May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism
and Alliance of Transnational Elites
Neoliberalism is inseparable from imperialism and globalization
All U.S. schoolchildren should be taught, as part of their basic civics education,
by conscientious elementary, middle school and high school teachers, that they live in animperialistcountry. The term itself ought to be popularized. This
is what politicians like Obama actually refer to, elliptically, when they call the U.S. “exceptional.
The idea financial imperialism is simple. Instead of old-fashion military occupation of the country,
take over the countries in crisis, if necessary remove their democratically elected governments from
power by claiming that election are falsified and/or official are corrupted, and/or the government is authoritarian (unlike the puppets
they want to install). They use the installed puppets to mandate austerity, burden the country with debt and facilitate
condition under which most
of which will be stolen and repatriated to the West.
Incite greed of the people or promise substantial increase in living standard (the claims does not need to be realistic;
when the people realize that they were deceived it's too late). Incite via controlled MSM resentment the current government
(which, of course, if far from perfect), use false flag operation to de-legitimize the government (using
Sharp textbook) and via a color revolution, or armed
insurrection, or coup d'état install neoliberal government of completely subservient to West
stooges.
Allow this government to steal as much as they can and create a fifth column of compradors and
oligarchs who are connected to the West. They will keep money they stole in Western banks making them fully
controllable puppets and are afraid of their own people; conceal the negative economic results of such "bandit privatization" of
state assets with loans to cover the
economic rape of the country for a while.
When crisis hit and it is impossible to cover tracks anymore bail the country out which means
just converting limited duration loans into evergreen loans that never will be repaid, but when load
expire you have huge instrument into pressuring the country to do what you want.
Another permanent debt-slave is now born.
After installation of a puppet government, it is relatively easy to use
Fifth column based government to protect foreign financial
interests. Now you can recoup the costs and enjoy the profits. Much cheaper and more humane then bombing the country and killing a
couple of hundred thousand people to achieve the same goals (Iraq variant) or by arming and training jihadists (using Saudi
and Gulf monarchies money) and tribal elements to depose the government (Libya and Syria variants) who kill as much, if nor more.
A classic recent examples were Yeltsin's government in Russia, Yushchenko regime in Ukraine,
Poroshenko-Yatsenyuk duo in Ukraine and sequence of neoliberal governments in Greece.
In the conventional (or mainstream) discourse, imperialism is either absent or, more recently,
proudly presented as the ‘AmericanBurden': to civilize the world and bring to all the benediction
of the Holy Trinity, the green-faced Lord Dollar and its deputies and occasional rivals. Holy
Euro and Saint Yen. New converts win a refurbished international airport, one brand-new branch of
McDonald’s, two luxury hotels, 3,000 NGOs and one US military base.
This offer cannot be refused - or else.2 In turn, globalisation is generally presented as an
inescapable, inexorable and benevolent process leading to greater competition, welfare
improvements and the spread of democracy around the world. In reality, however, the so-called
process of globalisation - to the extent that it actually exists (see Saad-Rlho 2003) - is merely
the international face of neoliberalism: a world-wide strategy of accumulation and social
discipline that doubles up as tin imperialist project, spearheaded by the alliance between the
US ruling class and locally dominant capitalist coalitions.
This ambitious power project centered
on neoliberalism at home and imperial globalism abroad is implemented by diverse social and
economic political alliances in each country, but the interests of local finance and the US
ruling class, itself dominated by finance, are normally hegemonic.
...the United States, the United Kingdom and east and south-east Asia respectively,
neoliberalism is a particular organisation of capitalism, which has evolved to protect
capital(ism) and to reduce the power of labour. This is achieved by means of social, economic and
political transformations imposed by internal forces as well as external pressure. The internal
forces include the coalition between financial interests, leading industrialists, traders and
exporters, media barons, big landowners, local political chieftains, the
top echelons of the civil service and the military, and their intellectual and political proxies.
These groups are closely connected with ‘global’ ideologies emanating from the centre, and they
tend to adapt swiftly to the demands beamed from the metropolis. Their efforts have led to a
significant worldwide shift in powerrelations away from the majority. Corporate power has
increased, while finance hits acquired unrivalled influence, and the political spectrum has
shifted towards the right. Left parties and mass organisations have imploded, while trade unions
have been muzzled or disabled by unemployment. Forms of external pressure have included the
diffusion of Western culture and ideology, foreign support for state and civil society
institutions peddling neolibcral values, the shameless use of foreign aid, debt relief and
balance of payments support to promote the neoliberal programme, and diplomatic pressure,
political unrest and military intervention when necessary.
...the ruling economic and political forces in the European Union have instrumentalised the
process of integration to ensure the hegemony of neoliberalism. This account is complemented by
the segmentation of Eastern Europe into countries that are being drawn into a Western
European-style neoliberalism and others that are following Russia’s business oligarchy model.
In
sum, neoliberalism is everywhere both the outcome and the arena of social conflicts. It sets the
political and economic agenda, limits the possible outcomes, biases expectations, and imposes
urgent tasks on those challenging its assumptions, methods and consequences.
In the meantime, neoliberal theory has not remained static. In order to deal with the most
powerful criticisms leveled against neoliberalism, that it has increased poverty and social
dislocation around the world, neoliberal theory has attempted to present the ogre in a more
favorable light. In spite of the substantial resources invested in this ideologically inspired
make-over, these amendments have remained unconvincing, not least because the heart of the
neoliberal project has remained unchanged. This is discussed in Chapter 15 for poverty and
distribution, while Chapter 21 unpicks the agenda of the ‘Third Way', viewed by many as
‘neoliberalism with a human face’.
Neoliberalism offered a finance-friendly solution to the problems of capital accumulation at
the end of a relatively long cycle of prosperity. Chapters 1. 22 and 30 show that neoliberalism
imposed discipline upon a restless working class through contractionary fiscal and monetary
policies and wide-ranging initiatives to curtail social rights, under the guise of anti-inflation
and productivity-enhancing measures. Neoliberalism also rationalised the transfer of state
capacity to allocate resources inter-temporally (the balance between investment and consumption)
and inter-sectorally (the distribution of investment, employment and output) towards an
increasingly internationally integrated (and US-led) financial sector. In doing so, neoliberalism
facilitated a gigantic transfer of resources to the local rich and the United States, as is shown
by Chapters 11 and 15.
The “elephant in the room” is peak oil (plato oil
to be more correct) and the plato of food production. Without "cheap oil" extraction
growing, it is
more difficult to sustain both population growth and rising standard of living simultaneously.
It became the situation of iether/or.
So the future it does not look pretty. As soon as "cheap oil" escape the current plato, Western financial system gets into trouble: private banks based fractional
reserve banking requires economy expansion for survival. Essentially they add positive
feedback loop to the economy, greatly increasing the instability. That connection was discovered by Hyman Minsky. Minsky
explored a form of
instability that is embedded in neoliberal/financialized economies resulting from the use of fiat currency and fractional
reserve banking. he argued that such an economy automatically generates bubbles, bursting of which result in periodic deep economic
crisis. Which are not an exception, but a feature of neoliberal capitalism (aka "supercapitalism", or "casino capitalism).
When Minsky crisis hits some, less important, banks will
implode and strategically important need to be saved by government at a great expense for taxpayers.
The western elite is well aware of this possibility and will steal, loot and pillage as fast as they
can to prolong the agony... Neoliberal expansion and conversion of other countries into debt slaves
thus serves as a substitute for economic growth.
What actually is devalued in austerity programs imposed on indebted nations via currency depreciation
is the price of local labor (along with standard of living of the most population). So austerity programs
caused a huge drop in the standard of living of population. For example after EuroMaydan color revolution the standard of living in Ukraine
dropped to
the level of the most poor countries of Africa (less then $2 a day for the majority of
population).
This is a pretty instructive example. It qlso cur domestic consumption of fuels and minerals, consumer goods, and food. As wages are sticky and it is
difficult
to reduced them directly (via high unemployment, leading to falling wages). But the currency depreciation can
do the same trick even more effectively. For example since February 22 coup d'état, grivna, the Ukrainian currency depreciated from
8 to 28 grivna to dollar, or approximately 350%.
This is how war of creditors against debtor countries turns into a class war. But to impose such
neoliberal reforms, foreign pressure is necessary to bypass domestic, democratically elected Parliaments.
Not every country’s voters can be expected to be as passive in acting against their own interests as
those of Latvia and Ireland. The financial capital objective is to bypass parliament by demanding a
“consensus” (facilitated by a huge foreign debt) to put foreign creditors first, above the national economy. This is the essence of
the status of debt slave country. Civil war it a perfect tool to accelerate this process.
Buying natural monopolies in transportation, communications, and the land from the public domain
for pennies on the dollar now can be called "rescue package", not the road to debt peonage and a financial neo-feudalism
that is a grim reality of "debt slave" countries, where populations are indentured laborersof international capital. Let me state it
very simply : "the borrower [debtor] is SERVANT to the lender" (
Wikipedia ):
An indentured servant or indentured laborer is an employee (indenturee) within a system of
unfree labor who is
bound by a signed or forced contract (indenture)
to work for a particular employer for a fixed time. The contract often lets the employer sell the labor of an
indenturee to a third party. Indenturees usually enter into an indenture for a specific payment or other benefit, or
to meet a legal obligation, such as debt
bondage.
At the same time then comes to bailing out bankers who overplayed with derivatives, all rules are ignored
– in order to serve the “higher justice” of saving banks and their high-finance counterparties from
taking a loss. This is quite a contrast compared to IMF policy toward labor and “taxpayers.” The class
war is back in business – with a vengeance, and bankers are the winners this time around.
Robert B Reich, former US Secretary of Labor and resident neo-liberal in the Clinton administration
from 1993 to 1997, wrote in the September 14, 2007 edition of The Wall Street Journal an opinion piece,
"CEOs Deserve Their Pay", as part of an orchestrated campaign to promote his new book: Supercapitalism:
The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (Afred A Knopf).
Reich is a former Harvard professor and the former Maurice B Hexter Professor of Social and Economic
Policy at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University. He is currently
a professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California (Berkley) and a regular
liberal gadfly in the unabashed supply-side Larry Kudlow TV show that celebrates the merits of capitalism.
Reich's Supercapitalism brings to mind Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism: The Economic
Strategy of American Empire (1972-2003). While Reich, a liberal turned neo-liberal, sees "supercapitalism"
as the natural evolution of insatiable shareholder appetite for gain, a
polite euphemism for greed, that cannot or should not be reined in by regulation, Hudson,
a Marxist heterodox economist, sees "super imperialism" as the structural outcome of post-World War
II superpower geopolitics, with state interests overwhelming free market
forces, making regulation irrelevant. While Hudson is critical of "super imperialism"
and thinks that it should be resisted by the weaker trading partners of the US, Reich gives the impression
of being ambivalent about the inevitability, if not the benignity, of "supercapitalism".
The structural link between capitalism and imperialism was first observed by John Atkinson Hobson
(1858-1940), an English economist, who wrote in 1902 an insightful analysis of the economic basis of
imperialism. Hobson provided a humanist critique of neoclassical economics, rejecting exclusively materialistic
definitions of value. With Albert Frederick Mummery (1855-1895), the great British mountaineer who was
killed in 1895 by an avalanche while reconnoitering Nanga Parbat, an 8,000-meter Himalayan peak, Hobson
wrote The Physiology of Industry (1889), which argued that an industrial economy requires government
intervention to maintain stability, and developed the theory of over-saving that was given a glowing
tribute by John Maynard Keynes three decades later.
The need for governmental intervention to stabilize an expanding national industrial economy was
the rationale for political imperialism. On the other side of the coin, protectionism was a governmental
counter-intervention on the part of weak trading partners for resisting imperialist expansion of the
dominant power. Historically, the processes of globalization have always been the result of active state
policy and action, as opposed to the mere passive surrender of state sovereignty to market forces. Market
forces cannot operate in a vacuum. They are governed by man-made rules. Globalized markets require the
acceptance by local authorities of established rules of the dominant economy. Currency monopoly of course is the most fundamental trade restraint by one single dominant government.
Adam Smith published Wealth of Nations in 1776, the year of US independence. By the time the
constitution was framed 11 years later, the US founding fathers were deeply influenced by Smith's ideas,
which constituted a reasoned abhorrence of trade monopoly and government policy in restricting trade.
What Smith abhorred most was a policy known as mercantilism, which was practiced by all the major powers
of the time. It is necessary to bear in mind that Smith's notion of the limitation of government action
was exclusively related to mercantilist issues of trade restraint. Smith never advocated government
tolerance of trade restraint, whether by big business monopolies or by other governments in the name
of open markets.
A central aim of mercantilism was to ensure that a nation's exports remained
higher in value than its imports, the surplus in that era being paid only in specie money
(gold-backed as opposed to fiat money). This trade surplus in gold permitted the surplus country, such
as England, to invest in more factories at home to manufacture more for export, thus bringing home more
gold. The importing regions, such as the American colonies, not only found the gold reserves backing
their currency depleted, causing free-fall devaluation (not unlike that faced today by many emerging-economy
currencies), but also wanting in surplus capital for building factories to produce for domestic consumption
and export. So despite plentiful iron ore in America, only pig iron was exported to England in return
for English finished iron goods. The situation was similar to today's oil producing countries where
despite plentiful crude oil, refined petrochemical products such as gasoline and heating oil have to
be imported.
In 1795, when the newly independent Americans began finally to wake up to their disadvantaged trade
relationship and began to raise European (mostly French and Dutch) capital to start a manufacturing
industry, England decreed the Iron Act, forbidding the manufacture of iron
goods in its American colonies, which caused great dissatisfaction among the prospering colonials.
Smith favored an opposite government policy toward promoting domestic economic production and free
foreign trade for the weaker traders, a policy that came to be known as "laissez faire" (because the
English, having nothing to do with such heretical ideas, refuse to give it an English name). Laissez
faire, notwithstanding its literal meaning of "leave alone", meant nothing of the sort. It meant an
activist government policy to counteract mercantilism. Neo-liberal free-market
economists are just bad historians, among their other defective characteristics, when they propagandize
"laissez faire" as no government interference in trade affairs.
Friedrich List, in his National System of Political Economy (1841), asserts that political
economy as espoused in England, far from being a valid science universally, was merely British national
opinion, suited only to English historical conditions. List's institutional school of economics asserts
that the doctrine of free trade was devised to keep England rich and powerful at the expense of its
trading partners and it must be fought with protective tariffs and other protective devices of economic
nationalism by the weaker countries.
Henry Clay's "American system" was a national system of political economy.
US neo-imperialism in the post WWII period disingenuously promotes neo-liberal free-trade against
governmental protectionism to keep the US rich and powerful at the expense of its trading partners.
Before the October Revolution of 1917, many national liberation movements in European
colonies and semi-colonies around the world were influenced by List's economic nationalism. The 1911
Nationalist Revolution in China, led by Sun Yat-sen, was heavily influenced by Lincoln's political ideas
- government of the people, by the people and for the people - and the economic nationalism of List,
until after the October Revolution when Sun realized that the Soviet model was the correct path to national
revival.
Hobson's magnum opus, Imperialism, (1902), argues that imperialistic
expansion is driven not by state hubris, known in US history as "manifest destiny", but by an innate
quest for new markets and investment opportunities overseas for excess capital formed by over-saving
at home for the benefit of the home state. Over-saving during the industrial age came
from Richardo's theory of the iron law of wages, according to which wages were kept perpetually at subsistence
levels as a result of uneven market power between capital and labor. Today, job outsourcing that returns
as low-price imports contributes to the iron law of wages in the US domestic economy. (See my article
Organization of Labor Exporting Countries [OLEC]).
Hobson's analysis of the phenology (study of life cycles) of capitalism was drawn upon by Lenin to
formulate a theory of imperialism as an advanced stage of capitalism:
"Imperialism is capitalism at
that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capitalism is established;
in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world
among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among
the biggest capitalist powers has been completed." (Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1916, Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism, Chapter 7).
Lenin was also influenced by Rosa Luxemberg, who three year earlier had written her major work, The
Accumulation of Capital: A Contribution to an Economic Explanation of Imperialism (Die Akkumulation
des Kapitals: Ein Beitrag zur ökonomischen Erklärung des Imperialismus), 1913). Luxemberg, together
with Karl Liebknecht a founding leader of the Spartacist League (Spartakusbund), a radical Marxist revolutionary
movement that later renamed itself the Communist Party of Germany (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands,
or KPD), was murdered on January 15, 1919 by members of the Freikorps, rightwing militarists who were
the forerunners of the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA) led by Ernst Rohm.
The congenital association between capitalism and imperialism requires practically all truly anti-imperialist
movements the world over to be also anti-capitalist. To this day, most nationalist capitalists in emerging
economies are unwitting neo-compradors for super imperialism. Neo-liberalism, in its attempts to break
down all national boundaries to facilitate global trade denominated in fiat dollars, is the ideology
of super imperialism.
Hudson, the American heterodox economist, historian of ancient economies and post-WW II international
balance-of-payments specialist, advanced in his 1972 book the notion of 20th century super imperialism.
Hudson updated Hobson's idea of 19th century imperialism of state industrial policy seeking new markets
to invest home-grown excess capital. To Hudson, super imperialism is a state
financial strategy to export debt denominated in the state's fiat currency as capital to the new financial
colonies to finance the global expansion of a superpower empire.
No necessity, or even
intention, was entertained by the superpower of ever having to pay off these paper debts after the US
dollar was taken off gold in 1971.
Super imperialism transformed into monetary imperialism after the 1973 Middle East oil crisis with
the creation of the petrodollar and two decades later emerged as dollar hegemony through financial globalization
after 1993. As described in my 2002 AToL article,
Dollar
hegemony has to go, a geopolitical phenomenon emerged after the 1973 oil crisis in which
the US dollar, a fiat currency since 1971, continues to serve as the primary reserve currency for
international trade because oil continues to be denominated in fiat dollars as a result of superpower
geopolitics, leading to dollar hegemony in 1993 with the globalization of deregulated financial markets.
