foundations of education hadn't been completely ruined. Without these human resources, Stalin wouldn't have had a shot at leaving Russia with atomic piles. The same atomic piles, however, could well have be developed by the same date by a Tsar Alexey Nikolayevich or Mikhail Alexandrovic h

By the way, about those plows that Stalin "found Russia" with. Indeed, Stalin took Russia with wooden plows from Lenin. And Lenin had grabbed Russia by the neck after she had lost her Tsar, under whose rule she had been a country with automobiles, armored cars, Sikorsky airplanes, early aircraft carriers, battleships and tank blueprints. And the truth is that Stalin took Russia from Lenin with plows and left her with the same implements. The plow was in use in 1953 just as in 1924, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (the sokha , the Russian light wooden plow, is better suited to certain soil types than heavier plows). All in all, measuring the trajectory of Stalinism in terms of plows and atomic piles is a gross oversimplification.

However, let us not lapse into slander and calumny by claiming that all Stalin's achievements came only as a result of cannibalism and mass destruction of his own citizens. After the war, many residential and industrial objects in the Soviet Union were erected by German POWs, following the same slave labor model. Some select citizens of the USSR whirled around Moscow in an Opels (rechristened Moskvitch) while sporting nice Carl Zeiss glasses. Stalinist industrialization got a new a material and moral resource: Victory. And that Cictory is what our compatriots deservedly count as one of Stalin's greatest achievements.

Can the victor in the greatest war in history not be named the greatest man in history? This is a story for our next article.

***

Part II: Stalin's Toxic Gifts

Original : https://tsargrad.tv/articles/otravlennye-podarki-stalina_71529

So, let's go back to Stalin as the "greatest person in Russian and world history". This reputation – to the degree that it actually exists among the populace and wasn't engineered by sociologists – dwells mostly upon the Soviet Victory in the Great Patriotic War. World War II being the greatest war ever waged by mankind, it seems reasonable and justified to hail the victor in this war as the greatest man ever.

There can be a lot of objections to this. First, the Great Patriotic War was just one part of World War II, won fair and square by the United States. The Americans, having lost the least amount of people by dint of replacing them with guns and dollars, using the Russians to do the bloody work, and stealing the thunder of their British allies, went on to become the masters of the postwar world order.

Even during the Cold War, the USSR was, for a long time, a mere challenger to American supremacy and not an equal contender. And we all know how this war ended for us. The US victory in WWII under President Roosevelt is undisputed. He died when their victory was a fait accompli , and President Truman took no new decisions of his own (Roosevelt would have probably nuked Hiroshima, too). But is Roosevelt the greatest person in history? Not quite! He keeps getting flak from the left and the right, even for his New Deal, even for his meagre concessions to the Soviets in Tehran and Yalta. Even in the US proper, his ranking among top US presidents never rises above #2, and usually he occupies the #3 spot.

Regarding Russia, her greatest pre-1941 war was the Patriotic War of 1812, greatest by the stature of the enemy (Napoleon, one of the greatest characters in history), by the size and the power of his Army of the Twelve Nations, the tragedy of the fall of the Russian capital, the charity and sacrifice of the nobility, the merchant class, and the peasantry, the complete destruction of the adversary – in all these respects, the "thunder of 1812" was historically unparalleled. Who won this war? Alexander I the Blessed. To quote Pushkin's lines, "he conquered Paris, he founded the Lyceum ".

But is this Emperor counted among the all-time greats of Russian history, according to Levada or whatever other poll? No. He is half-forgotten, his reputation destroyed by ignominious military settlements (still less outrageous than the Gulag), the infamy of Arakcheevschina (still not quite the Yezhovschina ), the sin of patricide[1] (is it worse than Patria-cide?), the ridicule of other, much less flattering Pushkin poems[2]. And if it is ever to be proven that he was already been canonised by the Orthodox Church as a saint and revered by the common folk under the name of Feodor Kuzmich[3], this glory and grace would only be bestowed upon his second life, granted to expiate the sins of the first.

Stalin founded no Lyceum, he created the sharashkas, and, to paraphrase Saltykov-Schedrin's History of a Town , "torched public schools and abolished (some of) the sciences". He didn't reach Paris but quite definitely conquered Berlin, a feat unseen since the days of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, God bless her memory. He lucked out with his enemy – Hitler wasn't as great as Napoleon, but he was extraordinary vile towards the Russians and brought Russia untold of devastation. Before the invasion, his generals fulminated with very clear instructions: "war crimes in the East are not to be considered as such", "any cultural assets in the East do not matter". Anyone who would stand between Hitler and the Russians and organize resistance was deserving of great praise.

Stalin is deserving of such praise, too. He managed to collect himself and lead the struggle, distributing his forces so that Hitler's onslaught got bogged down in Russia's expanse and failing to reach any Russian capital except Kiev. He evacuated and thus preserve the bulk of Soviet industrial production. The army that he assumed supreme command of experienced almost no defeats after November 1942 and led an unstoppable march to the Elbe. Stalin was prudent enough to make peace with the Russian people and unfurl the banner of Russian patriotism – quickly furled back up after the war but not as completely, since no one dared to derogate the Russians as brazenly as in the 1920s and 1930s. Stalin was shrewd enough while dealing with the Alleis that the USSR ended the war with large, even somewhat excessive gains. It is historically disingenuous to deny Stalin these achievements, and it would be nothing but a parallel falsehood to the rising tide of diehard Stalinist lies, which provoked this essay in the first place.

If we are to speak of Stalin's greatness in world history and Russian history, his halo needs to be knocked down a couple of notches. Who is to blame but the country's political and military leader for allowing the claws of the German eagle to sink so deep into the chest of our eagle-turned-red-star? Who is to answer for the unthinkable casualties sustained by our army in the 1941 encirclements?

Of course, these losses can't be deemed "excessive". Modern calculations place Soviet and German irrevocable military losses at 11.5 million vs. 8.6 million, a ratio of 1:3 to 1. But what are these 3 million "surplus" dead if not the price paid for the chaos and incompetence reigning in 1941, especially in September and October, when the tide of the Blitzkrieg seemed to have been stemmed?