Three causal developments allowed dollar hegemony to emerge over a span of two decades after 1973
and finally take hold in 1993. US fiscal deficits from overseas spending since the 1950s caused a massive
drain in US gold holdings, forcing the US in 1971 to abandon the 1945 Bretton Woods regime of fixed
exchange rate based on a gold-backed dollar. Under that international financial architecture, cross-border
flow of funds was not considered necessary or desirable for promoting international trade or domestic
development. The collapse of the 1945 Bretton Woods regime in 1971 was the initial development toward
dollar hegemony.
The second development was the denomination of oil in dollars after the 1973 Middle East oil crisis.
The emergence of petrodollars was the price the US, still only one of two contending superpowers in
1973, extracted from defenseless oil-producing nations for allowing them to nationalize the Western-owned
oil industry on their soil. As long as oil transactions are denominated in fiat dollars, the US essentially
controls all the oil in the world financially regardless of specific ownership, reducing all oil producing
nations to the status of commodity agents of dollar hegemony.
The third development was the global deregulation of financial markets after the Cold War, making
cross-border flow of funds routine, and a general relaxation of capital and foreign exchange control
by most governments involved in international trade. This neo-liberal trade regime brought into existence
a foreign exchange market in which free-floating exchange rates made computerized speculative attacks
on weak currencies a regular occurrence. These three developments permitted the emergence of dollar
hegemony after 1994 and helped the US win the Cold War with financial power derived from fiat money.
Dollar hegemony advanced super imperialism one stage further from the financial to the monetary front.
Industrial imperialism sought to achieve a trade surplus by exporting manufactured good to the colonies
for gold to fund investment for more productive plants at home. Super imperialism sought to extract
real wealth from the colonies by paying for it with fiat dollars to sustain a balance of payments out
of an imbalance in the exchange of commodities. Monetary imperialism under dollar hegemony exports debt
denominated in fiat dollars through a permissive trade deficit with the new colonies, only to re-import
the debt back to the US as capital account surplus to finance the US debt bubble.
The circular recycling of dollar-denominated debt was made operative by the dollar, a fiat currency
that only the US can print at will, continuing as the world's prime reserve currency for international
trade and finance, backed by US geopolitical superpower. Dollars are accepted universally because oil
is denominated in dollars and everyone needs oil and thus needs dollars to buy oil. Any nation that
seeks to denominate key commodities, such as oil, in currencies other than the dollar will soon find
itself invaded by the sole superpower. Thus the war on Iraq is not about oil, as former Federal Reserve
chairman Alan Greenspan suggested recently. It is about keeping oil denominated in dollars to protect
dollar hegemony. The difference is subtle but of essential importance.
Since 1993, central banks of all trading nations around the world, with the exception of the US Federal
Reserve, have been forced to hold more dollar reserves than they otherwise need to ward off the potential
of sudden speculative attacks on their currencies in unregulated global financial markets. Thus "dollar
hegemony" prevents the exporting nations, such as the Asian Tigers, from spending domestically the dollars
they earn from the US trade deficit and forces them to fund the US capital account surplus, shipping
real wealth to the US in exchange for the privilege of financing further growth of the US debt economy.
Not only do these exporting nations have to compete by keeping their domestic wages down and by prostituting
their environment, the dollars that they earn cannot be spent at home without causing a monetary crisis
in their own currencies because the dollars they earn have to be exchanged into local currencies before
they can be spent domestically, causing an excessive rise in their domestic money supply which in turn
causes domestic inflation-pushed bubbles. While the trade-surplus nations are forced to lend their export
earnings back to the US, these same nations are starved for capital, as global capital denominated in
dollars will only invest in their export sectors to earn more dollars. The domestic sector with local
currency earnings remains of little interest to global capital denominated in dollars. As a result,
domestic development stagnates for lack of capital.
Dollar hegemony permits the US to transform itself from a competitor
in world markets to earn hard money, to a fiat-money-making monopoly with fiat dollars that only it
can print at will. Every other trading nation has to exchange low-wage goods for dollars
that the US alone can print freely and that can be spent only in the dollar economy without monetary
penalty.
Japan is a classic victim of monetary imperialism. In 1990, as a result of Japanese export prowess,
the Industrial Bank of Japan was the largest bank in the world, with a market capitalization of $57
billion. The top nine of the 10 largest banks then were all Japanese, trailed by Canadian Alliance in
10th place. No US bank made the top-10 list. By 2001, the effects of dollar hegemony have pushed Citigroup
into first place with a market capitalization of $260 billion. Seven of the top 10 largest financial
institutions in the world in 2001 were US-based, with descending ranking in market capitalization: Citigroup
($260 billion), AIG ($209 billion), HSBC (British-$110 billion), Berkshire Hathaway ($100 billion),
Bank of America ($99 billion), Fanny Mae ($80 billion), Wells Fargo ($74 billion), JP Morgan Chase ($72
billion), RBS (British-$70 billion) and UBS (Swiss-$67 billion). No Japanese bank survived on the list.
China is a neoclassic case of dollar hegemony victimization even though its domestic financial markets
are still not open and the yuan is still not freely convertible. With over $1.4 trillion in foreign
exchange reserves earned at a previously lower fixed exchange rate of 8.2 to a dollar set in 1985, now
growing at the rate of $1 billion a day at a narrow-range floating exchange rate of around 7.5 since
July 2005, China cannot spend much of it dollar holdings on domestic development without domestic inflation
caused by excessive expansion of its yuan money supply. The Chinese economy is overheating because the
bulk of its surplus revenue is in dollars from exports that cannot be spent inside China without monetary
penalty. Chinese wages are too low to absorb sudden expansion of yuan money supply to develop the domestic
economy. And with over $1.4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves, equal to its annual GDP, China cannot
even divest from the dollar without having the market effect of a falling dollar moving against its
remaining holdings.
The People's Bank of China announced on July 20, 2005 that effective immediately the yuan exchange
rate would go up by 2.1% to 8.11 yuan to the US dollar and that China would drop the dollar peg to its
currency. In its place, China would move to a "managed float" of the yuan, pegging the currency's exchange
value to an undisclosed basket of currencies linked to its global trade. In an effort to limit the amount
of volatility, China would not allow the currency to fluctuate by more than 0.3% in any one trading
day. Linking the yuan to a basket of currencies means China's currency is relatively free from market
forces acting on the dollar, shifting to market forces acting on a basket of currencies of China's key
trading partners. The basket is composed of the euro, yen and other Asian currencies as well as the
dollar. Though the precise composition of the basket was not disclosed, it can nevertheless be deduced
by China's trade volume with key trading partners and by mathematical calculation from the set-daily
exchange rate.
Thus China is trapped in a trade regime operating on an international monetary architecture in
which it must continue to export real wealth in the form of underpaid labor and polluted environment
in exchange for dollars that it must reinvest in the US. Ironically, the recent rise of anti-trade
sentiment in US domestic politics offers China a convenient, opportune escape from dollar hegemony to
reduce its dependence on export to concentrate on domestic development. Chinese domestic special interest
groups in the export sector would otherwise oppose any policy to slow the growth in export if not for
the rise of US protectionism which causes shot-term pain for China but long-term benefit in China's
need to restructure its economy toward domestic development. Further trade surplus denominated in dollar
is of no advantage to China.
Even as the domestic US economy declined after the onset of globalization in the early 1990s, US
dominance in global finance has continued to this day on account of dollar hegemony. It should not be
surprising that the nation that can print at will the world's reserve currency for international trade
should come up on top in deregulated global financial markets. The so-called
emerging markets around the world are the new colonies of monetary imperialism in a global neo-liberal
trading regime operating under dollar hegemony geopolitically dominated by the US as the world's sole
remaining superpower.
In Supercapitalism, Reich identifies corporate social responsibility as a diversion from economic
efficiency and an un-capitalistic illusion. Of course the late Milton Friedman had asserted that the
only social responsibility of corporations is to maximize profit, rather than to generate economic well-being
and balanced growth through fair profits. There is ample evidence to suggest that a single-minded quest
for maximizing global corporate profit can lead to domestic economic decline in even the world's sole
remaining superpower. The US public is encouraged to blame such decline on the misbehaving trading partners
of the US rather than US trade policy that permits US transnational corporation to exploit workers in
all trading nations, including those in the US. It is a policy that devalues work by over-rewarding
financial manipulation.
Yet to Reich, the US corporate income tax is regressive and inequitable and should be abolished so
that after-tax corporate profit can be even further enhanced. This pro-profit position is at odds with
even rising US Republican sentiment against transnational corporations and their global trade strategies.
Reich also thinks the concept of corporate criminal liability is based on an "anthropomorphic fallacy"
that ends up hurting innocent people. Reich sees as inevitable an evolutionary path towards an allegedly
perfect new world of a super-energetic capitalism responding to the dictate of all-powerful consumer
preference through market democracy.
Reich argues that corporations cannot be expected to be more "socially responsible" than their shareholders
or even their consumers, and he implies that consumer preference and behavior are the proper and effective
police forces that supersede the need for market regulation. He sees corporations, while viewed by law
as "legal persons", as merely value-neutral institutional respondents of consumer preferences in global
markets. Reich claims that corporate policies, strategies and behavior in market capitalism are effectively
governed by consumer preferences and need no regulation by government. This
is essentially the ideology of neo-liberalism.
Yet US transnational corporations derive profit from global operations serving global consumers to
maximize return on global capital. These transnational corporations will seek to shift production to
where labor is cheapest and environmental standards are lowest and to market their products where prices
are highest and consumer purchasing power the strongest. Often, these corporations find it more profitable
to sell products they themselves do not make, controlling only design and marketing, leaving the dirty
side of manufacturing to others with underdeveloped market power. This means if the US wants a trade
surplus under the current terms of trade, it must lower it wages. The decoupling of consumers from producers
weakens the conventional effects of market pressure on corporate social responsibility. Transnational
corporations have no home community loyalty. Consumers generally do not care about sweat shop conditions
overseas while overseas workers do not care about product safety on goods they produce but cannot afford
to buy. Products may be made in China, but they are not made by China, but by US transnational corporations
which are responsible for the quality and safety of their products.
Further, it is well recognized that corporations routinely and effectively manipulate consumer preference
and market acceptance often through if not false, at least misleading advertising, not for the benefit
of consumers, but to maximize return on faceless capital raised from global capital markets. The subliminal
emphasis by the corporate culture on addictive acquisition of material things, coupled with a structural
deprivation of adequate income to satisfy the manipulated desires, has made consumers less satisfied
than in previous times of less material abundance. Corporations have been allowed to imbed consumption-urging
messages into every aspect of modern life. The result is a disposable culture with packaged waste, an
obesity crisis for all age groups, skyrocketing consumer debt, the privatization of public utilities
that demand the same fee for basic services from rich and poor alike, causing a sharp disparity in affordability.
It is a phenomenon described by Karl Marx as "Fetishism of Commodities".
The relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labor is presented to them as a social
relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labor. This is the reason
why the products of labor become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time
perceptible and imperceptible by the senses … The existence of the things qua commodities,
and the value relation between the products of labor which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely
no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. It
is a definite social relation between men that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation
between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped
regions of the religious world. In that world, the productions of the human brain appear as independent
beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So
it is in the world of commodities with the products of men's hands. This I call the Fetishism which
attaches itself to the products of labor, as soon as they are produced as commodities, and which
is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities. This Fetishism of Commodities has its
origin … in the peculiar social character of the labor that produces them.
Marx asserts that "the mystical character of commodities does not originate in their use-value" (Section
1, p 71). Market value is derived from social relations, not from use-value which is a material phenomenon.
Thus Marx critiques the Marginal Utility Theory by pointing out that market value is affected by social
relationships. For example, the marginal utility of door locks is a function of the burglary rate in
a neighborhood which in turn is a function of the unemployment rate. Unregulated free markets are a
regime of uninhibited price gouging by monopolies and cartels.
Thus the nature of money cannot be adequately explained even in terms of the material-technical properties
of gold, but only in terms of the factors behind man's desire and need for gold. Similarly, it is not
possible to fully understand the price of capital from the technical nature of the means of production,
but only from the social institution of private ownership and the terms of exchange imposed by uneven
market power. Market capitalism is a social institution based on the fetishism of commodities.
While Reich is on target in warning about the danger to democracy posed by the corporate state, and
in claiming that only people can be citizens, and only citizens should participate in democratic decision
making, he misses the point that transnational corporations have transcended national boundaries. Yet
in each community that these transnational corporations operate, they have the congenital incentive,
the financial means and the legal mandate to manipulate the fetishism of commodities even in distant
lands.
Moreover, representative democracy as practiced in the US is increasingly manipulated by corporate
lobbying funded from high-profit-driven corporate financial resources derived from foreign sources controlled
by management. Corporate governance is notoriously abusive of minority shareholder rights on the part
of management. Notwithstanding Reich's rationalization of excessive CEO compensation, CEOs as a class
are the most vocal proponents of corporate statehood. Modern corporations are securely insulated from
any serious threats from consumer revolt. Inter-corporate competition presents only superficial and
trivial choices for consumers. Motorists have never been offered any real choice on gasoline by oil
companies or alternatives on the gasoline-guzzling internal combustion engine by car-makers.
Reich asserts in his Wall Street Journal piece that modern CEOs in finance capitalism nowadays deserve
their high pay because they have to be superstars, unlike their bureaucrat-like predecessors during
industrial capitalism. Notwithstanding that one would expect a former labor secretary to argue that
workers deserve higher pay, the challenge to corporate leadership in market capitalism has always been
and will always remain management's ruthless pursuit of market leadership power, a euphemism for monopoly,
by skirting the rule of law and regulations, framing legislative regimes through political lobbying,
pushing down wages and worker benefits, increasing productivity by downsizing in an expanding market
and manipulating consumer attitude through advertising. At the end of the day, the bottom line for corporate
profit is a factor of lowering wage and benefit levels.
Reich seems to have forgotten that the captains of industry of 19th century free-wheeling capitalism
were all superstars who evoked public admiration by manipulating the awed public into accepting the
Horatio Alger myth of success through hard work, honesty and fairness. The derogatory term "robber barons"
was first coined by protest pamphlets circulated by victimized Kansas farmers against ruthless railroad
tycoons during the Great Depression.
The manipulation of the public will by moneyed interests is the most problematic vulnerability of
US economic and political democracy. In an era when class warfare has taken on new sophistication, the
accusation of resorting to class warfare argument is widely used to silence legitimate socio-economic
protests. The US media is essentially owned by the moneyed interests. The
decline of unionism in the US has been largely the result of anti-labor propaganda campaigns funded
by corporations and government policies influenced by corporate lobbyists. The infiltration
of organized crime was exploited to fan public anti-union sentiments while widespread corporate white
collar crimes were dismissed as mere anomalies. (See
Capitalism's bad apples: It's the barrel that's rotten)
As promoted by his permissive opinion piece, a more apt title for Reich's new book would be Superman
Capitalism, in praise of the super-heroic qualities of successful corporate CEOs who deserve superstar
pay. This view goes beyond even fascist superman ideology. The compensation
of corporate CEOs in Nazi Germany never reached such obscene levels as those in US corporate land today.
Reich argues that CEOs deserve their super-high compensation, which has increased 600% in two decades,
because corporate profits have also risen 600% in the same period. The former secretary of labor did
not point out that wages rose only 30% in the same period. The profit/wage disparity is a growing cancer
in the US-dominated global economy, causing over-production resulting from stagnant demand caused by
inadequate wages. A true spokesman for labor would point out that enlightened modern management recognizes
that the performance of a corporation is the sum total of effective team work between management and
labor.
System analysis has long shown that collective effort on the part of the entire work force is indispensable
to success in any complex organism. Further, a healthy consumer market depends on a balance between
corporate earnings and worker earnings. Reich's point would be valid if US wages had risen by the same
multiple as CEO pay and corporate profit, but he apparently thought that it would be poor etiquette
to raise embarrassing issues as a guest writer in an innately anti-labor journal of Wall Street. Even
then, unless real growth also rose 600% in two decades, the rise in corporate earning may be just an
inflation bubble.
To be fair, Reich did address the income gap issue eight months earlier in another article, "An Introduction
to Economic Populism" in the Jan-Feb, 2007 issue of The American Prospect, a magazine that bills itself
as devoted to "liberal ideas". In that article, Reich relates a "philosophical" discussion he had with
fellow neo-liberal cabinet member Robert Rubin, then treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, on two "simple
questions".
The first question was: Suppose a proposed policy will increase the incomes of some people without
decreasing the incomes of any others. Of course Reich must know that it is a question of welfare economics
long ago answered by the "pareto optimum", which asserts that resources are optimally distributed when
an individual cannot move into a better position without putting someone else into a worse position.
In an unjust society, the pareto optimum will perpetuate injustice in the name of optimum resource allocation.
"Should it be implemented? Bob and I agreed it should," writes Reich. Not exactly an earth-shaking liberal
position. Rather, it is a classic neo-liberal posture.
And the second question: But suppose the people whose incomes will rise are already wealthier than
everyone else. Although no one will lose ground, inequality will widen. Should it still be implemented?
"I won't tell you where he and I came out on that second question," writes Reich without explaining
why. He allows that "we agreed that people who don't share in such gains feel relatively poorer. Widening
inequality also further tips the balance of political power in favor of the wealthy."
Of course, clear thinking would have left the second question mute because it would have invalidated
the first question, as the real income of those whose nominal income has not fallen has indeed fallen
relative to those whose nominal income has risen. In a macro monetary sense, it is not possible to raise
the nominal income of some without lowering the real income of others. All incomes must rise together
proportionally or inequality in after-inflation real income will increase.
But for the sake of argument, let's go along with Reich's parable on welfare economics and financial
equality. That conversation occurred a decade ago. Reich says in his January 2007 article that "inequality
is far more worrisome now", as if it had not been or that the policies he and his colleagues in the
Clinton administration, as evidenced by their answer to their own first question, did not cause the
now "more worrisome" inequality. "The incomes of the bottom 90% of Americans have increased about 2%
in real terms since then, while that of the top 1% has increased over 50%," Reich wrote in the matter
of fact tone of an innocent bystander.
It is surprising that a former labor secretary would err even on the record on worker income. The
US Internal Revenue Service reports that while incomes have been rising since 2002, the average income
in 2005 was $55,238, nearly 1% less than in 2000 after adjusting for inflation. Hourly wage costs (including
mandatory welfare contributions and benefits) grew more slowly than hourly productivity from 1993 to
late 1997, the years of Reich's tenure as labor secretary. Corporate profit rose until 1997 before declining,
meaning what should have gone to workers from productivity improvements went instead to corporate profits.
And corporate profit declined after 1997 because of the Asian financial crisis, which reduced offshore
income for all transnational companies, while domestic purchasing power remained weak because of sub-par
worker income growth.
The break in trends in wages occurred when the unemployment rate sank to 5%, below the 6% threshold
of NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) as job creation was robust from 1993 onwards.
The "reserve army of labor" in the war against inflation disappeared after the 1997 Asian crisis when
the Federal Reserve injected liquidity into the US banking system to launch the debt bubble. According
to NAIRU, when more than 94% of the labor force is employed, the war on wage-pushed inflation will be
on the defensive. Yet while US inflation was held down by low-price imports from low-wage economies,
US domestic wages fell behind productivity growth from 1993 onward. US wages could have risen without
inflationary effects but did not because of the threat of further outsourcing of US jobs overseas. This
caused corporate profit to rise at the expense of labor income during the low-inflation debt bubble
years.
Income inequality in the US today has reached extremes not seen since the 1920s, but the trend started
three decades earlier. More than $1 trillion a year in relative income is now being shifted annually
from roughly 90,000,000 middle and working class families to the wealthiest households and corporations
via corporate profits earned from low-wage workers overseas. This is why nearly 60% of Republicans polled
support more taxes on the rich.
The policies and practices responsible for today's widening income gap date back to the 1977-1981
period of the Carter administration which is justly known as the administration of deregulation. Carter's
deregulation was done in the name of populism but the results were largely anti-populist. Starting with
Carter, policies and practices by both corporations and government underwent a fundamental shift to
restructure the US economy with an overhaul of job markets. This was achieved through widespread de-unionization,
breakup of industry-wide collective bargaining which enabled management to exploit a new international
division of labor at the expense of domestic workers.
The frontal assault on worker collective bargaining power was accompanied by a realigning of the
progressive federal tax structure to cut taxes on the rich, a brutal neo-liberal global free-trade offensive
by transnational corporations and anti-labor government trade policies. The cost shifting of health
care and pension plans from corporations to workers was condoned by government policy. A wave of government-assisted
compression of wages and overtime pay narrowed the wage gap between the lowest and highest paid workers
(which will occur when lower-paid workers receive a relatively larger wage increase than the higher-paid
workers with all workers receiving lower pay increases than managers). There was a recurring diversion
of inflation-driven social security fund surpluses to the US fiscal budget to offset recurring inflation-adjusted
federal deficits. This was accompanied by wholesale anti-trust deregulation and privatization of public
sectors; and most egregious of all, financial market deregulation.
Carter deregulated the US oil industry four years after the 1973 oil crisis in the name of national
security. His Democratic challenger, Senator Ted Kennedy, advocated outright nationalization. The Carter
administration also deregulated the airlines, favoring profitable hub traffic at the expense of traffic
to smaller cities. Air fares fell but service fell further. Delays became routine, frequently tripling
door-to-door travel time. What consumers save in airfare, they pay dearly in time lost in delay and
in in-flight discomfort. The Carter administration also deregulated trucking,
which caused the Teamsters Union to support Ronald Reagan in exchange for a promise to delay trucking
deregulation.
Railroads were also deregulated by Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 which
eased regulations on rates, line abandonment, and mergers to allow the industry to compete with truck
and barge transportation that had caused a financial and physical deterioration of the national rail
network railroads. Four years later, Congress followed up with the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 which provided
the railroads with greater pricing freedom, streamlined merger timetables, expedited the line abandonment
process, and allowed confidential contracts with shippers. Although railroads, like other modes of transportation,
must purchase and maintain their own rolling stock and locomotives, they must also, unlike competing
modes, construct and maintain their own roadbed, tracks, terminals, and related facilities. Highway
construction and maintenance are paid for by gasoline taxes. In the regulated environment, recovering
these fixed costs hindered profitability for the rail industry.
After deregulation, the railroads sought to enhance their financial situation and improve their operational
efficiency with a mix of strategies to reduce cost and maximize profit, rather than providing needed
service to passengers around the nation. These strategies included network rationalization by shedding
unprofitable capacity, raising equipment and operational efficiencies by new work rules that reduced
safety margins and union power, using differential pricing to favor big shippers, and pursuing consolidation,
reducing the number of rail companies from 65 to 5 today. The consequence was a significant increase
of market power for the merged rail companies, decreasing transportation options for consumers and increasing
rates for remote, less dense areas.
In the agricultural sector, rail network rationalization has forced shippers to truck their bulk
commodity products greater distances to mainline elevators, resulting in greater pressure on and damage
to rural road systems. For inter-modal shippers, profit-based network rationalization has meant reduced
access - physically and economically - to Container on Flat Car (COFC) and Trailer on Flat Car (TOFC)
facilities and services. Rail deregulation, as is true with most transportation and communication deregulation,
produces sector sub-optimization with dubious benefits for the national economy by distorting distributional
balance, causing congestion and inefficient use of land, network and lines.
Carter's Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) approach to radio and television regulation began
in the mid-1970s as a search for relatively minor "regulatory underbrush" that could be cleared away
for more efficient and cost-effective administration of the important rules that would remain. Congress
largely went along with this updating trend, and initiated a few deregulatory moves of its own to make
regulation more effective and responsive to contemporary conditions.
The Reagan administration under Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Mark Fowler in 1981
shifted deregulation to a fundamental and ideologically-driven reappraisal of regulations away from
long-held principles central to national broadcasting policy appropriate for a democratic society. The
result was removal of many longstanding rules to permit an overall reduction in FCC oversight of station
ownership concentration and network operations. Congress grew increasingly wary of the pace of deregulation,
however, and began to slow the pace of FCC deregulation by the late 1980s.
Specific deregulatory moves included (a) extending television licenses to five years from three in
1981; (b) expanding the number of television stations any single entity could own from seven in 1981
to 12 in 1985, with further changes in 1995; (c) abolishing guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment
programming in 1985; (d) elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987; (e) dropping, in 1985, FCC license
guidelines for how much advertising could be carried; (f) leaving technical standards increasingly in
the hands of licensees rather than FCC mandates; and (g) deregulation of television's competition, especially
cable which went through several regulatory changes in the decade after 1983.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act eliminated the 40-station ownership cap on radio stations. Since
then, the radio industry has experienced unprecedented consolidation. In June 2003, the FCC voted to
overhaul limits on media ownership. Despite having held only one hearing on the complex issue of media
consolidation over a 20-month review period, the FCC, in a party-line vote, voted 3-2 to overhaul limits
on media concentration. The rule would (1) increase the aggregate television ownership cap to enable
one company to own stations reaching 45% of our nation's homes (from 35%), (2) lift the ban on newspaper-television
cross-ownership, and (3) allow a single company to own three television stations in large media markets
and two in medium ones. In the largest markets, the rule would allow a single company to own up to three
television stations, eight radio stations, the cable television system, cable television stations, and
a daily newspaper. A wide range of public-interest groups filed an appeal with the Third Circuit, which
stayed the effective date of the new rules.
According to a BIA Financial Network report released in July 2006, a total of 88 television stations
had been sold in the first six months of 2006, generating a transaction value of $15.7 billion. In 2005,
the same period saw the sale of just 21 stations at a value of $244 million, with total year transactions
of $2.86 billion.
Congress passed a law in 2004 that forbids any network to own a group of stations that reaches more
than 39% of the national television audience. That is lower than the 45% limit set in 2003, but more
than the original cap of 35% set in 1996 under the Clinton administration - leading public interest
groups to argue that the proposed limits lead to a stifling of local voices.
Newspaper-television cross-ownership remains a contentious issue. Currently prohibited, it refers
to the "common ownership of a full-service broadcast station and a daily newspaper when the broadcast
station's area of coverage (or "contour") encompasses the newspaper's city of publication".
Capping of local radio and television ownership is another issue. While the original rule prohibited
it, currently a company can own at least one television and one radio station in a market. In larger
markets, "a single entity may own additional radio stations depending on the number of other independently
owned media outlets in the market".
Most broadcasters and newspaper publishers are lobbying to ease or end restrictions on cross-ownership;
they say it has to be the future of the news business. It allows newsgathering costs to be spread across
platforms, and delivers multiple revenue streams in turn. Their argument is also tied to a rapidly changing
media consumption market, and to the diversity of opinions available to the consumer with the rise of
the Internet and other digital platforms.
The arguments against relaxing media ownership regulations are put forth by consumer unions and other
interest groups on the ground that consolidation in any form inevitably leads to a lack of diversity
of opinion. Cross-ownership limits the choices for consumers, inhibits localism and gives excessive
media power to one entity.
Professional and workers' guilds of the communication industry (the Screen Actors Guild and American
Federation of TV and Radio Artists among others) would like the FCC to keep in mind the independent
voice, and want a quarter of all prime-time programming to come from independent producers. The Children's
Media Policy Coalition suggested that the FCC limit local broadcasters to a single license per market,
so that there is enough original programming for children. Other interest groups like the National Association
of Black Owned Broadcasters are worried about what impact the rules might have on station ownership
by minorities.
Deregulatory proponents see station licensees not as "public trustees" of the public airwaves requiring
the provision of a wide variety of services to many different listening groups. Instead, broadcasting
has been increasingly seen as just another business operating in a commercial marketplace which did
not need its management decisions questioned by government overseers, even though they are granted permission
to use public airways. Opponents argue that deregulation violates a key mandate of the Communications
Act of 1934 which requires licensees to operate in the public interest. Deregulation allows broadcasters
to seek profits with little public service programming.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the first major overhaul of US telecommunications law in nearly
62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934, and leading to media consolidation. It was approved
by Congress on January 3, 1996 and signed into law on February 8, 1996 by President Clinton, a Democrat
whom some have labeled as the best president the Republicans ever had. The act claimed to foster competition,
but instead it continued the historic industry consolidation begun by Reagan, whose actions reduced
the number of major media companies from around 50 in 1983 to 10 in 1996 and 6 in 2005.
The Carter administration increased the power of the Federal Reserve through the Depository Institutions
and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) of 1980 which was a necessary first step in ending the New Deal restrictions
placed upon financial institutions, such as Regulation Q put in place by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933
and other restrictions on banks and financial institutions. The populist Regulation Q imposed limits
and ceilings on bank and savings-and-loan (S&L) interest rates to provide funds for low-risk home mortgages.
But with financial market deregulation, Regulation Q created incentives for US banks to do business
outside the reach of US law, launching finance globalization. London came to dominate this offshore
dollar business.
The populist Regulation Q, which regulated for several decades limits and ceilings on bank and S&L
interest to serve the home mortgage sector, was phased out completely in March 1986. Banks were allowed
to pay interest on checking account - the NOW accounts - to lure depositors back from the money markets.
The traditional interest-rate advantage of the S&Ls was removed, to provide a "level playing field",
forcing them to take the same risks as commercial banks to survive. Congress also lifted restrictions
on S&Ls' commercial lending, which promptly got the whole industry into trouble that would soon required
an unprecedented government bailout of depositors, with tax money. But the developers who made billions
from easy credit were allowed to keep their profits. State usury laws were unilaterally suspended by
an act of Congress in a flagrant intrusion on state rights. Carter, the
well-intentioned populist, left a legacy of anti-populist policies. To this day, Greenspan
continues to argue disingenuously that subprime mortgages helped the poor toward home ownership, instead
of generating obscene profit for the debt securitization industry.
During the Reagan administration, corporate lobbying and electoral strategies allowed the corporate
elite to wrest control of the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, from conservative populists. In
the late 1980s, supply-side economics was promoted to allow corporate interests to dominate US politics
at the expense of labor by arguing that the only way labor can prosper is to let capital achieve high
returns, notwithstanding the contradiction that high returns on capital must come from low wages.
New legislation and laws, executive orders, federal government rule-making, federal agency decisions,
and think-tank propaganda, etc, subsequently followed the new political landscape, assisting the implementation
of new corporate policies and practices emerging from corporate headquarters rather than from the shop
floor. Economists and analysts who challenged this voodoo theory were largely shut out of the media.
Workers by the million were persuaded to abandon their institutional collective defender to fend for
themselves individually in the name of freedom. It was a freedom to see their job security eroded and
wages and benefits fall with no recourse.
Note
1. Das Kapital, Volume One, Part I: Commodities and Money, Chapter One: Commodities, Section
I.
Next: PART 2: Global war on labor
Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group. His website is
at http://www.henryckliu.com.
Hudson is a Wall Street economist who used to work at the Chase Manhattan Bank.
In Part One, he describes the rise of the American empire.
Part Two describes its institutions: the US-controlled World Bank, the World Trade Organization
and the International Monetary Fund, which all benefit the USA. The US has the sole veto power
in all three.
Part Three describes what Herman Kahn called `the greatest rip-off ever achieved', the way
the US's ruling class levies us all to pay for its aggressive wars, just as the Roman Empire levied
tribute to pay for its constant wars. Similarly Britain, Germany and Japan all pay for the US's
military bases in their countries.
In 1945, as in 1918, Britain led Europe's capitulation to the USA's debt demands. The British
ruling class chose dependency on the US ruling class. The USA insisted that Britain ended the
sterling bloc, accepted IMF controls, did not impose exchange controls, and did not devalue. As
Hudson writes, "The Anglo-American Loan Agreement spelled the end
of Britain as a Great Power."
The 1945-51 Labour government's huge spending on unnecessary imperial, counter-revolutionary
wars robbed our industry of investment. This excessive military spending meant that we had constantly
to borrow from the IMF, increasing our dependence on the USA. Now Britain is the USA's Trojan
horse in Europe, against Britain's interests.
Hudson immodestly claims that his analysis supersedes Lenin. He says that the US national
government's interests, not the private interests of the capitalist class, drive the system.
He claims that the US government subordinates `the interests of its national bourgeoisie to the
autonomous interests of the national government'. But is the US government really independent
of the capitalist class? How `autonomous' are these interests?...
This review is from: Super Imperialism - New Edition: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S.
World Dominanc (Paperback)
Super-Imperialism is better viewed as a radical alternative to common undergraduate textbooks
such as Joan Edelman Spero's, "The Politics of International Economic Relations" than as an update
to the theories of Lenin or Hobson. (His background and prose style are similar to Spero's and
his book covers similar ground.)
It has three sections, each which could have been a separate book.
Chapters 1-6 are a history of U.S. international economic relations from World War I through
Bretton Woods.
Chapters 7-10 are a critique of the "The Institutions of the American Empire" (GATT, the
World Bank, the IMF and U.S. foreign aid mechanisms). If you have ever wondered what all of
the huge protests of the World Bank and IMF were all about these chapters are for you.
Chapters 11-15 are about the U.S. economic transition in the late 1960s and early 1970s
from running consistent balance of payments surpluses to running consistent deficits. (We used
to export more than we imported; Now we import more than we export.) At the same time the U.S.
stopped backing dollars with gold, which forced other countries to lend the surplus dollars
created by our trade deficit back to the U.S. government (i.e. to buy treasury notes), thereby
also subsidizing our chronic budget deficits. This is the "super-imperialism" of the book's
title. This situation was still new and strange when the first edition was published in 1972,
and the book's reputation rests on the light Hudson was able to shed on it.
The 2003 Edition has a new introduction and two new chapters at the end. The rest of the book
has occasional new material, but does not appear to have been extensively re-written.
It's a difficult and rewarding book. The difficulty lies partly in the subject matter itself,
partly in Hudson's convoluted prose and partly in the numerous typographical errors that mar the
2003 Pluto Press edition.
The book is rewarding because it's honest. Readers educated in the U.S. will initially regard
Hudson's account with some skepticism. We can't help it; We've been systematically miseducated
by pro-U.S. polemics presented in an "objective" tone.
In contrast Hudson is a strident critic of the U.S. management of the global economy. But so
is any reasonably objective person who is apprized of the facts. I much prefer an author who honestly
tells you the real story as he understands it to one who conceals the awful truth behind an ostensibly
impartial facade. But a "revisionist" has to work twice as hard to make his case, and that is
why the book contains the detailed explication of what reviewer Myers calls the "intricacies of
events and negotiations that gave rise to the present order."
I think an open-minded reader will be won over by Hudson's thoughtful use of contemporaneous
sources (e.g. government publications and articles in the business press) and also biographical
sources to illuminate how key decision makers understood the alternatives, and their motives for
pursuing the policies that they did when forging the post-war economic order. As he places these
choices in context it quickly becomes evident that the motives on the U.S. side have been consistently
aggressive and that U.S. policy makers have all along viewed multilateral economic institutions
as instruments of national policy--to the world's detriment.
Hudson also has a keen sense of the painfully narrow horizon of human foresight. The historical
sections sometimes read like a conspiracy theory in which the conspirators are not very smart.
E.g., Franklin Roosevelt's stubborn insistence that World War I debts be repaid prolonged the
Great Depression; When J. M. Keynes was negotiating Bretton Woods for the newly elected Labour
government, he got them a terrible deal; The U.S. transition to "super-imperialism" which is the
main story of the book (chapters 11 through 14) was originally an unintended consequence of the
huge budget and trade deficits caused by the Vietnam War.
If you are interested in "globalization" this book is an important piece of the puzzle, but
it really only covers up through 1973, and it spends more time on the relationship between the
U.S. and Europe than on "North-South" relations. Having said that, Ch. 8 "The Imperialism of U.S.