Yes, June 22, 1941 was a case of the Wehrmacht's military luck, intensified by a vile sneak attack. Luck has its place in warfare. But the encirclements near Kiev and Vyazma, the siege of Leningrad, to say nothing of the crushing 1942 defeats, were less a case of German good luck than our own failures.

The more one reads documents and memoirs, the clearer it is that Stalin's interference in warfare was incompetent, arbitrary, and short-sighted. He was intelligent, driven, obstinate, obsessive about details, and despotic, all great qualities for a general, but his mind was corrupted by Bolshevism, a belief that applying enough pressure is all it takes to achieve a result, and a resulting utopian mindset. His meticulousness often turned into nitpicking, and he would obsess over trivial details. In spite of the Neo-Stalinist mythology, his views were ideologically blinkered in many important questions. Given the conditions of a hyper-centralized system of military management, all of the Commander-in-Chief's foibles, all of his idiosyncrasies and fantasies took their greatly magnified toll on the real command of warfare. Yes, Stalin was smarter than Hitler, but setting the bar for greatness so low would be embarrassing even for the Generalissimo himself.

"It is all well and good", some might say, "and a lot of what you say might be true – but don't forget, the winner takes it all. "

Perhaps a winner does take it all, but it doesn't make him immune to criticism for misusing his spoils of victory. An untold loss of life, devastation, suffering, the horror of POW camps, occupation, and terror should have given the Russian a right to sizeable reparations. Did Stalin give its due to the nation he called "great" in his Victory Toast? Let's give an objective rundown of military gains and talk about Stalin's diplomacy.

When you hear any talk of Stalinism as an era when Russia was a Great Power to be reckoned with, you should realize that World War II started, and started the way it did, only because the pre-war Stalinist USSR was a pariah state, a rogue state written off by everyone. Through Foreign Affairs Commissar Maksim Litvinov, Stalin kept proclaiming a policy of collective defense, trying to cobble together anti-Fascist coalitions. He waged a "proxy war" with the Nazis in Spain, which was such an ideological trash fire that many past Republican sympathizers had to admit that Franco, a rational nationalist with a strong vision of unity, was better than bloodthirsty Red psychos. Nothing revealed the truth about Red methods for the European Liberal Left and pitted former fellow travelers against the Soviet Union quite like the Spanish Civil War.

When, in 1938, an agreement regarding the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was reached in Munich, no one bothered to ask the opinion of the USSR, an alleged "Great Power".

When, in 1938, an agreement regarding the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was reached in Munich, no one bothered to ask the opinion of the USSR, an alleged "Great Power". This pushed Stalin towards a reasonable and prudent idea: if you can't side with hyenas against a wolf, you pit the wolf against the hyenas. In his 1939 pact with Hitler, Stalin attempted, without a major war or sometimes without a single shot fired, to restore the territorial losses of 1918: the Baltics, Western Ukraine and Belarus, and Bessarabia. He bungled with Finland but at least got Vyborg back. He also grabbed what hadn't belonged to Russia but should have: Galicia and Bukovina (the latter would be cited by Hitler as a pretext for the invasion on June 22, 1941).

Was this return to imperial borders justified? It was. Did Stalin do well by this? Probably yes. Did those returned territories do any good for the Russians? Not at all. Stalin fixed the crimes and mistakes of Lenin, a fellow Bolshevik. He pushed the balance of Russian history from "in the red" to "zero". Doesn't sound much for a "great leader".

But what happened to the regathered lands? They were turned into ethnic republics that easily "de-occupied" themselves in 1991. Only tiny tracts of borderlands were annexed to the Pskov oblast. A once heavily Russified Vilna, recaptured from Poland, was given to the Lithuanian SSR. A Moldovan Republic was merged from Bessarabia and Transnistria, which is now on its way to fusing with Romania and dragging the Transnistrian Russians with it. However, Stalin's most toxic and jinxed gift of all was Galicia. The entirety of Ukrainiznig potential accumulated there over the course of Austrian and Polish dominance engulfed Soviet Ukraine and dragged it into the abyss of "anti-Moskalism". Stalin could fight the Banderites however he wanted, but, in the national absence of a Russian idea in the USSR, with Ukrainism propped up by all means possible, it became inevitable that Ukrainian identity would crystallize according to Galician precepts. Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.

All of these toxic gifts came with a terrible price, paid for by our people during the war. This price gave the Russians the right to expect even greater gifts, now destined only for the Russian people and no one else.

So what happened in reality? Pechenga, once the scene of St. Tryphon of Pechenga's ascetic devotion, became Russian once again. Another restoration of what had been ours before. Carpathian Ruthenia, however, despite the pleas of Rusyn delegates to incorporate their land into the RSFSR, was not united with Russia and sacrificed on the altar of Ukrainization.

The rest was a gift to Poland, that backstabber who managed to reap three harvests from the same field. In exchange for restoring to Russia what Lenin had given away with the Riga peace treaty , they occupied, with Stalin's consent, all of Eastern Germany, and expelled its ethnic German population, and gained highly developed industrial regions, and received the lion's share of East Prussia, and got the Augustów district back from the USSR, and kept running around the world for 80 years complaining about the "Russian occupation" and demanding Lvov and Grodno back. Talk about stuffing the goose! And who kept feeding that pocket monster as a ploy to appease the British? Stalin, that's who.

If there's ever a World War III, it will start with a NATO blockade of Kaliningrad. And Stalin would be to blame for that, because he stripped the Augustów district from Belarus and carved up East Prussia in such a way that our communications with Kaliningrad stretch through Lithuania, always eager to block them entirely. Another toxic gift, because Stalin didn't even believe that Prussia would not stay with the Russians forever. He wanted to trade it in exchange for German neutrality, which is why the first wave of Russian settlement there mainly consisted of exiles. As a result, it wasn't really Stalin's gift to the Russians but Adenauer's: the West German Chancellor wasn't swayed by the prospect of neutrality.

The same happened in the Far East. Stalin did the barest minimum of what every government of nationalist Russia would have done in a military grudge match against Japan: restoring the losses of the Russo-Japanese War and grabbing the Kuril Islands "for the trouble". However, even those gains were left in a suspended and toxic state. Instead of strong-arming Japan into accepting the totality of our gains without further delay, the peace treaty question was dragged out until it blossomed into the mythical problem of the so-called Northern Territories. Toxic gifts, here we go again.

Let's not forget the assets in Manchuria sacrificed in the name of solidarity with Red China – the Chinese Eastern Railway and Dalniy/Dalian, all the more frustrating because Manchuria's specificities made it possible to give it a sui generis status profitable to the Soviets.

What could have been : Map of the "Future Europe" (not like Wilhelm II would have liked it!)

For the USSR, WWII resulted in lesser territorial gains that would have been plausibly claimed by Russia at the end of the Great War, which was "surrendered" by the Bolsheviks in Brest-Litovsk. Almost everywhere he would go, Stalin only picked up what had been squandered by Lenin. He failed to gain from a crushing German defeat even a half of what could have and would have been acquired by the Tsar. Under the Tsar, Galicia would have been incorporated into Russia under a Russian banner (to say nothing of the Turkish Straits). The few acquisitions of the Soviet Empire actually beneficial for the Russians, such as Kaliningrad, turned out to be this way almost by pure happenstance.

As part of a package deal involving these gains, the Russians got a bunch of freeloaders that had to be schooled in the ways of Communism and kept in line at gunpoint (East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia). And they had to be fed, fed, and fed once again. Exhausting the Russians under the burden of hangers-on in an incomprehensible Communist experiment is hardly a solid basis for greatness.

If we calculate the war losses of our nation and our more than modest gains, our victory was indeed Pyrrhic – as great as it was unprofitable. If it was indeed a historical comeback, it remedied not the historical faults of Tsarist Russia but those of Stalin's mentor Lenin, who had wrecked historical Russia both morally and territorially.

Let's give Stalin his due. He knew very well that he had started the war and had been rubbish at managing it. The Russians had every reason to give him the boot. He explicitly mentioned this in the Victory Toast: "A different people could have said to the Government: "You have failed to justify our expectations. Go away. We shall install another government which will conclude peace with Germany and assure us a quiet life."

However, Stalin also considered the Russians' understanding that "running away" from a world war, failing to complete it for a second time would be tantamount to ending our history as a great nation. This was evident to both people of intelligence and the national instinct of the masses. Even such a fervent anti-Communist as Ivan Ilyin wrote that a desertion similar to the one of 1917 was impossible, that one had to fight on and win. Stalin harnessed this resource of Russian prudence and patience to reap the laurels of victory. However, he failed to repay most of his "debts" to the Russians.

The war was barely over, but Marxist historians wasted no time in trampling all over the academic defenders of Russian Imperial legacy led by Academician Tarle . By Stalin's and Zhdanov's decree, the term "Russian nation-state" was almost completely purged from the historical idiom. Orthodox hierarchs were still needed for reasons of international diplomatic representation, but the persecution of the Church would make a comeback, including the closure of churches (bear in mind that most of the churches "opened under Stalin" were churches that reopened by themselves under German occupation, and churches reopened in Stalin-held territories were a drop in the ocean). Barely four years after the victory, state security boss Viktor Abakumov would torture those few Soviet apparatchiks who dared to have but a smidgen of Russian identity. Stalin would destroy his incredibly talented assistant Nikolay Voznesenskiy, ruining all chances of the USSR being led by an intellectually developed Russian person. In the USSR, a prison of the Russian people designed by Lenin and built by Stalin, they briefly opened a fresh-air shutter and then slammed it shut.

We, Russians, cannot elevate this man to the rank of the greatest genius in history while keeping a straight face. We cannot sell our memory – mutilated national livelihood, demolished churches, massacred priests and murdered scientists, engineers, and poets, our forefathers exiled to Siberia for refusing to give their last horse to Red activists – for a minute of Stalin's "Victory Toast".

Yes, we should be fair in our historical judgement and shouldn't defame Stalin with the fantasies of the "children of the Arbat"[4]. But we also should, with even greater force and rage, be fair in the opposite respect: never cutting Stalin any slack for his horrifying sins, mistakes, cruelties, and injustices, never forgetting just how many eggs he broke to make his omelet.

***

[1] Alexander I is widely accepted to have been complicit in the palace coup that led to the death of his father Paul I.

[2] For instance, in the so-called Chapter X of Eugene Onegin Pushkin described Alexander I as "a feeble and conniving ruler, a bald fop, the enemy of all work, crowned with glory by happenstance".

[3] Legend has it that Alexander I, remorseful of his past misdeeds and faced with a profound religious crisis, feigned his own death in 1825 and fled to Siberia, where he lived as a starets (mystic hermit) under the name of Feodor Kuzmich (died 1864). The Orthodox Church officially canonized Feodor Kuzmich as a saint in 1984 but rejects his identification with the Emperor.

[4] Reference to Anatoly Rybakov's 1987 novel Children of the Arbat (referring to a central Moscow street populated by high-ranking "Old Bolsheviks" after the revolution), a hallmark of Perestroika anti-Stalinism, where Stalin was portrayed as a one-dimensionally diabolical and sadistic figure.


melanf , June 8, 2018 at 10:26 am GMT

Boring and stupid propaganda, where the right reasons drown in lies and manipulation
Mikhail , Website June 8, 2018 at 10:57 am GMT

38% of Russian citizens polled by Levada Center put Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I, Gagarin, Leo Tolstoy, Georgy Zhukov, Catherine II, Lermontov, Lomonosov, Mendeleev, and even Brezhnev and Gorbachev. The only non-Russians who made it to the top are Napoleon, Newton, and Einstein.

Well well well This is an obvious disgrace. If trustworthy, it reveals than the average Russian doesn't have the vaguest idea about the course of Russian and world history and the true importance of historical figures.

How trustworthy is it? Volgograd hasn't been renamed Stalingrad. The still popular in Russia Putin has spoken out against Stalin era oppression. By and large, the May 9 Victory Day honors the Russian people, without emphasizing Stalin.

A Moldovan Republic was merged from Bessarabia and Transnistria, which is now on its way to fusing with Romania and dragging the Transnistrian Russians with it.

Any polling support of this? At last glance, Moldovan support for becoming a part of Romania is closer to 15% than 33%. Either way, there's no majority. In addition, the Gagauz have a legit basis to break from Moldova, were it to merge with Romania. Never mind trying to get Pridnestrovie ( Transnistria ) to go along with such a move.