Foreign Aid" is very good, esp. how foreign aid benefits the U.S. balance of payments and the
harmful effects of U.S. agricultural exports. China is hardly mentioned.
If you are an economics student and you sense that they aren't telling you the whole story,
or just a thoughtful citizen who wants to sharpen your conceptual tools for understanding and
resisting the strategies of U.S. imperialism, this book is for you.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Hudson's historical argument in this book is both brilliant and sometimes a bit rough.
Hudson has always had a great talent for interpreting and sketching out for weaker minds like
us what the US government's abandonment of the gold-standard really
means. When Hudson came forward with his thesis in the mid 1970's, his thesis was
outrageous among orthodox economists: to suggest that the US should be worried about the long-term
consequences of running balance of payments deficits year after year, decade after decade was
crazy leftist nonsense in the 1970s. As long as people continue to need the US markets more than
the US needs any other one country's markets (and people still have faith in the good credit of
the US government) there is no reason US could not run balance of
payment deficits forever, according to the conventional wisdom.
What amazes me is that now, after having done exactly what Hudson warned the US government
not to do in the 1970s, many otherwise relatively orthodox economists are beginning to worry about
this. Hudson may be on the more "sky-is-falling" end of things, but
his analysis was right on the nail in 1972 and is still there today: worst case scenario - massive
recession and massive devaluation of the dollar (by massive I mean, unprecedented).
Former US Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin was quoted in March 16, 2006 WSJ as saying that
"The probabilities are extremely high that if we don't address these imbalances, then at some
point, and it could be years down the road, we'll pay a very big price." We are in a limbo world
where no one really knows how this problem is going to play out, but Hudson should be credited
for being one of the first, and longest-running, advocates for addressing this problem. Too bad
it has taken so many decades for people to recognize what he has been telling us all along about
balance of payments deficits.
The rest of the argument Hudson makes in this book is a bit tough to follow, though. Essentially,
Hudson attempts to show how the US has, during this century but especially since WWII, systematically
sought to manipulate all of the great economic institution-building opportunities following WWII
to advance the interests of the US over other countries. Coming off the gold standard and running
up a balance of payments deficit was just one of many ways in which this occurred. The US largely
succeeded. The GATT (now WTO), World Bank, IMF, all bear American "fingerprints".
I agree that the mega-institutions of the contemporary world economic and political machine
are largely the unilateral creation of the US, imposed on the other great nations at a time when
the other nations were particularly vulnerable to US force of will and not particular inclined
to be heterodox visionaries. I also agree that the US in general has probably used as much leverage
as it could in negotiating all of the defining institutions in which it had any hand in constructing.
And yet, how could it have been any different? National governments pursue their self-interest
and the interest of their citizens, often at the expense of other national governments and their
citizens. The nation-state system is set up to work that way. But is the problem really one of
US bad behavior, as Hudson suggests? Isn't the problem really structural? In the nation-state
world, wherein the world is divided up into pseudo-autonomous political monopolies, each individually
endowed with particular strengths and weaknesses, and all pitted against each other in a laissez-faire
system where the only things that keep nation-states from raping and killing each other to oblivion
are, good faith and the fact that the balance of power among the nation-states is enough to keep
each monopoly contained in its behavior towards the other monopolies, what sort of behavior could
we have expected from the US, a nation-state that, at a series of pivotal moments in 20th century
history, found itself with "golden opportunities" to take advantage of other nations' weaknesses
and advance its own power? Would the French, or the Brits, or the Japanese, or the Italians,
or the Germans, or the Russians have behaved any different if they found themselves holding all
the cards in 1945 instead of the US?
My point is, the facts Hudson lays out are correct -- there clearly
is a problem in the way in which our current world order has been put together and the US is at
the middle of that problem. The conclusions Hudson draws from those facts do not
go deep enough in understanding what those facts mean, however.
It isn't that the Americans behave or behaved "bad" by the standard of good behavior implicit
in the nation-state system, it is that the nation-state system itself
to a certain extent reflects 19th century laissez-faire values of autonomy and individuality that
pit nation-states against each other in a world where each is out to improve its lot through trade
and, when possible and tolerable, violence.
The system itself breaks down when one player becomes too powerful.
To blame the US for the systemic problem of massive power imbalances between nation states is
simply pushing any hope for correction in the wrong direction.
FT.com
/ Columnists / Samuel Brittan - The wrong kind of Third Way: When a book entitled Supercapitalism:
the Battle for Democracy in an Age of Big Business (Icon Books) landed on my desk I took it for just
another of the many anti-capitalist diatribes so beloved by publishers. Its author was Robert Reich,
a former US secretary of labour who parted company from the Clinton administration on the grounds
that it was not interventionist enough. But I was glad I persevered. For it turned out to be one
of the most interesting books on political economy to appear for a long time.
During the postwar
decades up to the early 1970s, the Bretton Woods system of semi-fixed exchange rates worked, after
a fashion; and countries seemed able to combine full employment with low inflation and historically
rapid growth and diminishing income differences. Reich calls them a "not quite golden age". It was
"not quite" because of the treatment of women and minorities and the prevailing conformist and authoritarian
atmosphere.
It has been succeeded by what Reich calls supercapitalism, in which the cult of the bottom line
has replaced the cosy oligopolies of postwar decades, once-dominant companies shrink or disappear,
new ones spring up overnight and the financial sector is (or was until recently) in the driving seat.
He rightly dismisses many of the popular scapegoats – or heroes – of the process.
The changeover began well before Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher could influence anything.
Free-market economists have been preaching essentially the same message since the 18th century. It
is extremely unlikely that there has been a radical change in the psychology or morality of business
operators. His own candidate is the technologies that have empowered consumers and investors to get
ever better deals.
Unfortunately, many of these same consumers have lost in their capacity as citizens. He cites
the failure of the political process even to attempt to correct the increasing skewness of US income
distribution. In later pronouncements he has attributed the subprime loan disaster in part to the
failure of supercapitalism to raise the incomes of the mass of wage earners who have been impelled
to resort to borrowing as a substitute. Moreover, Congress has performed abysmally in correcting
market failures in environmental and other areas. He has a non-partisan
explanation: the staggering increase in business lobbying expenditures affecting Democrats as well
as Republicans, as a result of which the political process, far from correcting the distortions of
unbridled capitalism, has made them worse.
But for me the novel point of the book is his utter dismissal of the
prevailing idea of appealing to the "social responsibility" of business to improve matters.
This is a notion that particularly appeals to soft centre politicians such as David Cameron's Conservatives
in Britain as a new kind of Third Way. Reich argues that it is the job of the democratic political
process by laws, taxes and other interventions to harmonise the pursuit of money-making with the
public good. "The job of the businessman is to make profits." He is completely unabashed by the charge
that he sounds like Milton Friedman and indeed quotes the late Chicago professor approvingly several
times. He argues that the so-called stakeholders who insist on being consulted before legislation
is drafted are increasingly companies whose interests might be affected. One result is the "corruption
of knowledge". We should beware of claims that a company is doing something for the public good.
Corporate executives may donate some of their shareholders' money to a genuinely good cause or forbear
from polluting the atmosphere to forestall a greater legal or fiscal burden. But in that case such
actions are likely to be limited and temporary, "extending only insofar as the conditions that made
such voluntary action pay off continue".
Similarly we should beware of a politician who blames a company for doing something that is legal.
Such words are all too often a cover "for taking no action to change the rules of the game". Above
all, "corporations are not people. They are legal fictions, nothing more than bundles of contractual
agreements ... A company cannot know right from wrong ... Only people know right from wrong and only
people act." One example of the "anthropomorphic fallacy" is when companies are held criminally liable
for the misdeeds of their executives. Not only are the genuinely guilty let off too lightly but many
innocent people get hurt. For instance, "the vast majority of Andersen employees had nothing to do
with Enron but lost their jobs nonetheless".
I have two reservations. One is that I cannot share Reich's confidence that a revived and effective
"democracy" would be a cure-all. You only have to see where democratic
pressures are driving US energy policy. Second, there is a danger that the Friedman-Reich
position could inadvertently give sustenance to the "I was only doing my job" defence for evil actions.
You do not have to hold shares in a company selling arms to Saudi Arabia, or work for it. But do
not deceive yourself that such individual gestures can be a substitute for a change in policy.
According to Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, there was a time
when capitalism and democracy where almost perfectly balanced. This was the period of 1945 to 1975,
which he calls the "Not Quite Golden Age." During this period there was a three-way social contract
among big business, big labor, and big government. Each made sure that they as well as the other
two received a fair share of the pie. Unions recieved their wages and benefits, business their profits,
and regulatory agencies had their power. It was also a time when the gap between the rich and the
poor was the narrowest in our history. It was not quite the golden age because women and minorities
were still second class citizens, but at least there was hope.
Fast forward to 2007, capitalism is thriving and democracy is sputtering. Why has capitlism become
supercapitalism and democracy become enfeebled? Reich explains that it was a combination of things:
deregulation, globe spanning computer networks, better transportation, etc. The changes were mainly
a result of technological breakthroughs; unlike many leftists, he is not conspiratorial thinker.
The winner of this great transformation was the consumer/investor and the loser was the citizen/wage
earner. The consumer has more choices than ever before and at reasonable prices. The investor has
unprecedented opportunities to make profits. The citzen, however, is not doing well. The average
citizen does not have much voice - other than voting - in the body politic. And on the wage earner
has been stagnating for many years. The most salient illustration of this trend is Walmart. Walmart
delivers the goods at low prices, but the trade-off is low wages for their employees. We justify
this dilemma, as Reich nicely puts it, because "The awkward truth is
that most of us are of two minds."
As a left-leaning author, Reich makes some startling pronouncements. One, stop treating corporations
as human beings. They are neither moral or immoral, they are merely "bundles of contracts." I couldn't
agree more. Stop expecting corporations to be socially responsible, see them for what they are: profit-seeking
organizations. Any socially responsible action is a ruse to bolster the bottom line anyway. Don't
even encourage them to be socially responsible because it will wrongly lead us to believe that they
are solving problems when they are not. Corporations play by the rules that they are given and it
is up to citizens and their elected representatives to change the rules.
This is no easy task in the age of supercapitalism. There are currently
38,000 registered lobbyists in Washington DC in a virtual arms race of spending with each other to
buy favors from our so-called representatives. The only way citizens can compete with
this is not by hiring more lobbyists but advocating through new media outlets such as the internet
and cable tv. This, according to Reich, is currently to most effective way to make government more
responsive.
The question that remains, after reading this book, is will consumers be willing to sacrifice
their low prices to achieve their goals as citizens. If the answer is yes, we can possibly rebalance
the equation between democracy and capitalism; if not, we are left to the not so tender mercies of
supercapitalism.
Robert Reich makes a compelling argument that supercapitalism has robbed democracy of much of
its power. Supercapitalism by the definition presented in the book is
simple--the consumer is king and prices ALWAYS go down. What Reich looks at is the
cost of low prices to companies, society, the individual and its impact on the workings of democracy.
So how is democracy compromised? Reich also points out that the rise
of different lobbying groups, the cost of politics and globalization as contributing to this process.
This isn't a surprise. It has just become more pronounced with time.
It's not due to some large conspiracy or any hidden political agenda as much as it is driven by
consumption. Ultimately Reich argues that it robs the common citizen of any control over democracy.
It's not surprising that this is a highly charged issue because the economics of what benefits society
(or "the common good" as Reich calls it)often gets tangled up in the web of politics.
Reich also points out that the cost of supercompetitiveness, constantly
falling prices is a loss to the economic and social health of America. Reich points
out that everyone wants to get the lowest price possible but he also suggests that we must balance
that with our desire to have decent wages and benefits. He also points out that the move towards
regulation was initiated by government and that corporations went along because it kept out competition
and guaranteed a top and bottom for prices allowing companies to get a profit without fear of cutting
prices so low that it would put them out of business.
I should point out that this is an oversimplification of Reich's points but it does capture some
of the concepts. He also makes some suggestions that would help keep the free market afloat without
undermining democracy and allowing consumers to still benefit from competitive pricing. Since this
is economics we are discussing politics is mixed in and might color whether or not you agree with
his points.
Reich's style is breezy for a book that looks at economics, democracy and the erosion of wages,
benefits. Reich comes across as fair balanced and thoughtful even as he sells his take on what is
undermining American society. Ultimately it's a worthwhile book to read simply because it opens up
dialogue on the social cost of constantly lowering prices and how it impacts those who live next
door to us
Every middle class American should read this book. Many observations about income disparities
have been written up lately but Reich pulls the important points together in a powerful and accessible
way.
Reich's main thesis is that the current transition the US economy is under is misunderstood. Many
of the policy elite (Geithner, Volcker) have repeated the familiar claim that Americans are living
beyond their means. Personally I don't discount that completely but Reich's insight goes much deeper
and rings truer:
"The problem was not that American spent beyond their means but that their means had not kept
up with what the larger economy could and should have been able to provide them."
"We cannot have a sustained recovery until we address it. ... Until this transformation is
made, our economy will continue to experience phantom recoveries and speculative bubbles, each
more distressing than the one before."
Anyone looking at the unemployment data since WWII has to wonder why the unemployment component
of the last three recessions is so prolonged. Instead of a sharp trend up, there are long slopes
of delayed returns to peak employment. (Google "calculated risk blog" and look at Dec. 2010 articles.)
I believe Reich has demonstrated the main culprit this. To be clear, he is not describing the detailed
mechanics of what triggered the Great Recession. (Nouriel Roubini has a good book that I would recommend
for more on the financial fraud, leverage and credit risks involved -
Crisis Economics:
A Crash Course in the Future of Finance. ) But Reich is taking a
long term view and exposes a dysfunctional trait of the US economy that no one can afford to ignore.
It is this weakness that will delay the current recovery and continue to create greater risks in
the future.
Reich draws the parallels between the Great Depression and the Great Recession, particularly the
imbalance of wealth concentrated in fewer hands and middle class workers with less income to convert
into consumer demand. One of the fascinating devices he found to do this was the writings of Marriner
Eccles (Fed chair between '34 to '48):
"As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies
a distribution of wealth - not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -
to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's
economic machinery. Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by
1929-1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served
them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers,
the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify
a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game
where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the
game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped."
Reich also shares a couple of powerful and disturbing graphs that show how the middle class has
been squeezed and also how since the late 70s, hourly wages have not only not kept up with the rise
in productivity but have remained essentially flat.
Another driving theme Reich presents is the "basic bargain" and he evokes Henry Ford, the man
that took mass production to new heights and paid his workers well:
"[Henry] Ford understood the basic economic bargain that lay at the heart of a modern, highly
productive economy. Workers are also consumers. Their earnings are continuously recycled to buy the
goods and services other workers produce. But if earnings are inadequate
and this basic bargain is broken, an economy produces more goods and services than its people are
capable of purchasing."
I was concerned early in the book that Reich would leave out some of the important complexities
of the topic but he covered related finances, politics and even consumer/voter psychology in a succinct
yet informative way. His summary of changes to the labor market in the last 30+ years was very good.
His ideas for correcting this were interesting if perhaps difficult to implement politically.
My take away however was that this is a strong indicator of how bad he thinks the situation really
is. Many Americans may be yearning to return to "normal". Reich is the first to thoroughly convince
me that it is not going to happen.
This is a very quick read of 144 pages and is well worth the time.
Finance is a form of warfare. Like military conquest, its aim is to gain control
of land, public infrastructure, and to impose tribute. This involves dictating laws to its subjects,
and concentrating social as well as economic planning in centralized hands. This is what now is
being done by financial means, without the cost to the aggressor of fielding an army. But the
economies under attacked may be devastated as deeply by financial stringency as by military attack
when it comes to demographic shrinkage, shortened life spans, emigration and capital flight.
This attack is being mounted not by nation states as such, but by a cosmopolitan financial
class. Finance always has been cosmopolitan more than nationalistic – and always has sought to
impose its priorities and lawmaking power over those of parliamentary democracies.
Like any monopoly or vested interest, the financial strategy seeks to block government power
to regulate or tax it. From the financial vantage point, the ideal function of government is to
enhance and protect finance capital and "the miracle of compound interest" that keeps fortunes
multiplying exponentially, faster than the economy can grow, until they eat into the economic
substance and do to the economy what predatory creditors and rentiers did to the Roman Empire.
Simon Johnson, former IMF Chief Economist, is coming out in May's 2009 edition of The Atlantic
with a fascinating, highly provocative
piece, on the collusion
between the US' "financial oligarchy" and the US government and how its persistence will contribute
to prolonging the economic crisis. Here is the summary (hat tip to
Global Conditions):
One thing you learn rather quickly when working at the International Monetary Fund is that
no one is ever very happy to see you (…)
The reason, of course, is that the IMF specializes in telling its clients what they don't want
to hear.(…)
No, the real concern of the fund's senior staff, and the biggest obstacle to recovery, is almost
invariably the politics of countries in crisis. (…)
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the
powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market
governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time,
genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders (…)
Many IMF programs "go off track" (a euphemism) precisely because the government can't stay
tough on erstwhile cronies, and the consequences are massive inflation or other disasters. A program
"goes back on track" once the government prevails or powerful oligarchs sort out among themselves
who will govern-and thus win or lose-under the IMF-supported plan. (…)
In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent
of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets (…).
(…) elite business interests-financiers, in the case of the U.S.-played a central role in creating
the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the
inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the
sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government
seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.
Top investment bankers and government officials like to lay the blame for the current crisis
on the lowering of U.S. interest rates after the dotcom bust or, even better-in a "buck stops
somewhere else" sort of way-on the flow of savings out of China. Some on the right like to complain
about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even about longer-standing efforts to promote broader homeownership.
And, of course, it is axiomatic to everyone that the regulators responsible for "safety and soundness"
were fast asleep at the wheel.