Pridnestrovie is ethnically pretty evenly distributed among Russiasn, Ukrainians and Moldovans, while having a pro-Russian outlook.

Upon further review, I came across this reference to a poll on Moldovan support for becoming a part of Romania:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803141062503935-moldova-romania-nato-unification-poll/

Still a clear minority, with a noticeably strong opposition in Gagauzia (under the control of Moldova) and the disputed territory of Pridnestrovie (which has essentially been separate from Moldova since the Soviet breakup).

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT

Stalin's great contribution to industrialization consisted in employing slave labor not in a Bronze Age or plantation economy, but in an economy of the Industrial Age Stalin surpassed the kings of Egypt because the Pharaohs used slave labor to build the Pyramids only in Soviet textbooks. In reality, the work teams of peasants that took part in those colossal construction projects were well remunerated and had decent working conditions by Ancient Egyptian standards

Really? ' Slave labor ' was never used to build Industry? This is just silly, and borders on its own nihilism. From pre-Victorian Britain to US company towns and China's recent out-sourcing paradise, the quasi-slave methods have always been used to build industry. There was nothing all that extra-ordinary about 1930′s Soviet Union, other than sheer size. That's how stuff gets built.

And the belated, romantic look at the builders of the Pyramids is neither here, nor there. We don't know, but I suspect the day to day conditions were not that great and probably approximated what peasants building endless dams in Soviet Union experienced.

Stalin was a Bolshevik and Bolshevism was a revenge, not an economic ideology.

Stalin's mind was corrupted by Bolshevism, a belief that applying enough pressure is all it takes to achieve a result

True, but why is there no mention of why tens of millions were ready for the revenge on the system? The life before Bolsheviks wasn't that great and WWI bloody mess was the last straw; the Bolshie nihilism came out of enormous suffering.

I often hear that it was 'about to get better', 'look at European welfare states' or New Deal. I wouldn't be so sure. After hundreds of years of not caring why would the elites voluntarily change the systems to be more broadly-based and spread the wealth? What makes people think that the 20th century enormous egalitarian progress was about to happen without the threat of Bolshevism, socialism of all kinds, Maoism, even fascism in its more populist forms?

We can see that right after the 'revenge' systems collapsed in the late 20th century, the elites immediately went back to restoring the wonderful neo-liberal systems from the early 20th century. There is no fear any more, so why not? Why not have it all? We are living in a transition era before the real consequences hit again. Beginnings are often fun, the neo-liberalism is a pyramid system with its asset privatisation and appreciation, there are lost of winners in the first few decades. But we are heading towards the same paralysis that spawned Bolshevism and other basically revenge philosophies. I would worry about that a lot more than about 'Lithuania' blocking the Augustow pass to Kaliningrad (Russia has planes and ships, don't they?).

songbird , June 8, 2018 at 3:10 pm GMT
@Mitleser

I wasn't even aware that Stalin had any connection to that idea. The way I had heard it, it was Beria who was favorable to German re-unification – but Khrushchev won the power struggle.

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMT
@AP

You are really this clueless?

That means nothing, do you have a point? Would you like to be an English coal-miner in the early 19th century? Or a peasant on Polish latifundias in Galicia? Or work 12 hours a day for Foxconn in Shenzhen today?

Tens of millions out of hundreds of millions isn't much.

Ok, I can go with hundreds of millions seeking revenge on the system towards the end of WWI. They were clearly either a majority or close to it.

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.

Surviving is not an ' epic failure ', it is better that the alternative. The post-WWII settlement was about the best Russia could had done, small adjustments here and there, but they basically got it right. The issue was that they didn't know how to disengage and withdraw. By 1960′s they should had let go. On their own terms. And that wasn't Stalin's fault, but his successors.

"win back lost three provinces of Greater Romania"

That is tricky because one cannot really define Greater Romania or most other states in that region. There are no natural borders, the population was mixed. E.g. who does Silesia 'naturally' belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options. I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn't reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.

Mitleser , June 8, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
@Beckow

I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative?

Separate SSRs.

Gerard2 , June 8, 2018 at 4:44 pm GMT
Obviously Galicia is a sparsely populated and financially irrelevant shithole in Ukraine. It's political relevance is massively overrated ( plus many have left there to go to Russia or Poland) .the big problem is American money or organisations over there, not the political power of the individuals there.

[Hide MORE]

Obviously it's to do with American money because the "nationalism" of the fuckedup fake sytate of Ukraine makes even less sense if propagated by idiots from Galicia ( so does the fantasism about the Golodomor, for a region never touched by it)
The Soros/State Department for the orange revolution and other elections either side of it then criminally exaggeratd the number of people living there, and then under-exaggerated massively the amount of people in the most populous areas of Ukraine (Novorossiya 5 out of 7) hence why we had all these retarded lies about "120% turnout in Donetsk)

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 6:20 pm GMT
@TP

I am not familiar with Herr Rudel, but let me try to explain:

Keeping Silesia as part of Germany after WWII was untenable – most Germans were expelled, or about to be driven out. Poles were very, very angry, and the resulting geography would threaten both shrunken Poland (Galicia was gone) and Czechoslovakia. Silesia reaches out quite far eastward.

Making it a part of East Germany would make E Germany too big for the Western allies. That could be reshuffled, but went against 'let's keep divided Germany as small as possible' attitude at Potsdam.

The option of having an independent Silesia, with 'Silesian' ethnicity (it does exist), was economically not viable: land-locked, surrounded, destroyed.

So what would be a better option than (re-)uniting it with Poland and allowing millions of Poles from the Galician east to move there? It has been relatively stable.

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 6:26 pm GMT
@AP

You should cut it out, you are being irrelevant. I am talking 'industrialisation', that has happened in different countries at different times. I can find 'company towns' in US (Colorado mines ) that were brutally exploitative. And you can find huge relatively nice areas of Russia's industrialisation. Picking up the worst examples in one, and the best in another is not serious.

The 5-year old miners in England in 1840′s were not better off than most peasants in Russia sent to build a big dam. It was all sh..t, thus the revenge I mentioned today check out some working conditions in Asia, is Stalin responsible for that?

Marcus , June 8, 2018 at 6:30 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

So what? The Ukrainization had already wrought tremendous changes by 1932 when it was scaled back. And it seems obvious that Galicians would shift their attention east as they sought to break free of Poland and weren't powerful enough to stand on their own.

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT
@Beckow

If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain, then you are truly a comical, damned fool.

The whole point of what made the Soviet Union so bad was that the average was nasty, poor, and brutal beyond any other country in modern history.

For example. Digging a canal is always hard work. When the Erie Canal was built in New York State in the early 1800s, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 workers died during the process – virtually all of them during a malaria epidemic when working in a swampy area. A small pox epidemic is said to have killed about 1,200 Chinese coolies building the Transcontinental Railroad in America, and a few more may have died due to Indian attacks in the Nevada wilderness.

By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!). So around a hundred years after less than a thousand Americans died on a big canal project, Stalin and his minions managed to exceed their death total by several tens of thousands. Why is this? With all of the technology developed by the 20th century, it still takes many more thousands of deaths to accomplish a big task? Couldn't great Comrade Stalin – friend of Russian people – do better than those awful western capitalist bosses?

Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?

On the other hand, sometimes Stalin could be quite, uh, paternalistic towards his beloved industrial slaves. For example, one P.I. Shcherbakov reports the following story from the building of the Moscow-Volga Canal: "On July, 4, 1934, Joseph Stalin himself had visited the construction site. Observing the foundation pit, he noticed that the inmates were working barefoot. Even if it was in summer, the weather was not very warm. Stalin immediately interrogated his retinue – the directors of the project – why the workers have no footwear. They stalled, saying that they had to bring too many workers on the site, and that the footwear was on the way. The Leader ordered abruptly the footwear to be delivered within two hours, and several men in charge for the provision to be shot. They were shot right away near the ditch."

Thorfinnsson , June 8, 2018 at 7:22 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to its liking. Reasonable failure.

Bethmann-Hollweg put forth Germany's demands with the Septemberprogramm .

They were:

France should cede some northern territory, such as the iron-ore mines at Briey and a coastal strip running from Dunkirk to Boulogne-sur-Mer, to Belgium or Germany.

France should pay a war indemnity of 10 billion German Marks, with further payments to cover veterans' funds and to pay off all of Germany's existing national debt. This would prevent French rearmament, make the French economy dependent on Germany, and end trade between France and the British Empire.

France will partially disarm by demolishing its northern forts.

Belgium should be annexed to Germany or, preferably, become a "vassal state", which should cede eastern parts and possibly Antwerp to Germany and give Germany military and naval bases.

Luxembourg should become a member state of the German Empire.

Buffer states would be created in territory carved out of the western Russian Empire, such as Poland, which would remain under German sovereignty "for all time".

Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states.

The German colonial empire would be expanded. The German possessions in Africa would be enlarged into a contiguous German colony across central Africa (Mittelafrika) at the expense of the French and Belgian colonies. Presumably to leave open future negotiations with Britain, no British colonies were to be taken, but Britain's "intolerable hegemony" in world affairs was to end.

The Netherlands should be brought into a closer relationship to Germany while avoiding any appearance of coercion.

Sounds a lot like the European Union.

Noteworthy that the German reparations' demand is about thirteen times smaller than Versailles imposed on the Germans (granted, the war was only a month old at the time). Land over money apparently.

Not listed here, but the Germans also intended to continue their Drang nach Osten by settling veterans in the east. Nothing like Generalplan Ost of course.

After the collapse of Russia, Germany started realizing some of these aims by setting up a network of puppet states in Eastern Europe ruled by German princes.

melanf , June 8, 2018 at 7:31 pm GMT
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!).

Well, a million is just nonsense. It's possible that 30,000 is also nonsense. In addition to the Erie canal there are unfortunately other examples

"A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. -- 26 million."
(ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII -- начало XX в.) Книга 2)

The industrialization of Western Europe was accompanied by the murder (direct or indirect) of tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people. And America was part of the same system (the transatlantic slave trade was measured in numbers with six zeros)

Dmitry , June 8, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
@melanf

It's also not only in India, but industrialization in the UK was not following very 'ethical labour' inside the UK itself.

Revealed: Industrial Revolution was powered by child slaves

Child labour was the crucial ingredient which allowed Britain's Industrial Revolution to succeed, new research by a leading economic historian has concluded.

After carrying out one of the most detailed statistical analyses of the period, Oxford's Professor Jane Humphries found that child labour was much more common and economically important than previously realised. Her estimates suggest that, by the early 19th century, England had more than a million child workers (including around 350,000 seven- to 10-year-olds) – accounting for 15 per cent of the total labour force. The work is likely to transform the academic world's understanding of that crucial period of British history which was the launch-pad of the nation's economic and imperial power

Her work has revealed that during most of the 18th century only around 35 per cent of ten year old working-class boys were in the labour force while the figure for 1791-1820 (when large scale industrialisation started) was 55 per cent, rising to 60 per cent for the period of 1821-1850.

The number of eight-year-old working-class boys at work also rose substantially in that period – with around a third of them being part of the work force between 1791 and 1850 compared to less than 20 per cent before 1791.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-industrial-revolution-was-powered-by-child-slaves-2041227.html

melanf , June 8, 2018 at 8:10 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

So the much more industrially developed USSR killed about as high a percentage of its own people in famines as foreign colonizers killed Indians.

" We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We must bridge that gap in ten years. Otherwise we will be destroyed " Stalin February 4, 1931

1931+10=1941

The British oligarchy (which killed many more people in British Empire) has no such excuse.

Thorfinnsson , June 8, 2018 at 8:15 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

There's no shortage of Russian heroes to choose from.

Seems like the state and its propaganda apparatus could simply emphasize other Russian heroes.

Best policy to Stalin is probably benign neglect. People don't respond well to having their idols destroyed, even if the idol is false.

And isn't this what Putin is doing anyway?

melanf , June 8, 2018 at 8:33 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Best policy to Stalin is probably benign neglect.

For this purpose it is necessary to exterminate as rats the Russian liberal intelligentsia. Until this is done – Stalin will be a hero.

Mikhail , Website June 8, 2018 at 8:40 pm GMT
@AP

(there was basically zero support for Russian nationalists of course, with no substantial number of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine joining the Whites)

You're big on giving personal anecdotes. I've heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites. That recollection is quite believable given the actual circumstances.