But these various policies-lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American
economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership-had something in common. Even though some are
traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial
sector. Policy changes that might have forestalled the crisis but would have limited the financial
sector's profits-such as Brooksley Born's now-famous attempts to regulate credit-default swaps
at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in 1998-were ignored or swept aside.
The financial industry has not always enjoyed such favored treatment. But for the past 25 years
or so, finance has boomed, becoming ever more powerful. The boom began with the Reagan years,
and it only gained strength with the deregulatory policies of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
(…) the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of cultural capital-a
belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good for the country. Over
the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street was good for the country.
(…)
One channel of influence was, of course, the flow of individuals between Wall Street and Washington.
Robert Rubin, once the co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, served in Washington as Treasury secretary
under Clinton, and later became chairman of Citigroup's executive committee. Henry Paulson, CEO
of Goldman Sachs during the long boom, became Treasury secretary under George W.Bush. John Snow,
Paulson's predecessor, left to become chairman of Cerberus Capital Management, a large private-equity
firm that also counts Dan Quayle among its executives. Alan Greenspan, after leaving the Federal
Reserve, became a consultant to Pimco, perhaps the biggest player in international bond markets.
A whole generation of policy makers has been mesmerized by Wall Street, always and utterly
convinced that whatever the banks said was true (…).
By now, the princes of the financial world have of course been stripped naked as leaders and
strategists-at least in the eyes of most Americans. But as the months have rolled by, financial
elites have continued to assume that their position as the economy's favored children is safe,
despite the wreckage they have caused (…)
Throughout the crisis, the government has taken extreme care not to upset the interests of
the financial institutions, or to question the basic outlines of the system that got us here.
In September 2008, Henry Paulson asked Congress for $700 billion to buy toxic assets from banks,
with no strings attached and no judicial review of his purchase decisions. Many observers suspected
that the purpose was to overpay for those assets and thereby take the problem off the banks' hands-indeed,
that is the only way that buying toxic assets would have helped anything. Perhaps because there
was no way to make such a blatant subsidy politically acceptable, that plan was shelved.
Instead, the money was used to recapitalize banks, buying shares in them on terms that were
grossly favorable to the banks themselves. As the crisis has deepened and financial institutions
have needed more help, the government has gotten more and more creative in figuring out ways to
provide banks with subsidies that are too complex for the general public to understand (…)
The challenges the United States faces are familiar territory to the people at the IMF. If
you hid the name of the country and just showed them the numbers, there is no doubt what old IMF
hands would say: nationalize troubled banks and break them up as necessary (…)
In some ways, of course, the government has already taken control of the banking system. It
has essentially guaranteed the liabilities of the biggest banks, and it is their only plausible
source of capital today.
Ideally, big banks should be sold in medium-size pieces, divided regionally or by type of business.
Where this proves impractical-since we'll want to sell the banks quickly-they could be sold whole,
but with the requirement of being broken up within a short time. Banks that remain in private
hands should also be subject to size limitations.
This may seem like a crude and arbitrary step, but it is the best way to limit the power of
individual institutions in a sector that is essential to the economy as a whole. Of course, some
people will complain about the "efficiency costs" of a more fragmented banking system, and these
costs are real. But so are the costs when a bank that is too big to fail-a financial weapon of
mass self-destruction-explodes. Anything that is too big to fail is too big to exist.
To ensure systematic bank breakup, and to prevent the eventual reemergence of dangerous behemoths,
we also need to overhaul our antitrust legislation (…)
Caps on executive compensation, while redolent of populism, might help restore the political
balance of power and deter the emergence of a new oligarchy. (…)
(…) Over time, though, the largest part may involve more transparency and competition, which
would bring financial-industry fees down. To those who say this would drive financial activities
to other countries, we can now safely say: fine".
The nature of financial oligarchy is such that the government's capacity to take control of an
entire financial system, and to clean, slice it up and re-privatize it impartially is almost non-existent.
Instead we have growing, potentially corrupt, collusion between financial elites and government officials
which is hall mark of corporatism in this more modern form on neoliberalism.
In 1998 Mark Curtis wrote The Great Deception: Anglo-American Power and World Order, a
work whose stated goal was to shed light on various myths of
Anglo-American
power in the
post-Cold War era.
Curtis attempts to demonstrate how the United Kingdom remained a key partner of the United
States' effort to enforce their hegemony in the world. He analyzes what he refers to as a
special relationship
between the two countries and concludes that quite serious consequences exist for both states.
Trade for Life: Making Trade Work for Poor People is a work published in 2001. It is a
strong critique of the function of international organizations, especially the
World Trade Organization
(WTO). Curtis analyzes the decisions taken by the WTO in developing states and concludes that these
decisions were seldom without bias against the poor countries; he claims that certain of these decisions,
notably certain structural adjustments, caused their intended benefactors more harm than good. Further,
Curtis regrets that some rules are lacking when their need is called for, noting the relative lack
of regulation checking the growth of power of multinational companies. A partner of Christian Aid
in Zimbabwe has said that "the manner in which the WTO functions, is like placing an adult against
a child in a boxing ring, like
Manchester United against
a local Zimbabwean team.
The WTO judges all countries on the same level, while they are not the same. The WTO must help
create a situation where countries are more equal." This is a quotation that Mark Curtis recycles
throughout his book.
Curtis concludes by saying that market forces can be used in a different, more egalitarian, manner
than the one currently employed by the WTO. He believes that it could benefit developing nations
if this goal was pursued.
His book was edited by ChristianAid while Mark Curtis was "Policy and Politics" Director and is
freely available.
In 2003 Mark Curtis published Web of Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World. This book
has been his most successful to date. It offers a new academic approach to the role of the
United Kingdom in the post
1945 world until the current the
War on Terrorism. It
further criticizes the foreign policy of
Tony Blair. Curtis, defending
the idea that Britain is a rogue
state, describes various relations the United Kingdom undertook with repressive regimes and how
he thinks these actions made the world less just.
Moreover, the book analyzes various recent actions of the
British Army in the world,
describing not only what he characterizes as the immorality of the
War in Iraq, but also of the
War in Afghanistan,
and the Kosovo War. Curtis
denounces equally strongly Britain's alliances with states he categorizes as repressive, such as
Israel,
Russia,
Turkey, and
Saudi Arabia. Additionally,
he details and criticizes the non-intervention of Britain in the
Rwandan Genocide.
Curtis draws most of his research from recently declassified documents by the British secret service.
He notably claims to demonstrate the role and complicity of the British in the massacre of millions
of Indonesians in 1965, the toppling of the governments of Iran and British Guyana, and what he describes
as repressive colonial policies in the former colonies of
Kenya,
Oman, and
Malaysia.
In 2004, Mark Curtis published Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses. This book
followed a similar line of thought begun in Web of Deceit. Unpeople is based on various
declassified documents from the British secret service.
Among the declassified secret service reports, Curtis asserts that the United Kingdom had given
aid to Saddam Hussein in
1963 in order that he rised to power in
Iraq; he further posits that the
Western Powers, notably the UK, performed various arms deals with the Iraqi government while the
Iraqi government was involved in the brutal aggression against the Kurdish community. Curtis asserts
that these documents further indict the British government in their role played in the
Vietnam War, the coup d'État
against Idi Amin in 1971, the
coup d'État against Salvador
Allende in Chile in 1973, and
coups in Indonesia and Guyana.
Mark Curtis estimates that approximately ten million deaths throughout the world since 1945 have
been caused by the United Kingdom's foreign policy.
But Johnson is relying on the idea that "America" is a unitary entity, so that the hollowing out
of industry hurts "America", not specific social groups within the country. In reality, US foreign
policymakers work to advance the interests not of "America", but of those same business elites that
have benefited from turning Asia into the world's sweatshop and undermining the unions that built
their strength on American industry. American economic imperialism is not a failed conspiracy
against the people of Asia, but an alliance between American elites and their Japanese, Korean, Indonesian,
and Chinese counterparts - against the potential power of the working majority in all those countries.
But it's more complex than that, too, since the US seeks to prevent the emergence of an independent
military challenge (especially China, but also Japan) to its Asia hegemony while seeking to expand
the power of American commercial interests in the region, even as it tries to keep Asian elites
happy enough with the status quo to prevent their rebellion against it.
In other words, the US system in Asia is more complicated than Johnson conveys, and defending
America's mythical "national interests" will never address its fundamental injustices.
While Johnson seems to have abundant sympathy for the people of Asia, his nationalist framework
prevents his from proposing the only real challenge to American hegemony: a popular anti-imperialist
movement that crosses the barriers of nation-states.
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last four or five centuries,
carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations.
Yet, it is seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political
leaders. When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so that empires
become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or "dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto
Rico, "commonwealths" too). Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In this book I want to
look at imperialism for what it really is.
Across the Entire Globe
By "imperialism" I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation
expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.The
earliest victims of Western European imperialism were other Europeans. Some 800 years ago, Ireland
became the first colony of what later became known as the British empire. A part of Ireland still
remains under British occupation. Other early Caucasian victims included the Eastern Europeans. The
people Charlemagne worked to death in his mines in the early part of the ninth century were Slavs.
So frequent and prolonged was the enslavement of Eastern Europeans that "Slav" became synonymous
with servitude. Indeed, the word "slave" derives from "Slav." Eastern Europe was an early source
of capital accumulation, having become wholly dependent upon Western manufactures by the seventeenth
century.
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European imperialism was the Nazi aggression during
World War II, which gave the German business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder
the resources and exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of concentration
camps.
The preponderant thrust of the European, North American, and Japanese imperial powers has been
directed against Africa, Asia, and Latin America. By the nineteenth century, they saw the Third World
as not only a source of raw materials and slaves but a market for manufactured goods. By the twentieth
century, the industrial nations were exporting not only goods but capital, in the form of machinery,
technology, investments, and loans. To say that we have entered the stage of capital export and investment
is not to imply that the plunder of natural resources has ceased. If anything, the despoliation has
accelerated.
Of the various notions about imperialism circulating today in the United States, the dominant
view is that it does not exist. Imperialism is not recognized as a legitimate concept, certainly
not in regard to the United States. One may speak of "Soviet imperialism" or "nineteenth-century
British imperialism" but not of U.S. imperialism. A graduate student in political science at most
universities in this country would not be granted the opportunity to research U.S. imperialism, on
the grounds that such an undertaking would not be scholarly. While many people throughout the world
charge the United States with being an imperialist power, in this country persons who talk of U.S.
imperialism are usually judged to be mouthing ideological blather.
The Dynamic of Capital Expansion
Imperialism is older than capitalism. The Persian, Macedonian, Roman, and Mongol empires all existed
centuries before the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. Emperors and conquistadors were interested mostly
in plunder and tribute, gold and glory. Capitalist imperialism differs from these earlier forms in
the way it systematically accumulates capital through the organized exploitation of labor and the
penetration of overseas markets. Capitalist imperialism invests in other countries, transforming
and dominating their economies, cultures, and political life, integrating their financial and productive
structures into an international system of capital accumulation.A central imperative of capitalism
is expansion. Investors will not put their money into business ventures unless they can extract more
than they invest. Increased earnings come only with a growth in the enterprise. The capitalist ceaselessly
searches for ways of making more money in order to make still more money. One must always invest
to realize profits, gathering as much strength as possible in the face of competing forces and unpredictable
markets.
Given its expansionist nature, capitalism has little inclination to stay home. Almost 150 years
ago, Marx and Engels described a bourgeoisie that "chases over the whole surface of the globe. It
must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere. . . . It creates a world
after its own image." The expansionists destroy whole societies. Self-sufficient peoples are forcibly
transformed into disfranchised wage workers. Indigenous communities and folk cultures are replaced
by mass-market, mass-media, consumer societies. Cooperative lands are supplanted by agribusiness
factory farms, villages by desolate shanty towns, autonomous regions by centralized autocracies.
Consider one of a thousand such instances. A few years ago the Los Angeles Times carried a special
report on the rainforests of Borneo in the South Pacific. By their own testimony, the people there
lived contented lives. They hunted, fished, and raised food in their jungle orchards and groves.
But their entire way of life was ruthlessly wiped out by a few giant companies that destroyed the
rainforest in order to harvest the hardwood for quick profits. Their lands were turned into ecological
disaster areas and they themselves were transformed into disfranchised shantytown dwellers, forced
to work for subsistence wages-when fortunate enough to find employment.
North American and European corporations have acquired control of more than three-fourths of the
known mineral resources of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. But the pursuit of natural resources
is not the only reason for capitalist overseas expansion. There is the additional need to cut production
costs and maximize profits by investing in countries with cheaper labor markets. U.S. corporate foreign
investment grew 84 percent from 1985 to 1990, the most dramatic increase being in cheap-labor countries
like South Korea, Taiwan, Spain, and Singapore.
Because of low wages, low taxes, nonexistent work benefits, weak labor unions, and nonexistent
occupational and environmental protections, U.S. corporate profit rates in the Third World are 50
percent greater than in developed countries. Citibank, one of the largest U.S. firms, earns about
75 percent of its profits from overseas operations. While profit margins at home sometimes have had
a sluggish growth, earnings abroad have continued to rise dramatically, fostering the development
of what has become known as the multinational or transnational corporation. Today some four hundred
transnational companies control about 80 percent of the capital assets of the global free market
and are extending their grasp into the ex-communist countries of Eastern Europe.
Transnationals have developed a global production line. General Motors has factories that produce
cars, trucks and a wide range of auto components in Canada, Brazil, Venezuela, Spain, Belgium, Yugoslavia,
Nigeria, Singapore, Philippines, South Africa, South Korea and a dozen other countries. Such "multiple
sourcing" enables GM to ride out strikes in one country by stepping up production in another, playing
workers of various nations against each other in order to discourage wage and benefit demands and
undermine labor union strategies.
Not Necessary, Just Compelling
Some writers question whether imperialism is a necessary condition for capitalism, pointing out
that most Western capital is invested in Western nations, not in the Third World. If corporations
lost all their Third World investments, they argue, many of them could still survive on their European
and North American markets. In response, one should note that capitalism might be able to survive
without imperialism-but it shows no inclination to do so. It manifests no desire to discard its enormously
profitable Third World enterprises. Imperialism may not be a necessary condition for investor survival
but it seems to be an inherent tendency and a natural outgrowth of advanced capitalism. Imperial
relations may not be the only way to pursue profits, but they are the most lucrative way.Whether
imperialism is necessary for capitalism is really not the question. Many things that are not absolutely
necessary are still highly desirable, therefore strongly preferred and vigorously pursued. Overseas
investors find the Third World's cheap labor, vital natural resources, and various other highly profitable
conditions to be compellingly attractive. Superprofits may not be necessary for capitalism's survival
but survival is not all that capitalists are interested in. Superprofits are strongly preferred to
more modest earnings. That there may be no necessity between capitalism and imperialism does not
mean there is no compelling linkage.
The same is true of other social dynamics. For instance, wealth does not necessarily have to lead
to luxurious living. A higher portion of an owning class's riches could be used for investment rather
personal consumption. The very wealthy could survive on more modest sums but that is not how most
of them prefer to live. Throughout history, wealthy classes generally have shown a preference for
getting the best of everything. After all, the whole purpose of getting rich off other people's labor
is to live well, avoiding all forms of thankless toil and drudgery, enjoying superior opportunities
for lavish life-styles, medical care, education, travel, recreation, security, leisure, and opportunities
for power and prestige. While none of these things are really "necessary," they are fervently clung
to by those who possess them-as witnessed by the violent measures endorsed by advantaged classes
whenever they feel the threat of an equalizing or leveling democratic force.
Myths of Underdevelopment
The impoverished lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America are known to us as the "Third World,"
to distinguish them from the "First World" of industrialized Europe and North America and the now
largely defunct "Second World" of communist states. Third World poverty, called "underdevelopment,"
is treated by most Western observers as an original historic condition. We are asked to believe that
it always existed, that poor countries are poor because their lands have always been infertile or
their people unproductive. In fact, the lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have long produced
great treasures of foods, minerals and other natural resources. That is why the Europeans went through
all the trouble to steal and plunder them. One does not go to poor places for self-enrichment. The
Third World is rich. Only its people are poor-and it is because of the pillage they have endured.
The process of expropriating the natural resources of the Third World began centuries ago and
continues to this day. First, the colonizers extracted gold, silver, furs, silks, and spices, then
flax, hemp, timber, molasses, sugar, rum, rubber, tobacco, calico, cocoa, coffee, cotton, copper,
coal, palm oil, tin, iron, ivory, ebony, and later on, oil, zinc, manganese, mercury, platinum, cobalt,
bauxite, aluminum, and uranium. Not to be overlooked is that most hellish of all expropriations:
the abduction of millions of human beings into slave labor.
Through the centuries of colonization, many self-serving imperialist theories have been spun.
I was taught in school that people in tropical lands are slothful and do not work as hard as we denizens
of the temperate zone. In fact, the inhabitants of warm climates have performed remarkably productive
feats, building magnificent civilizations well before Europe emerged from the Dark Ages. And today
they often work long, hard hours for meager sums. Yet the early stereotype of the "lazy native" is
still with us. In every capitalist society, the poor-both domestic and overseas-regularly are blamed
for their own condition.
We hear that Third World peoples are culturally retarded in their attitudes, customs, and technical
abilities. It is a convenient notion embraced by those who want to depict Western investments as
a rescue operation designed to help backward peoples help themselves. This myth of "cultural backwardness"
goes back to ancient times, when conquerors used it to justify enslaving indigenous peoples. It was
used by European colonizers over the last five centuries for the same purpose.
What cultural supremacy could by claimed by the Europeans of yore? From the fifteenth to nineteenth
centuries Europe was "ahead" in a variety of things, such as the number of hangings, murders, and
other violent crimes; instances of venereal disease, smallpox, typhoid, tuberculosis, plagues, and
other bodily afflictions; social inequality and poverty (both urban and rural); mistreatment of women
and children; and frequency of famines, slavery, prostitution, piracy, religious massacres, and inquisitional
torture. Those who claim the West has been the most advanced civilization should keep such "achievements"
in mind.