Petliura's support was limited and his forces were unable to successfully defeat the Whites. Petliura's weakness explains his willingness to become Pilsudski's puppet in a move that saw Petliura recognizing all of Galicia going to Poland. In turn, the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 8:45 pm GMT
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain

You provide a classical straw man diversion, so common among 'educated' in the West. No, my argument is that industrialization, then and now, in 19th century or in the 1930′s, is often a painful, violent, unpleasant process. I specifically mentioned China's today outsourced factories where people work 12 hours, jump from roofs, and live pretty close to a slave life. That was very common in 19th century England where 5-year olds were dropped to 'mine for coal'.

Your method is predictably faulty: pick a worst examples, worst place, worst time (1930′s) in Russia, exaggerate or quote ' some people say that maybe a 1 million died.. ' and compare it to heavily ' explained ' case in Britain or US, with allusions to 'malaria', etc.. and that gives you a self-satisfied feeling that, of course, the sh..t in Britain-US doesn't stink, and never did. Forget slavery, Victorian child labor, koolies, forget all of that and just focus razor-sharp on that 'Volga-canal'.

And you are surprised nobody takes you seriously? Fighting straw men is the true fools's errand

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 8:52 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

It was a disaster because it created a dysfunctional Ukraine with populations quite different and attitudes that are hard to reconcile. But it took a few generations, in 1945 I still think it was the best among the available bad options.

If you ask me to start from scratch (that was not possible in 1945 with all the emotions), I would say that Galicia existence as a province of a larger 'Habsburg-lite' country might had worked the best. It would fit the pro-Western orientation of Galicians, keep them in 'Europe', and allow the east to rationally develop on its own. That was not an option in 1945, so we got the mess that we have today. It will get much worse before this is settled.

Mikhail , Website June 8, 2018 at 8:52 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Here is a problem I see with what you are doing (this applies to Kholmogorov as well): you are tearing down an idol without offering anything in its place. Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus. Ukrainians, who reject Stalin are expected to worship Stepan Bandera, but what will Russians believe in? People in this part of the world have a need for some idols in their lifes.

Russians and Ukrainians have better alternatives than Stalin and Bandera to look to with pride.

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 8, 2018 at 8:58 pm GMT
@melanf

Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?

Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?

It would only be comparable if the "British oligarchy" had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death (the English being the state-making people of Britain). However, as I recall, the last famine affecting ENGLAND occurred prior to the Black Death (!).

Mikhail , Website June 8, 2018 at 8:58 pm GMT
@Beckow

Stalin's heavy handedness in Galicia didn't help things from a Soviet and to a certain degree Russian viewpoint.

The Galician Ukrainians were generally not happy with being ruled by Poland. Having Russian speaking Soviets (including some Ukrainians) being brutal following Molotov-Ribbentrop and before the Nazi attack on the USSR, nurtured a convoluted image among those with a pro-Bandera/Captive Nations Committee sentiment.

Mr. Hack , June 8, 2018 at 9:04 pm GMT
@Beckow

But Galicians have by and large been content to develop within a Ukrainian state. They often refer to themselves as the 'Piedmont of Ukraine' and relish their role of being in the vanguard of Ukraine's national revival. In fact, I know of no Galician of any stature that has advocated Galicia apart from the rest of Ukraine – the Western Ukrainian Republic was an anomaly that lasted for a short time and was only to be a temporary solution for Ukraine's larger development.

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 9:08 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

To provide context doesn't men defending something. Isolated thoughts often become just empty sloganeering. I have seen an estimate by an Indian historian that claimed that British Empire caused the death of 200 million people. From India to Africa, from America to Ireland.

Probably true, or maybe exaggerated, maybe it was only 100 million. People die for all kinds of reasons. French and Spanish (even Italians) can also be counted on causing millions and millions to die. The two objections that I hear is that it was long time ago and that it was 'not their own people'. Both are partially true, but not really relevant – Masais were being killed by Britain in 1950′s and Irish are kind of part of the family.

Context matters, but I disagree with 'hero Stalin' arguments – I generally dislike heroes of all kinds. And Stalin was a twerp, murderer and in many ways a failure. To defend him out of spite is silly. Let history take care of what happened. (I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism )

Dmitry , June 8, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

The Great Famine (Irish: an Gorta Mór, [anˠ ˈgɔɾˠt̪ˠa mˠoːɾˠ]) or the Great Hunger was a period of mass starvation, disease, and emigration in Ireland between 1845 and 1849.[1] It is sometimes referred to, mostly outside Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine, because about two-fifths of the population was solely reliant on this cheap crop for a number of historical reasons.[2][3] During the famine, about one million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland,[4] causing the island's population to fall by between 20% and 25%.[5]

Since the Acts of Union in January 1801, Ireland had been part of the United Kingdom. Executive power lay in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Chief Secretary for Ireland, who were appointed by the British government. Ireland sent 105 members of parliament to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and Irish representative peers elected 28 of their own number to sit for life in the House of Lords. Between 1832 and 1859, 70% of Irish representatives were landowners or the sons of landowners.[8]

Records show that Irish lands exported food even during the worst years of the Famine. When Ireland had experienced a famine in 1782–83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests.[79] No such export ban happened in the 1840s.[80]

Throughout the entire period of the Famine, Ireland was exporting enormous quantities of food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT
@Mikhail

Stalin's heavy handedness in Galicia didn't help

Sure, it didn't help. Also Hitler's, Bandera's, Polish, and even Habsburg heavy handedness didn't help. Look around, most of history are stupid heavy-handed over-reaching acts

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 9:21 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Ok, but would you agree that Ukraine has had a few contradicting tendencies? Galicians are 10-15% of Ukraine and are totally Western-oriented. Donbass is not, no matter how you spin it. And Odessa, Kiev or Kharkov are also not quite in the ' West-is-best, and there can be nothing else ' camp. Thus today's difficulties in Ukraine.

The economic integration of the eastern 2/3 of Ukraine with Russia is real and hard to change without major living standards disruption. That says that a compromise, or some degree of decentralisation are required. Galicians and their allies don't want a compromise – they want it all. It will not work. It it will cause a lot of tears and regrets.

melanf , June 8, 2018 at 9:22 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?
Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?
It would only be comparable if the "British oligarchy" had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death. However, as I recall, the last famine affected BRITAIN occurred prior to the Black Death (!).