More seriously, we might note that Europe enjoyed a telling advantage in navigation and armaments.
Muskets and cannon, Gatling guns and gunboats, and today missiles, helicopter gunships, and fighter
bombers have been the deciding factors when West meets East and North meets South. Superior firepower,
not superior culture, has brought the Europeans and Euro-North Americans to positions of supremacy
that today are still maintained by force, though not by force alone.
It was said that colonized peoples were biologically backward and less evolved than their colonizers.
Their "savagery" and "lower" level of cultural evolution were emblematic of their inferior genetic
evolution. But were they culturally inferior? In many parts of what is now considered the Third World,
people developed impressive skills in architecture, horticulture, crafts, hunting, fishing, midwifery,
medicine, and other such things. Their social customs were often far more gracious and humane and
less autocratic and repressive than anything found in Europe at that time. Of course we must not
romanticize these indigenous societies, some of which had a number of cruel and unusual practices
of their own. But generally, their peoples enjoyed healthier, happier lives, with more leisure time,
than did most of Europe's inhabitants.
Other theories enjoy wide currency. We hear that Third World poverty is due to overpopulation,
too many people having too many children to feed. Actually, over the last several centuries, many
Third World lands have been less densely populated than certain parts of Europe. India has fewer
people per acre-but more poverty-than Holland, Wales, England, Japan, Italy, and a few other industrial
countries. Furthermore, it is the industrialized nations of the First World, not the poor ones of
the Third, that devour some 80 percent of the world's resources and pose the greatest threat to the
planet's ecology.
This is not to deny that overpopulation is a real problem for the planet's ecosphere. Limiting
population growth in all nations would help the global environment but it would not solve the problems
of the poor-because overpopulation in itself is not the cause of poverty but one of its effects.
The poor tend to have large families because children are a source of family labor and income and
a support during old age.
Frances Moore Lappe and Rachel Schurman found that of seventy Third World countries, there were
six-China, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Chile, Burma, and Cuba-and the state of Kerala in India that had
managed to lower their birth rates by one third. They enjoyed neither dramatic industrial expansion
nor high per capita incomes nor extensive family planning programs. The factors they had in common
were public education and health care, a reduction of economic inequality, improvements in women's
rights, food subsidies, and in some cases land reform. In other words, fertility rates were lowered
not by capitalist investments and economic growth as such but by socio-economic betterment, even
of a modest scale, accompanied by the emergence of women's rights.
Artificially Converted to Poverty
What is called "underdevelopment" is a set of social relations that has been forcefully imposed
on countries. With the advent of the Western colonizers, the peoples of the Third World were actually
set back in their development sometimes for centuries. British imperialism in India provides an instructive
example. In 1810, India was exporting more textiles to England than England was exporting to India.
By 1830, the trade flow was reversed. The British had put up prohibitive tariff barriers to shut
out Indian finished goods and were dumping their commodities in India, a practice backed by British
gunboats and military force. Within a matter of years, the great textile centers of Dacca and Madras
were turned into ghost towns. The Indians were sent back to the land to raise the cotton used in
British textile factories. In effect, India was reduced to being a cow milked by British financiers.
By 1850, India's debt had grown to 53 million pounds. From 1850 to 1900, its per capita income dropped
by almost two-thirds. The value of the raw materials and commodities the Indians were obliged to
send to Britain during most of the nineteenth century amounted yearly to more than the total income
of the sixty million Indian agricultural and industrial workers. The massive poverty we associate
with India was not that country's original historical condition. British imperialism did two things:
first, it ended India's development, then it forcibly underdeveloped that country.
Similar bleeding processes occurred throughout the Third World. The enormous wealth extracted
should remind us that there originally were few really poor nations. Countries like Brazil, Indonesia,
Chile, Bolivia, Zaire, Mexico, Malaysia, and the Philippines were and sometimes still are rich in
resources. Some lands have been so thoroughly plundered as to be desolate in all respects. However,
most of the Third World is not "underdeveloped" but overexploited. Western colonization and investments
have created a lower rather than a higher living standard.
Referring to what the English colonizers did to the Irish, Frederick Engels wrote in 1856: "How
often have the Irish started out to achieve something, and every time they have been crushed politically
and industrially. By consistent oppression they have been artificially converted into an utterly
impoverished nation." So with most of the Third World. The Mayan Indians in Guatemala had a more
nutritious and varied diet and better conditions of health in the early 16th century before the Europeans
arrived than they have today. They had more craftspeople, architects, artisans, and horticulturists
than today. What is called underdevelopment is not an original historical condition but a product
of imperialism's superexploitation. Underdevelopment is itself a development.
Imperialism has created what I have termed "maldevelopment": modern office buildings and luxury
hotels in the capital city instead of housing for the poor, cosmetic surgery clinics for the affluent
instead of hospitals for workers, cash export crops for agribusiness instead of food for local markets,
highways that go from the mines and latifundios to the refineries and ports instead of roads in the
back country for those who might hope to see a doctor or a teacher.
Wealth is transferred from Third World peoples to the economic elites of Europe and North America
(and more recently Japan) by direct plunder, by the expropriation of natural resources, the imposition
of ruinous taxes and land rents, the payment of poverty wages, and the forced importation of finished
goods at highly inflated prices. The colonized country is denied the freedom of trade and the opportunity
to develop its own natural resources, markets, and industrial capacity. Self-sustenance and self-employment
gives way to wage labor. From 1970 to 1980, the number of wage workers in the Third World grew from
72 million to 120 million, and the rate is accelerating.
Hundreds of millions of Third World peoples now live in destitution in remote villages and congested
urban slums, suffering hunger, disease, and illiteracy, often because the land they once tilled is
now controlled by agribusiness firms who use it for mining or for commercial export crops such as
coffee, sugar, and beef, instead of growing beans, rice, and corn for home consumption. A study of
twenty of the poorest countries, compiled from official statistics, found that the number of people
living in what is called "absolute poverty" or rockbottom destitution, the poorest of the poor, is
rising 70,000 a day and should reach 1.5 billion by the year 2000 (San Francisco Examiner, June 8,
1994).
Imperialism forces millions of children around the world to live nightmarish lives, their mental
and physical health severely damaged by endless exploitation. A documentary film on the Discovery
Channel (April 24, 1994) reported that in countries like Russia, Thailand, and the Philippines, large
numbers of minors are sold into prostitution to help their desperate families survive. In countries
like Mexico, India, Colombia, and Egypt, children are dragooned into health-shattering, dawn-to-dusk
labor on farms and in factories and mines for pennies an hour, with no opportunity for play, schooling,
or medical care.
In India, 55 million children are pressed into the work force. Tens of thousands labor in glass
factories in temperatures as high as 100 degrees. In one plant, four-year-olds toil from 5 o'clock
in the morning until the dead of night, inhaling fumes and contracting emphysema, tuberculosis, and
other respiratory diseases. In the Philippines and Malaysia corporations have lobbied to drop age
restrictions for labor recruitment. The pursuit of profit becomes a pursuit of evil.
Development Theory
When we say a country is "underdeveloped," we are implying that it is backward and retarded in
some way, that its people have shown little capacity to achieve and evolve. The negative connotations
of "underdeveloped" has caused the United Nations, the Wall Street Journal, and parties of various
political persuasion to refer to Third World countries as "developing" nations, a term somewhat less
insulting than "underdeveloped" but equally misleading. I prefer to use "Third World" because "developing"
seems to be just a euphemistic way of saying "underdeveloped but belatedly starting to do something
about it." It still implies that poverty was an original historic condition and not something imposed
by the imperialists. It also falsely suggests that these countries are developing when actually their
economic conditions are usually worsening.The dominant theory of the last half century, enunciated
repeatedly by writers like Barbara Ward and W. W. Rostow and afforded wide currency in the United
States and other parts of the Western world, maintains that it is up to the rich nations of the North
to help uplift the "backward" nations of the South, bringing them technology and teaching them proper
work habits. This is an updated version of "the White man's burden," a favorite imperialist fantasy.
According to the development scenario, with the introduction of Western investments, the backward
economic sectors of the poor nations will release their workers, who then will find more productive
employment in the modern sector at higher wages. As capital accumulates, business will reinvest its
profits, thus creating still more products, jobs, buying power, and markets. Eventually a more prosperous
economy evolves.
This "development theory" or "modernization theory," as it is sometimes called, bears little relation
to reality. What has emerged in the Third World is an intensely exploitive form of dependent capitalism.
Economic conditions have worsened drastically with the growth of transnational corporate investment.
The problem is not poor lands or unproductive populations but foreign exploitation and class inequality.
Investors go into a country not to uplift it but to enrich themselves.
People in these countries do not need to be taught how to farm. They need the land and the implements
to farm. They do not need to be taught how to fish. They need the boats and the nets and access to
shore frontage, bays, and oceans. They need industrial plants to cease dumping toxic effusions into
the waters. They do not need to be convinced that they should use hygienic standards. They do not
need a Peace Corps Volunteer to tell them to boil their water, especially when they cannot afford
fuel or have no access to firewood. They need the conditions that will allow them to have clean drinking
water and clean clothes and homes. They do not need advice about balanced diets from North Americans.
They usually know what foods best serve their nutritional requirements. They need to be given back
their land and labor so that they might work for themselves and grow food for their own consumption.
The legacy of imperial domination is not only misery and strife, but an economic structure dominated
by a network of international corporations which themselves are beholden to parent companies based
in North America, Europe and Japan. If there is any harmonization or integration, it occurs among
the global investor classes, not among the indigenous economies of these countries. Third World economies
remain fragmented and unintegrated both between each other and within themselves, both in the flow
of capital and goods and in technology and organization. In sum, what we have is a world economy
that has little to do with the economic needs of the world's people.
Neoimperialism: Skimming the Cream
Sometimes imperial domination is explained as arising from an innate desire for domination and
expansion, a "territorial imperative." In fact, territorial imperialism is no longer the prevailing
mode. Compared to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the European powers carved up
the world among themselves, today there is almost no colonial dominion left. Colonel Blimp is dead
and buried, replaced by men in business suits. Rather than being directly colonized by the imperial
power, the weaker countries have been granted the trappings of sovereignty-while Western finance
capital retains control of the lion's share of their profitable resources. This relationship has
gone under various names: "informal empire," "colonialism without colonies," "neocolonialism," and
"neoimperialism. "U.S. political and business leaders were among the earliest practitioners of this
new kind of empire, most notably in Cuba at the beginning of the twentieth century. Having forcibly
wrested the island from Spain in the war of 1898, they eventually gave Cuba its formal independence.
The Cubans now had their own government, constitution, flag, currency, and security force. But major
foreign policy decisions remained in U.S. hands as did the island's wealth, including its sugar,
tobacco, and tourist industries, and major imports and exports.
Historically U.S. capitalist interests have been less interested in acquiring more colonies than
in acquiring more wealth, preferring to make off with the treasure of other nations without bothering
to own and administer the nations themselves. Under neoimperialism, the flag stays home, while the
dollar goes everywhere - frequently assisted by the sword.
After World War II, European powers like Britain and France adopted a strategy of neoimperialism.
Left financially depleted by years of warfare, and facing intensified popular resistance from within
the Third World itself, they reluctantly decided that indirect economic hegemony was less costly
and politically more expedient than outright colonial rule. They discovered that the removal of a
conspicuously intrusive colonial rule made it more difficult for nationalist elements within the
previously colonized countries to mobilize anti-imperialist sentiments.
Though the newly established government might be far from completely independent, it usually enjoyed
more legitimacy in the eyes of its populace than a colonial administration controlled by the imperial
power. Furthermore, under neoimperialism the native government takes up the costs of administering
the country while the imperialist interests are free to concentrate on accumulating capital-which
is all they really want to do.
After years of colonialism, the Third World country finds it extremely difficult to extricate
itself from the unequal relationship with its former colonizer and impossible to depart from the
global capitalist sphere. Those countries that try to make a break are subjected to punishing economic
and military treatment by one or another major power, nowadays usually the United States.
The leaders of the new nations may voice revolutionary slogans, yet they find themselves locked
into the global capitalist orbit, cooperating perforce with the First World nations for investment,
trade, and aid. So we witnessed the curious phenomenon of leaders of newly independent Third World
nations denouncing imperialism as the source of their countries' ills, while dissidents in these
countries denounced these same leaders as collaborators of imperialism.
In many instances a comprador class emerged or was installed as a first condition for independence.
A comprador class is one that cooperates in turning its own country into a client state for foreign
interests. A client state is one that is open to investments on terms that are decidedly favorable
to the foreign investors. In a client state, corporate investors enjoy direct subsidies and land
grants, access to raw materials and cheap labor, light or nonexistent taxes, few effective labor
unions, no minimum wage or child labor or occupational safety laws, and no consumer or environmental
protections to speak of. The protective laws that do exist go largely unenforced.
In all, the Third World is something of a capitalist paradise, offering life as it was in Europe
and the United States during the nineteenth century, with a rate of profit vastly higher than what
might be earned today in a country with strong economic regulations. The comprador class is well
recompensed for its cooperation. Its leaders enjoy opportunities to line their pockets with the foreign
aid sent by the U.S. government. Stability is assured with the establishment of security forces,
armed and trained by the United States in the latest technologies of terror and repression. Still,
neoimperialism carries risks. The achievement of de jure independence eventually fosters expectations
of de facto independence. The forms of self rule incite a desire for the fruits of self rule. Sometimes
a national leader emerges who is a patriot and reformer rather than a comprador collaborator. Therefore,
the changeover from colonialism to neocolonialism is not without risks for the imperialists and represents
a net gain for popular forces in the world.
Chapter 1 of Against Empire by Michael Parenti
Michael Parenti is an internationally known award-winning author and lecturer.
He is one of the nation's leading progressive political analysts. His highly informative and entertaining
books and talks have reached a wide range of audiences in North America and abroad.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/
Neocons are lobbyists for MIC, the it is MIC that is the center of this this cult. People like Kriston, Kagan and Max Boot are
just well paid prostituttes on MIC, which includes intelligence agencies as a very important part -- the bridge to Wall Street so to
speak.
Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member or a child
molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us. ..."
Glenn Greenwald has just published a very important
article in The Intercept that I would have everyone in America read if I could. Titled "With New D.C. Policy Group,
Dems Continue to Rehabilitate and Unify With Bush-Era Neocons", Greenwald's excellent piece details the frustratingly under-reported
way that the leaders of the neoconservative death cult have been realigning with the Democratic party.
This pivot back to the party of neoconservatism's origin is one of the most significant political events of the new millennium,
but aside from a handful of sharp political analysts like Greenwald it's been going largely undiscussed. This is weird, and we need
to start talking about it. A lot. Their willful alignment with neoconservatism should be the very first thing anyone ever talks about
when discussing the Democratic party.
When you hear someone complaining that the Democratic party has no platform besides being anti-Trump, your response should be,
"Yeah it does. Their platform is the omnicidal death cult of neoconservatism."
It's absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls "the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed," neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies.
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan
member or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Check out leading neoconservative Bill Kristol's response to the aforementioned Intercept article:
... ... ...
Okay, leaving aside the fact that this bloodthirsty psychopath is saying neocons "won" a Cold War that neocons have deliberately
reignited by fanning the flames of the Russia hysteria and
pushing for more escalations , how insane is it that we live in a society where a public figure can just be like, "Yeah, I'm
a neocon, I advocate for using military aggression to maintain US hegemony and I think it's great," and have that be okay? These
people kill children. Neoconservatism means piles upon piles of child corpses. It means devoting the resources of a nation that won't
even provide its citizens with a real healthcare system to widespread warfare and all the death, destruction, chaos, terrorism, rape
and suffering that necessarily comes with war. The only way that you can possibly regard neoconservatism as just one more set of
political opinions is if you completely compartmentalize away from the reality of everything that it is.
This should not happen. The tensions with Russia that these monsters have worked so hard to escalate could blow up at any moment;
there are too many moving parts, too many things that could go wrong. The last Cold War brought our species
within a hair's
breadth of total annihilation due to our inability to foresee all possible complications which can arise from such a contest,
and these depraved death cultists are trying to drag us back into another one. Nothing is worth that. Nothing is worth risking the
life of every organism on earth, but they're risking it all for geopolitical influence.
... ... ...
I've had a very interesting last 24 hours. My
article about Senator John
McCain (which I titled "Please Just Fucking Die Already" because the title I really wanted to use seemed a bit crass) has received
an amount of attention that I'm not accustomed to, from
CNN to
USA Today to the
Washington Post . I watched Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar
talking about me on The View . They called me a "Bernie
Sanders person." It was a trip. Apparently some very low-level Republican with a few hundred Twitter followers went and retweeted
my article with an approving caption, and that sort of thing is worthy of coast-to-coast mainstream coverage in today's America.
This has of course brought in a deluge of angry comments, mostly from people whose social media pages are full of Russiagate
nonsense , showing
where McCain's current support base comes from. Some call him a war hero, some talk about him like he's a perfectly fine politician,
some defend him as just a normal person whose politics I happen to disagree with.
This is insane. This man has actively and enthusiastically pushed for every single act of military aggression that America has
engaged in, and some that
it hasn't , throughout his entire career. He makes Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton look like a dove. When you look
at John McCain, the very first thing you see should not be a former presidential candidate, a former POW or an Arizona Senator; the
first thing you see should be the piles of human corpses that he has helped to create. This is not a normal kind of person, and I
still do sincerely hope that he dies of natural causes before he can do any more harm.
Can we change this about ourselves, please? None of us should have to live in a world where pushing for more bombing campaigns
at every opportunity is an acceptable agenda for a public figure to have. Neoconservatism is a psychopathic death cult whose relentless
hyper-hawkishness is a greater threat to the survival of our species than anything else in the world right now. These people are
traitors to humanity, and their ideology needs to be purged from the face of the earth forever. I'm not advocating violence of any
kind here, but let's stop pretending that this is okay. Let's start calling these people the murderous psychopaths that they are
whenever they rear their evil heads and stop respecting and legitimizing them. There should be a massive, massive social stigma around
what these people do, so we need to create one. They should be marginalized, not leading us.
-- -- --
I'm a 100 percent reader-funded journalist so if you enjoyed this, please consider helping me out by sharing it around, liking
me on Facebook , following me on
Twitter , or throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon .
I do not think that Ukraine demand are all that bad if other conditions such as grating the region special status and the level
of autonomy similar to Crimea in the past are fulfilled. With Russian language restored in status as a regional language. Plus total
unconditional amnesty. All three are prerequisite for successful reintegration and in those condition t make sense: (1) the
LNR/DNR dissolve themselves, (2) that they have to leave the Ruble zone and switch back to the Grivna, (3) that the local military
forces have to be disbanded and, finally, (4) that Kiev wants the total control of the LDNR/Russian border. But also should be
a strict prohibition of any member of paramilitary battalions to enter the autonomous region under the penalty to prison
sentence for several years to prevent revenge killings.
The problems with Ukrainian economy are structural and the absence of economic detente with Russia alone can be undoing of
Zelensky government. Further accumulation of IMF credits is the only way forward. Add to this almost total breakdown of economic
ties with Russia because of EuroMaydan and subsequent Western Ukraine nationalist coup d'état, and you have Catch 22 situation for
him. Add to the pressure from the USA and the impression is the there is no way of this situation . BTW Poroshenko despite all
his rhetoric somehow managed to preserve his chocolate factory in Russia ;-)
...First, Trump, Macron and Merkel apparently told Zelenskii that he had to sign the so-called Steinmeier formula, which
basically spells out the sequence of confidence-building and de-escalation measures foreseen by the Minsk Agreements.
Now, you would be excused for thinking that this is a no-brainer. After all, the Minsk Agreements were ratified by the
UNSC (which makes them mandatory, no "if" or "buts" about this!) and it was Poroshenko who agreed to the Steinmeier
formula.
Heck, in 2016 he sure did not have a problem with it, but in 2019 he now calls the self-same formula a Russian
invention and that there is no such thing as a Steinmeier formula, see for yourself (in Ukrainian only):
Zelenskii's problem can be summed up in a simple sentence: the non-existing Nazis. Well, at least in the past all the
Neo-Nazis
cum
Jew-haters were constantly trying to convince us that there are no Nazis in the Ukraine;
apparently, my use of the term Ukronazi really set them off. Then came the election in which an absolute majority of
Ukrainians rejected Poroshenko's drive for war and voted for Zelenskii. If the Ukrainian people voted en masse to elect
an anti-war/pro-peace Jew, surely the Ukronazis were just a small minority of fringe individuals, right?
Wrong! Very very wrong!
And if those who were whitewashing the Ukrainian Nazis (obviously to obfuscate their real ideology and power) had
paid closer attention they would have seen signs of real Nazi power all over this election.
First, there was the remarkable change in tone in Zelenskii's rhetoric. Just like so many politicians (including
Trump!), he radically changed his tune and clearly tried to say one thing when speaking to the general Ukrainian public
and quite another when meeting with the Nazis or nationalist exiles in the USA.
You could say that there is a "Nazi deep state" in the Ukraine which, just like the other deep states out there,
can weather any elected president and quickly reassert its control over whomever the people elected.
You don't believe me when I say that he actually hosted the Ukronazis "fringe minority"? Fine, see for yourself:
In the photo above, Zelenskii is sitting with your typical gang of Ukronazi skinheads, including members of the infamous
Azov death-squad, and he is trying really hard to charm them while they, very publicly, have threatened him with a new
Maidan.
And this is not an isolated case or a fluke.
Zelenskii's prime minister went to a concert for an openly Nazi "Scream" music group called Sekira Peruna and thanked
the crowd of veterans of the "anti terrorist operation" (i.e. thugs from the Ukronazi deathsquads) for being there and
for saving the Ukraine. I did not find any English language translation of the typical lyrics of Sekira Peruna, but I
assure you that they contain all the obligatory nonsense which the Nazi ideology is built upon (see
here
for a
very good article with more details on this event and the Nazis involved).
Check out what their concert posters look like (shown here on the right) or, even better, check out the website of
this group:
http://sokyraperuna.com/
'Nuff said, I think.
So what is going on here?
Basically, exactly what I predicted as soon as Zelenskii was elected in my article "
Zelenskii's
dilemma
" in which I wrote: (emphasis added)
The Nazi-occupied Ukraine is not a democracy, but a plutocracy combined with an ochlocracy
.
The oligarchs are still there, as are the neo-Nazis mobs and death squads. And that creates an immense problem for
Zelenskii: this new Rada might well represent the views of a majority of the Ukrainian people, but
the real
power in the country is not concentrated in the Rada at all: it is in the streets
( ) The people of the
Ukraine desperately want peace. For the time being, the Rada reflects this overwhelmingly important fact. I say "for
the time being" because what will happen next is that the various forces and individuals who currently support
Zelenskii have done so just to gain power. They do not, however, have a common ideological platform or even a common
program. As soon as things go south (which they will inevitably do) many (most?) of these folks will turn against
Zelenskii and side with whoever can muster the biggest crowds and mete out the most violence. Now that he got
elected, Zelenskii quasi-instantly switched to the exact same rhetoric as what got Poroshenko so severely defeated.
Why? Because Zelenskiii is afraid that the neo-Nazi mobs and death squads will be unleashed against him at the very
first opportunity. In fact, the neo-Nazis have already begun promising a new Maidan. The truth is that
Zelenskii has to choose between acting on the will of the people and face the wrath of the neo-Nazis or do the will
of the neo-Nazis and face the wrath of the people
: tertium non datur! So far, Zelenskii has apparently
decided that talking is all he is going to do simply because his triumphant electoral victories have landed him in
the middle of an immense minefield, and
any steps he takes from now on could cost him very dearly
.
Right now, in the short term, the neo-Nazi mobs represent a much bigger danger to Zelenskii than the (disorganized,
demoralized and generally apathetic) people. But this will inevitably change as the economic and political situation
gets worse
.
We see exactly that scenario unfolding before our eyes. Zelenskii took not one, but three very real, if small, steps.
First, he ordered a pullback of some regular Ukrainian armed forces from a few important segments of the line of
contact, then he agreed to a relatively minor prisoner exchange and, finally, he ordered the Ukrainian delegation to
sign the Steinmeier formula. The prisoner exchange went okay for both sides. The Ukronazis soon categorically rejected
any withdrawal and they publicly promised to immediately re-occupy any village vacated by the regular army and they
rejected what they call the "Russian" or "Putin" formula. So far there were a few attempts to block the thugs of the
Azov battalion, but after a few minor clashes, the Azov people passed the police line. And now, the Nazi organized mass
protests in 300 Ukrainian cities. I could post lots of videos here, but that would take a lot of space. If you want to
get a feel for what took place today, go to YouTube and copy-paste the following search query "протесты в украине" into
the search bar, and then use the filter option and chose "this week": you will easily get many hours of video and you
don't even need to understand a word of Ukrainian to immediately get it.
There is another very important factor which you will almost never see on these videos or on any public statements
and that is that there are a number of civil and even criminal cases currently being brought to trial in the Ukraine
against a host of officials of the
ancient régime
including even against Poroshenko (11-14 separate
investigations just for him already!) These men (Poroshenko, Parubii, Turchinov, etc.) now have absolutely no choice but
to try to overthrow Zelenskii.
Just like the US Dems need a coup against Trump (in the form of an impeachment or something else) because the
Clinton-Biden gang now risks real, hard, jail time, so do the former Ukronazi leaders now need a coup against Zelenskii
or they go to jail.
Initially, it appeared that Trump had given Poroshenko some personal security guarantees, but everybody knows how
much the US President's security "guarantees" are worth (just ask the Kurds!). So Poroshenko did not flee the country.
It now appears that some of the people behind Zelenskii (aka Kolomoiskii) are out to get the "Poroshenko clan &
Associates" – Poroshenko has to either topple Zelenskii or run away abroad. There are also rumors that the US "deep
state" (as opposed to the Trump Administration) is now putting pressure on Zelenskii to stop these investigations. Thus,
the current battle between Trump and the Neocons and their "deep state" has now spilled over into the Ukraine and it
appears that various US interest groups are now creating local Ukrainian surrogates whom they will use in their struggle
against each other.
Furthermore, a real possibility opened up now that all sorts of previously buried issues will be investigated by
the Ukrainian prosecutors including:
An official and true investigation to find out who opened fired on the police and demonstrators during the
Euromaidan
MH-17
Ukronazi atrocities in the Donbass
Human rights violations in the Ukraine (where over 1000 political prisoners are still being held) starting with
innumerable cases of horrible torture of detainees (in secret torture camps,
à la
CIA, including an
especially infamous one in Mariupol).
Poroshenko's role in the "Crimea Bridge provocation"
All the many murders of journalists and opponents to the Nazis beginning with the murder of Oles Buzina
A quasi infinite list of war profiteering, corruption, fraud, etc. etc. etc.
Simply put: there is no way that the Ukronazis will just stand by and let those investigations proceed. And while
it is true that numerically the Ukronazis are a small minority in the Ukraine, there is plenty enough of them to terrify
Zelenskii and his handlers, especially considering that they are 1) well armed 2) many have frontline combat experience
and 3) that they are willing not only to engage in "regular" violence, but also to commit atrocities and engage in
terrorism (they did plenty of both in the Donbass).
Zelenskii does have a number of things going for him: first, the mandate of the people (though his popularity is
already down from 73% to 66% – which is still very big), his legal prerogatives as the President and Commander in Chief
and the support of Kolomoiskii's strong network of international connections, especially in Israel.
But that is all rather theoretical so far.
All Zelenskii has done, besides hosting the skinheads in his office, was to make a 14 hour long interview with a
group of reporters. Yes, fourteen hours. Alas, all he achieved was to show that he is a much better actor than
politician. In fact, most experts seem to agree that in his role as President Zelenskii is a total failure who speaks a
lot, says a lot of silly things when he does, and seems to be absolutely unable to take any real action.
At the time of writing (Wed 16th) the leader of the Ukronazis has given Zelenskii 10 days to yield to all the
demands of the opposition. If not, he has promised to trigger a new Maidan and bring millions of people to the streets.
Yup. The "tiny" "fringe" and otherwise "non-existing" Nazis have now given Zelenskii an ultimatum.
Zelenskii is in free fall: Trump, Macron and Merkel are demanding that he abide by the decisions of the UNSC, the
Minsk Agreements and the Steinmeier formula. The Russians have clearly indicated that unless tangible and real progress
is made in the implementation of this formula, there will be nothing else to discuss. The Ukraine is basically bankrupt
and desperately needs both Novorussian coal and Russian gas
. Furthermore, only a removal of the self-defeating
barriers and boycotts imposed by the former regime against any trade or even communications with Russia could begin to
kick-start the economy of what is now clearly a failed state.
Yet the Nazis will oppose any and all such measures, with violence if needed. As for Zelenskii, he appears to be in a
no win situation: no matter what he does next, things will only get worse. Thus the most likely outcome of all these
processes will be, in the short term, further futile attempts by Zelenskii to appease the Nazis (thereby alienating the
general population), in the middle term a violent confrontation, followed in the long term by (the probably inevitable)
break-up of the Ukraine into separately much more viable parts.
UPDATE
: I just heard that the Ukraine is now demanding that 1) the LNR/DNR dissolve themselves,
2) that they have to leave the Ruble zone and switch back to the Hrivna, 3) that the local military forces have to be
disbanded and, finally, 4) that Kiev wants the total control of the LDNR/Russian border.
Well, good luck with that, folks! I hope they are not holding their breath (they aren't – they are just trying to
find a pretext to renege on their legal and political obligations )
"... Just to remind you: the charge against Trump is that he tried to expose a massive rip off of the people of Ukraine, made practical thanks to the US replacing an elected President with a bunch of neo-nazis in uniforms, for political advantage. ..."
"... And that is to put aside the obvious point that nothing could be more advantageous to any Presidential candidate than to have to run against Joe Biden, supported by Hillary Clinton. ..."
"Will he be convicted in the Senate? Who cares so long as he slowly roasts in the court of
public opinion."
Do you not see how unlikely it is that a story which demonstrates the utter corruption,
personally, of Joe Biden and, institutionally, of the Obama regime will, as it unwinds, turn
the people against Trump?
Just to remind you: the charge against Trump is that he tried to expose a massive rip off
of the people of Ukraine, made practical thanks to the US replacing an elected President with
a bunch of neo-nazis in uniforms, for political advantage.
And that is to put aside the obvious point that nothing could be more advantageous to any
Presidential candidate than to have to run against Joe Biden, supported by Hillary
Clinton.
"... "Over 18 years, the United States has spent $4.9 trillion on wars, with only more intractable violence in the Middle East and beyond to show for it," she added. "That's nearly the $300 billion per year over the current system that is estimated to cover Medicare for All (though estimates vary)." ..."
"... cancellation of current plans to develop more nuclear weapons, saving $20 billion a total nuclear weapons ban, saving $43 billion ending military partnerships with private contractors, saving $364 billion production cuts for the F-35 -- a military plane with 900 performance deficiencies, according to the Government Accountability Office -- saving $17.7 billion a shift of $33 billion per year, currently used to provide medical care to veterans, servicemembers, and their families, to Medicare for All's annual budget. ..."
"... "The public rejects the predominant, fear-based framing and policies; instead, they want to see a revamped, demilitarized American foreign policy focused on international cooperation, human rights, and peacebuilding," wrote Data for Progress. ..."
Yves here. For those of you who have friends and colleagues who would go on tilt if you tried educating them about MMT, a simpler
approach to persuade them that Medicare for All is affordable is to sell them on another worthy goal, cutting the military-surveillance
state down to size.
Even then, I still encourage you to set them up for a later conversation about MMT: "Even if you accept the idea that taxes pay
for spending, which actually isn't true for the Federal government, we can still get the money for Medicare for All by ."
Note also that the Pentagon has various black budgets, an "official" one and covert ones.
By Julia Conley, staff writer for Common Dreams. Originally published at
Common Dreams
The Institute for Policy Studies on Thursday shared the results of extensive research into how the $750 billion U.S. military
budget could be significantly slashed, freeing up annual funding to cover the cost of Medicare for All -- calling into question the
notion that the program needs to create any tax burden whatsoever for working families.
Lindsay Koshgarian, director of the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), took aim in a
New York Times op-ed at a "chorus of scolds" from both sides of the aisle who say that raising middle class taxes is the
only way to pay for Medicare for All. The pervasive claim was a primary focus of Tuesday night's debate, while Medicare for All proponents
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) attempted to focus on the dire need for a universal healthcare program.
At the Democratic presidential primary debate on CNN Tuesday night, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was
criticized
by some opponents for saying that "costs will go down for hardworking, middle-class families" under Medicare for All, without using
the word "taxes." Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), on the other hand, clearly stated that taxes may go up for some middle class families
but pointed out that the increase would be more than offset by the fact that they'll no longer have to pay monthly premiums, deductibles,
and other medical costs.
"All these ambitious policies of course will come with a hefty price tag," wrote Koshgarian. "Proposals to fund Medicare for All
have focused on raising taxes. But what if we could imagine another way entirely?"
"Over 18 years, the United States has spent $4.9 trillion on wars, with only more intractable violence in the Middle East and
beyond to show for it," she added. "That's nearly the $300 billion per year over the current system that is estimated to cover Medicare
for All (though estimates vary)."
"While we can't un-spend that $4.9 trillion," Koshgarian continued, "imagine if we could make different choices for the next 20
years."
Koshgarian outlined a multitude of areas in which the U.S. government could shift more than $300 billion per year, currently used
for military spending, to pay for a government-run healthcare program. Closing just half of U.S. military bases, for example, would
immediately free up $90 billion.
"What are we doing with that base in Aruba, anyway?" Koshgarian asked.
Other areas where IPS identified savings include:
cancellation of current plans to develop more nuclear weapons, saving $20 billion a total nuclear weapons ban, saving $43 billion
ending military partnerships with private contractors, saving $364 billion production cuts for the F-35 -- a military plane with
900 performance deficiencies, according to the Government Accountability Office -- saving $17.7 billion a shift of $33 billion
per year, currently used to provide medical care to veterans, servicemembers, and their families, to Medicare for All's annual
budget.
"This item takes us well past our goal of saving $300 billion," Koshgarian wrote of the last item.
As Koshgarian published her op-ed in the Times , progressive think tank Data for Progress released
its own report showing that a majority
of Americans support a "progressive foreign policy" far less focused on decades-long on-the-ground wars, establishing military bases
around the world, drone strikes, and arms sales.
"The public rejects the predominant, fear-based framing and policies; instead, they want to see a revamped, demilitarized American
foreign policy focused on international cooperation, human rights, and peacebuilding," wrote Data for Progress.
"Voters want to see U.S. funding go to domestic needs such as healthcare, or to other national security tools like diplomacy,
instead of to the Pentagon and more endless war," according to the report.
Polling more than 1,000 ppl with YouGov, Data for Progress found that 73 percent of Democratic primary voters ranked numerous
issues -- including economic challenges and the climate -- as more important to them than national security and military funding.
Progressive national security proposals proved popular with respondents, including closing Guantanamo Bay, ending arms sales to
Saudi Arabia, and leveraging military aid to Israel to force it to adopt better human rights policies toward Palestinians.
"There is a clear appetite for progressive reforms to U.S. foreign policy," wrote Data for Progress.
In her op-ed, Koshgarian acknowledged that remaking the U.S. military as a truly "defense-based institution, rather than a war
machine and A.T.M. for private contractors, will require major changes."
But, she wrote, "that's no excuse for continuing to spend hundreds of billions in ways that make our world more dangerous and
deny us the ability to seriously invest in things like jobs, healthcare, education, and all that makes our lives better."
I would love to see it, but I strongly doubt this would happen in my lifetime. The Pentagon budget seems to be one of those
political "third rail" issues like Social Security.