This is a joke? The English common people of the times of James Watt, worked fifteen hours a day for a bowl of soup for the family. Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines. Throughout England, concentration camps (work houses) were established. A little earlier White British were traded as cattle-raids were carried out in port cities to replenish the number of slaves on sugar cane plantations. But white slaves in the tropical climate died very quickly, so they were replaced by Negroes. British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
Grigory Potemkin was going to buy several tens of thousands of Englishmen for the settlement of the Crimea and Novorossiya. Count Vorontsov (Russian Ambassador to England) managed to destroy this deal, otherwise in the Crimea would speak English.

In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

Marcus , June 8, 2018 at 9:23 pm GMT
@melanf

What a dumb comment. Most Russians have favorable opinions of Stalin, they are all madmen?

Cyrano , June 8, 2018 at 9:46 pm GMT
If my grandma had different genitalia, I would have called her a grandpa. I would have also grown up a very confused kid: Why do I of all kids have a transgendered grandma and is this a sign of the things to come?

Anyhow, my favorite theory about history is this: The most optimal history, with the best case scenario circumstances is the one that already happened. There is only one history and we can't improve on it based on our superior knowledge now.

Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can't improve some parts of the equations that you don't like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism – yeah right.

Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no matter what kind of political system they have. It's called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.

If the political system in Russia in WW2 was "democracy" – that might have lulled them into believing that when the going got tough, a "deal" could have been made with the Nazis (even Stalin tried to sue for peace with Hitler), or the west or whomever they might have ended up fighting in the revised version of history of WW2. By not having those delusional options that they – the Russians as a democracy can make a deal with the west which will save them – they might have avoided committing a national suicide.

Dmitry , June 8, 2018 at 9:56 pm GMT
@melanf

In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

England and Ireland were the same country (under the union – the United Kingdom), ruled from London – until 1922. (Part of Ireland – Northern Ireland – is still with the United Kingdom).

So there was a mass famine, in which 25% of the population fell in one republic of the United Kingdom, under the rule of London.

AP , June 8, 2018 at 10:04 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Couple this with your observation that there was virtually no support for Russian nationalism in Ukraine, and what you have is a large area where in fact it appears that the Ukrainian national idea was quite popular.

In central Ukraine the Ukrainian idea was popular. An overwhelming majority of the people voted for Ukrainian parties, and they clearly had a Ukrainian self-identity. But unlike Galicians, or Poles, or Finns, they were less likely to fight and die for their national idea in 1917-1920. To be sure, this spirit was not absent – 100,000 volunteers isn't nothing. But it wasn't much either.

To put it in perspective – the two Donbas oblasts had 6.5 million people in 2013, compared to 27 or so million ethnic Ukrainians in the Russian-ruled parts of Ukraine. So about 1/4 the population. Donbas militias have about 40,000 troops. That would be equivalent to 160,000 troops in 1917 Ukraine. Now, there are numerous caveats – Russia lavishly supplies the Donbas militias, Ukrainian ones were on their own, and there are some pro-Kiev volunteers from Donbas whereas there were virtually no pro-Russian ones among Russian Empire Russians.

Of course, to repeat myself, there was basically zero sentiment among these people to fight for Russia. There were some Kadets from among ethnic Russians in Kiev but no pro-White military units of Ukrainians/Little Russians from Russian-ruled Ukraine. Even Makhno, already losing, murdered Wrangel's emissary's rather than join forces with him.

Dmitry , June 8, 2018 at 10:16 pm GMT
@melanf

Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines.

At 2:10 in the video:

AP , June 8, 2018 at 10:25 pm GMT
@Mikhail

I've heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites.

Name any military units from Russian Ukraine who fought on the side of the Whites. There were not. Zero. Some Ukrainian-speaking Cossacks from the Kuban did, but Kuban isn't in Ukraine.

the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.

It's telling that only the Galicians (briefly) placed themselves under White command but no ethnic Ukrainian forces from Russian Ukraine ever did. Galicians did it after they became stateless (Petlura signed Galicia over to Poland in exchange for help against the Soviets) during a typhoid epidemic and received much-needed medicine from the Entente that the Whites had access to. I don't think they ever fought a battle for the Whites, although I may be mistaken on that point. The Whites disintegrated before the Galicians could get healthy.

Under similar circumstances some Galicians ended up fighting in the Red Army against Poland. One of the Red Galician commanders, Alfred Bizanz (an ethnic German), eventually made his way west and 20 years later become a commander of the Galician SS Division.

Mr. XYZ , June 8, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT
: Out of curiosity–had Ukraine been smaller (no Galicia, Volhynia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, Bessarabia, and northern Bukovina–for instance, had Hitler never become to power in Germany and there would have thus been no German-Soviet partition of Poland), and had Ukraine would have joined the Eurasian Economic Union after the collapse of the Soviet Union (if it would have still occurred in this scenario, that is), what do you think that the long(er)-term future of the Eurasian Economic Union would have looked like in this scenario?

Also, as a side note, it's interesting that, with the exception of Yekaterinoslav Guberniya, Ukrainian parties don't appear to have done very well in "Novorossiya" in the 1917 elections. Indeed, they failed to win in the Kharkiv Guberniya, in the Taurida Guberniya, and in the Kherson Guberniya.

In turn, this makes me wonder–had an independent Ukrainian state limited to central and western Ukraine been created, how viable would it have been? After all, this state would have been landlocked (I can't see Russia agreeing to give up Yekaterinoslav Guberniya considering that it would cut off the Taurida Guberniya, the Kherson Guberniya, and the Bessarabian Guberniya from the rest of Russia) and would have thus had to rely on Russia, Poland, or Romania for sea access.

Finally, off-topic, but as a side question–why exactly were Ukrainians outside of Galicia unwilling to fight en masse for the Ukrainian national cause in 1917-1920?

Thorfinnsson , June 8, 2018 at 10:39 pm GMT
@Cyrano

Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can't improve some parts of the equations that you don't like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism – yeah right.

Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no matter what kind of political system they have. It's called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.

Read Mein Kampf . The H-man didn't use communism as an "excuse". He openly planned to eliminate Russians because they stood in the way of his dream of a continental German Empire, and he considered slavs to be racially inferior (a view he reneged on at the end of his life for obvious reasons).

The idea that the West is "naturally" hostile to Russia is completely bogus. The American Empire has been mostly hostile to Russia since 1945, and yes for America communism was mostly (though not completely) an excuse. The "wise men" who formulated the doctrine of Containment admitted as much.

Prior to 1945 Russia was part of the normal European state system. Depending on the state of the times Russia could be friendly, isolated, allied, at war, etc. with any number of European states. Where was the implacable Western hatred of Russia exactly?

Germany fought two wars with Russia in the 20th century, but in the 19th century it was a German statesman (vom Stein) who convinced Tsar Alexander to join with Prussia in forming the Sixth Coalition to finally beat Napoleon. Only the year before one out of three soldiers in Napoleon's Grand Army had in fact been German!

Likewise Napoleon invaded Russia, but a century later France was Russia's greatest ally.

Mikhail , Website June 8, 2018 at 11:44 pm GMT
@AP

Awhile back, I had earlier presented those in the officer ranks of the White Russians with ties to Ukraine. You pooh poohed that by noting their ties to Russia proper (for lack of a better term) – which BTW was part of the same entity as much of what's now known as Ukraine.

That the White leadership was top heavy with folks from outside Ukraine doesn't mean that there wasn't a noticeable degree of rank and file White participation among people from the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR – including individuals who'd qualify as being ethnic Ukrainian. Hence the previously noted recollection of Ukrainian being spoken among the Whites. I also know someone whose family joined the Whites after serving under Skoropadsky. That person's family has direct roots to Ukraine and has what's considered a typical Ukrainian surname. He has played a lead role in patriotic Russian anti-Communist emigre circles. Know some others with a similar background as well.

The Whites started their anti-Bolshevik opposition outside the territory of what became modern day Ukraine. The Russian Civil War era elections in Kiev didn't include a large segment of the overall population of what became the Ukrainian SSR and is therefore not so conclusive in determining public opinion at the time there. Hence, it's within reason to say (as has been previously stated by others) that a good number of folks on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR weren't so motivated to support any of the lead Russian Civil War era combatants.

Meantime, it's clear that Petliura lacked support on the territory he sought to represent. He was militarily no match for either the Whites or Reds. The latter two had support within what became the Ukrainian SSR. Despite their differences, the Whites and Reds each supported some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness which brings to mind Skoropadsky's edict for an All-Russian Federation , inclusive of Russia and Ukraine:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/22052011-pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis/

Due to the dominating German presence, Skoropadsky and the Whites had problems connecting. In addition, the Germans restricted the amount of weapons to Skoropadsky's forces – which was to greatly assist those who overthrew Skoropadsky as WW I came to an end.

On another matter you recently brought up, Makhno fought Petliura's forces. Makhno, was arguably more of an anarchist than a Ukrainian nationalist.

Beckow , June 9, 2018 at 12:31 am GMT
@Thorfinnsson

The idea that the West is "naturally" hostile to Russia is completely bogus

Let's drop the 'naturally' qualifier, since we wouldn't agree on how to define it. That leaves a question: has West been hostile to Russia? Yes, in the last 10-15 years, no sane person could deny it. Maybe there are reasons for it, but the hostility is undeniable – and it covers Brits, Americans, French, German, Spanish, and even Italians. Dutch, Swedes and Danish have also been hostile.

West claims that they would not be hostile if Russia ' would change its ways '. Interesting, by that standard we could all be friends. I always tell people ' if you do 100% what I want, and agree with me 100%, I will be your best friend' . To ask others to change is to admit that you dislike them as they are, thus logically, you simply dislike them.

The second weasel excuse is that West likes Russian people, just dislikes their government (for some strange reason always personalised as 'Putin'). We hear this less and less because it is so absurd – Russians have chosen the government, they agree with most main policies. Let's call spade a spade: West doesn't like Russia as it is.

How long has this been going on before 2000? Putting aside the communist era, one can find very strong anti-Russian sentiments in all main Western countries at least since late 18th century, with Britain being the outstanding hater. There were occasional opportunistic thaws when some country needed an ally, or needed something, but in general West was always quite hostile towards Russia. It is too big, it is Orthodox, it has its own vibe. From Napoleon, to Crimean War (West invaded to side with Ottoman Moslems to keep Russia from gaining influence in the Balkans), to Hitler's coalition

European Christian civilization will not prosper divided. West gleefully destroyed and abandoned Byzantium 500 years ago. They are making the same mistake today.

David In TN , June 9, 2018 at 1:35 am GMT
@Beckow

Herr Rudel was the "Stuka Pilot," the most highly decorated WW II German.

Mitchell Porter , June 9, 2018 at 2:28 am GMT
Maybe no-one here knows or cares, but I would be interested to know about the impact of the war with Germany on Marxist-Leninist ideology in Russia. It seems like the original Marxist conception was that the workers' revolution would just happen and spread until it was universal.

Then fascism was supposed to be a last-ditch defense of the system by the capitalists. So after an enormous war in which fascism was actually defeated – did they think that now the tide had turned? And with the disintegration of the European maritime empires, and with many of the newly independent countries turning towards socialism, an optimistic attitude (towards the eventual global victory of socialism) must have been possible for many decades Maybe I should read something by Suslov, I've heard that he was the ideological chief in the Brezhnev era.

AP , June 9, 2018 at 2:48 am GMT
@Mikhail

I asked a specific question:

Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

You failed to do so.

Because there were none.

There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn't count. Meanwhile, around 100,000 ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine did fight for various Ukrainian nationalist leaders from Russian-ruled Ukraine, such as Symon Petliura, or Danylo Zeleny (30,000 troops at peak). Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for Russia.

AP , June 9, 2018 at 3:01 am GMT
@Marcus

Makhno's wife was a Ukrainian-language teacher. His forces were basically neutral towards those of the Ukrainian nationalist Petliura while being bitterly opposed to the Whites; Makhno contributed to Denikin's defeat, and even when he was about to be defeated by the Bolsheviks he killed Wrangel's envoys rather than cooperate with the Whites.

Hyperborean , June 9, 2018 at 3:46 am GMT
@Beckow

(I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism )

Levada doesn't explicitly say 'heroes', just 'great personalities', so Pushkin would be considered due to