Many people are so paranoid that I think it constitutes a mass hysteria; others are propagandized into 24×7 jingoism. I'm not
talking concepts here, I deal with pro-military people almost daily. Its the glorifying and fetishizing of the military that bothers
me.
Most if not all pro-military types are also deeply conservative; bring up *any* social program and they will wonder how to
pay for it.
I don't know, how many "third rail" type taboos has Trump danced on and become more popular because he did? I think the average
voter would be *extremely* receptive to a well-crafted message promoting the redirection of resources away from forever foreign
wars and bases to concrete material benefits for Americans. I don't even think it'd be a hard sell, once the pearls had been gathered
up.
What's so maddening about this question is the fact that we know that the military budget is probably much more than 750 billion
per year, but we can never know how much more, because the government is expressly allowed to hide and even fake spending totals.
What matters is whether the goods and services are there for them to buy with that money, and this is where real wealth lies.
Governments can create all the money they want, but if they create too much you will get inflation, or hyper-inflation if they
type in too many zero's when creating money.
Money has no intrinsic value; its value comes from what it can buy.
Banks create money from loans and that's easy too, just type the numbers in.
They can dash wildly into the latest fad, like the dot.com boom, and finance it with money they create out of nothing.
What could possibly go wrong?
Bankers do need to ensure the vast majority of that money gets paid back, and this is where they keep falling flat on their
faces.
Banking requires prudent lending, that is all there is to it.
If someone can't repay a loan, they need to repossess that asset and sell it to recoup that money. If they use bank loans to
inflate asset prices they get into a world of trouble when those asset prices collapse.
"It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime
loans, and dispersed throughout the world" All the Presidents Bankers, Nomi Prins.
When this little lot lost almost all its value overnight, the Western banking system became insolvent. Wall Street can turn
a normal asset price bubble into something that will take out the global economy using leverage.
Bankers create money out of nothing and the monetary system requires that nearly all that money they loaned out gets paid back.
Bank credit is a claim on future prosperity, and when you realise all that debt can't be paid back, a financial black hole
opens up, as it did in 2008.
When governments create too much money you tend to see it in consumer price inflation.
When banks create too much money you tend to see it in asset price inflation.
We see inflation in asset prices as good and consumer price inflation as bad.
The asset price boom will crash the economy, but no one realises while it's happening.
They believed in the markets and neoclassical economics in the 1920s and after 1929 they had to reassess everything. They had
placed their faith in the markets and this had proved to be a catastrophic mistake.
This is why they stopped using the markets to judge the performance of the economy and came up with the GDP measure instead.
In the 1930s, they pondered over where all that wealth had gone to in 1929 and realised inflating asset prices doesn't create
real wealth, they came up with the GDP measure to track real wealth creation in the economy.
The transfer of existing assets, like stocks and real estate, doesn't create real wealth and therefore does not add to GDP.
The real wealth creation in the economy is measured by GDP.
Inflated asset prices aren't real wealth, and this can disappear almost over-night, as it did in 1929 and 2008.
Real wealth creation involves real work, producing new goods and services in the economy.
Banking requires prudent lending, that is all there is to it. Sound of the Suburbs
100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors means we (the general public) wouldn't have to give a flip if banks lent
prudently or not since we would have an additional but risk-free payment system consisting of debit/checking accounts for all
who want one at the Central Bank (or Treasury) itself.
Moreover without government privileges and without captive depositors and unable to hold the economy hostage via a SINGLE payment
system that must work through them, you can rest assured that banks WOULD lend prudently or go under, like they should, if they
don't.
So what is required is 100% private banks with 100% voluntary depositors and that situation has NEVER before existed in history
so it cannot be said to have failed.
When governments create too much money you tend to see it in consumer price inflation. Sound of the Suburbs
Because the DEMAND for fiat is suppressed in that only depository institutions may use it in the private sector.
Fix that injustice and eliminate all other privileges for banks and then government should be able to create much MORE fiat
for the general welfare since banks would be much LESS able to create deposits for the private welfare of themselves and for the
so-called "worthy" of what is, currently, the public's credit but for private gain.
if they [governments] create too much you will get inflation
Is this true, or is it an economist's assumption? Here's the other thought:
Capitalism embraces borrowing for investment. Real estate development is an example. Borrowing involves an assumption of paying
back more than was borrowed, but at a future date. When that future date arrives, it is in the borrower's best interest if the
face value dollars are wroth less in spending power that the face value of the loan. You stated that, but the link to inflation
is fuzzy. Bank credit is a claim on future prosperity
Rather than the government's causality, and a nebulous prosperity, it may be the borrower's CFO who then decides to raise consumer
prices to keep up with expenses. The borrowed dollars came from a banker-created asset, but the inflation is tied to a direct
result similar to the so-called "wage-price spiral." In this case, the "interest-price spiral" that is not visibly tied to the
supply of money.
I've got a new disconnect. I understand and appreciate how MMT works. It is the only way, imo, for a sovereign country to pay
for the social costs of a good society. And, of course, the government does not charge itself interest, does not expect to be
"paid back" at all. The tradeoff for the government is the betterment of society. So if your neighbor loans you $500 and you tell
him you'll pay him back as soon as your check comes in and with some interest that seems fair bec. you're dealing with two private
budgets. But when a licensed bank loans you money for a new house under the terms that you pay it back over 30 years with interests
that amounts to triple the original cost of the house – then you are not dealing as one private person to another. You are then
dealing with usury. Made legal by the private financial industry. This private industry does not use its own money – it uses the
government's money by a computer click. And the government then lets it profiteer on this tiny transaction of apples and oranges
to the degree that over time the money "earned" by the private bank accumulates and topples the steady state of the economy. At
that point there's no place left to invest that "private" profit and the whole financial system goes haywire in a panic not to
"lose" money. Money that should never have been given to them in the first place. It's an oxymoron – demanding that money be paid
back with interest when it's not your money in the first place and you do nothing to stabilize your profligate profiteering. Nothing.
Just a thought.
Zimbabwe found it all too easy to create so much money they caused hyper-inflation.
Yes, after destroying their Ag Industry, and having no Ag products to export, because Mugabe and his party assumed all the
white farmers just sat around drinking beer while the dark farm workers did all the work.
After Mugabe took the land, there was no collateral for the farmers to get loans for the next planting season.
Who knew that managing the farm was so much work? /s
Inflation in Zimbabwe first came from shortages, especially food, as things looted rhe country of 4x and mismanaged the economy,
like farm price controls under cost of production.
Historically shortages cause high inflation.
"In her op-ed, Koshgarian acknowledged that remaking the U.S. military as a truly 'defense-based institution, rather than a
war machine and A.T.M. for private contractors, will require major changes.'"
Interesting. Beyond cost cutting, what exactly would it take to remake the military into a true defense-based institution ?
How would assets be deployed? What weapons systems would be prioritized and ultimately receive funding? What doctrines would need
to change to flip from an offensive mindset to a defensive mindset? What alliances would we maintain and what alliances would
we discard?
I see that the article offers some examples, but I think crafting a progressive foreign policy would entail answering these
kinds of more fundamental military questions. Cost cutting is a laudable goal but it strikes me that there's much more to it if
real transformation is desired.
As a civil servant working for the Department of Defense, I can tell you that this would be a difficult shift in priorities
for Congress to accept. It all comes down to the defense industry political donations they receive year after year, and the jobs
the defense industry provides their constituents (no matter how meager or sub-optimal). Since defense spending is basically this
nation's sole industrial policy, I think that finding employment for displaced workers (whether defense civil servants or contractors)
is the biggest hurdle to address; a green new deal would solve the problem. We'd also need political campaign reform to force
Congress off of the teet of defense industry political contributions.
Finding employment for displaced defense civil servants or contractors? We've done that before . . . we tell them to train
for the jobs of the future as we did for manufacturing workers and leave it at that. The same goes for the parasites working in
health insurance companies, pharmacy benefit management and healtcare administration when M4A becomes a reality.
I have no sympathy for those people nor care for their well being as they deliberately, and with malice aforethought, make
life meaner for us all.
I remember when the defense/aerospace industry collapsed in Southern California in the early 1970's as the Vietnam war was
winding down.
Tech jobs were scarce.
The political sphere is well aware of potential job loss due to defense cutbacks.
I have mentioned before, the relatively liberal CA Senator Barbara Boxer fought to preserve Mare Island Naval Shipyard, in
Vallejo, CA, when it was slated to be shut down in the 1990's.
One could suggest that Vallejo has not fully recovered.
It is a tragedy of immense proportions, as I believe a future historian will remark that the USA, a nation that in its 200
+ year history had only one large deadly war on its soil (the internal Civil War), re-titled its WWII "War Department" as "Defense
Department" and then consumed tremendous resources in its purported defense for the next 70+ years.
A recent discussion with someone, that I regard as a "Northern California Liberal", about Trump's pullout of Syria further
re-enforced that the resistance to ANY change in the MIC in the USA is formidable.
He was sure that Trump would be deservedly impeached because he was pulling out of Syria and abandoning our allies, the Kurds.
And he is old enough to remember Vietnam.
The USA news media and entertainment industries (big sports/Hollywood) are fully on board with the righteous USA "war is good"
meme.
Given how the USA economy has restructured much employment and lifelihoods in costly sectors (finance, education, medicine,
military) it is difficult for me to see how there would be political will to downsize the military to any extent as "good paying"
jobs of politically powerful people would be lost.
Many of the manufacturing jobs have been moved overseas.
There is some hope for policy redirection in the Administration's recent Turkey-Syria-Kurd action. If there really is a shift
away from foreign nation building and away from endless wars over endless enmities, then that could lead to redirection and reduction
of military budgets. Watching the defenders of those engagements fall all over themselves recently has reconfirmed my notion that
they are not acting in the best interests of their constituents. Meanwhile, the sun rose today.
The current defense spending and growth of national debt
more or less "prove" the validity of MMT. This has supported the channeling of resources and energy into military activity (and
profits for enterprizes). Something similar is happening with healthcare; maybe it's inelastic
demand. (The similar something is ever-increasing costs.)
Healthcare at the moment seems to be outside of
the scope of current uses of MMT. But there are major
cost-control issues with it nonethess.
In what direction will things head if healthcare is
swept under the government MMT umbrella in the form of medicare for all? Will the government negotiate prices
with providers (hospitals, staff, pharma)? Certainly military procurement is no leading light.
While cutting the bloated Pentagon's budget is a very good idea, why is no one talking about the fringe benefit that is employer
provided healthcare? I do believe a sizable fraction of folks on private insurance (maybe 40%?) get their health coverage through
a fringe benefit from their employer. If that coverage is no longer necessary under universal coverage, it seems contractually
that the money spent on the fringe benefit should go to the employees. That money is enough to pay for their insurance under universal
coverage, so the employer pays it to the employee, the government taxes part of that to pay for the universal healthcare and everyone
is better off. The employee, due to savings in the system, ends up with more money in pocket. The employer is out from under the
ever increasing costs of the fringe benefit (plus can now claim to be paying higher salaries), and, well, the insurance companies
are left behind to pick up "expanded coverage" for those wanting to pay for it.
This and "defense" spending cuts could pay for the whole system easily, no?
The relative value of small business based jobs would increase with a functional health care system. There would be an outflow
of employees from jobs with healthcare benefits.
With single payer, looking for a less stressful job becomes an alternative. Big employers know this.
It also means people may retire earlier if they don't need their employer-provided health insurance.
Health insurance becomes a minor consideration in selecting which employer to work for.
Companies and state/local governments that provide health care coverage in retirement should see their liabilities for that
plummet as healthcare costs drop and public insurance improves.
COULD employers give the surplus to employees?
Technically, yes.
WOULD employers give the surplus to employees?
Not in this age of activist stockholders seeking new sources of "revenue." Everywhere. Benefits are simply a "cost." Human Resources
is a "cost center." Defined benefits that averaged out the risk among many have segued to defined contribution that is no more
than a tax-abated savings account. Risk has monetary value, but risk invisibly is shifting more and more to the individual.
After the last Democratic debate, it is safe say anti-war Progressivism is dead. Everyone was frothing at the mouth to prove
how much they care for the Kurds, and our nation's honor, and that we should stay in the ME. Except Tulsi, but her response fell
flat with the audience, and judging by my Left friends/family on Facebook, fell flat with them too. Having the same position as
Trump is a death sentence. My faith in my fellow citizens is at quite a low ebb.
Cheer up. No matter what you used to think of Lindsay Graham, he is setting the pace for a representative to think for him/herself.
Commentators reported surprise that he was "formerly in Trump's corner." Think about how easily we accept that the future is secured
by a majority in either house. The outrageous president is inspiring elected Republicans to analyze issues (imagine!). Even if
it is cold and calculated to influence their own voters, let's begin to applaud and encourage those who seem to think for them/ourselves.
We don't suffer from a lack of ideas in this area; no, we lack the ability (political will) to accomplish it. Thus, another
exercise in mental masturbation.
we lack the ability (political will) to accomplish it. Carl
A Citizen's Dividend would be the camel's nose under the tent since the less wasted by government, the more that could be distributed
to citizens to counter price deflation.
And it's only justice that all fiat creation, beyond that created for government to spend for the general welfare, be in the
form of an equal Citizen's Dividend.
Funny you should mention Europe since an equal Citizen's Dividend for all Euro zone citizens would be a way to eliminate austerity
that even Germany might not object to since Germans would receive it too.
For example, Italy gives the unemployed 500 euros per month and tries to find them any sort of job. I think you're a little
behind. But by all means, keep tilting at windmills.
i was just thinking about that this am while finishing my fence like in alaska.
i figger that after 40+ years of declining or stagnant wages, a majority of us are owed some frelling back-pay.
but "dividend" works just as well.
a majority of us are owed some frelling back-pay. Amfortas the hippie
The Citizen's Dividend would vary as required to counter price deflation but during the period when the banks are progressively
de-privileged, it would have to be quite high to provide for the conversion of bank deposits to fiat deposits at the Central Bank
– with the banks, by necessity, having to borrow the needed fiat from citizens.
Its still the wrong set of arguments. The problem in the US is not that Medicare-for-All would require new taxes that need
funding. The problem is that the US spends twice per capita on healthcare what the average OECD country spends. The US spends
more public tax money on healthcare per capita than Canada does, and Canada insures the entire population.
We can pay for our entire military budget as it exists if we simply drop our per capita healthcare spending to less than what
Switzerland pays. Name one other thing that costs more in the US than in Switzerland.
Americans simply cannot comprehend how exorbitantly expensive and unequal the US healthcare system is compared to the rest
of the developed world.
While I gladly accept the results of these surveys, I question the reasons they seem to have garnered from the public. To most
citizens, lower taxes mean much more than non-aggresive foreign policy and peaceful diplomacy. If the question was phrased in
such a way that respondents were replying to the lower cost AND the concomitant peace-oriented habits that should (would?) come
from it, then it is an issue whether they agreed with both statements. Further, this reorientation of spending would have to be
bully-pulpited quite strongly to educate the US as to its long-term benefits since most of us have been prepped to be anxious
about foreign nations and the paranoia of saving us from the evil dictator "X". Oh, yes, peace should come, but compare the Syria
brou-ha-ha to what would descend upon us when peace broke out. The elites won't disappear.
Bizarre. The question is: How can we afford something that's half as expensive as what we're already paying? I wouldn't expect
that level of insanity from someone in a straitjacket yet it's a commonplace in these discussions.
Even worse: the argument that government is financially constrained. It's not "tax & spend," it can't be. Where would taxpayers
get dollars to pay those taxes if government didn't spend them first?
So it must be "spend first & then ask for some back in taxes." This is how reality works. And what do we call the dollar financial
assets left in the economy, not retrieved by taxes? a) The dollar financial assets of the citizens, i.e. their savings or (same
thing) b) National 'Debt'
National 'Debt' is completely unlike household debt. It's like bank debt. If you have a bank account, that's your asset, but
to the bank, it's a liability. It's the money they owe you. It's their debt.
Now imagine a mob of depositors marching down to the bank to demand it reduce the size of its debt (i.e. make their accounts
smaller) Crazy? Yes, but that's the austerian line of talk.
Finally, the inflationistas: "If you just print money, you'll have [gasp][hyper-]inflation!" This is the finest quality bullshit,
and people spout it practically without prompting. The truth: The Fed extended $16 – $29 trillion in credit to cure the frauds
of the financial sector in 2007-8. I defy anyone to find a measurement of inflation that says there was any then.
Was there central-bank-run-amok inflation in the classical cases (Weimar, Zimbabwe). Nope. Not even there. Yes they did print
lots of Deutchmarks and Zimbabwe currency, but only after a shortage of good occurred that actually caused the inflation.
Just printing money, especially if there's spare capacity, does not cause inflation. You need a bidding war for some commodity
that's become scarce (like oil in the '70s). So Weimar had the burden of war reparations, a balance of payments problem, and when
they delayed sending some telephone poles to France, the French military shut down the German equivalent of Ohio (the Ruhr). Shortages
led to the hyperinflation. Similarly, the Rhodesian colonists left Zimbabwe, which had previously fed itself, and food shortages
led to the hyperinflation.
The Cato study of 56 hyperinflationary episodes in human history also validates the above. In *no* case did a central bank
"run amok" and print too much to kick off the hyperinflation. Always the cost push of a shortage of goods drove it.
Gosh, it's all so simple. We just need to take on the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, and our
corrupt political system all at the same time.
Researchers Detail How Slashing the Social Security and Medicare Budgets Could Pay for More Pointless Wars While Creating the
Progressive Wall Street Bailouts Americans Want.
But its not just the US that is a war machine. Bourne's statement equally applies to _all_
states everywhere, past present and future.
If any state appears to not be making war on other countries at any particular time,
its only because it is too busy making war on its own citizens [ eg taxes, drug laws,
weapons/gun laws, religion laws, speech laws, environmental laws etc.etc. etc.], and has not
yet created enough fake money via its central bank to enable it to debt-fund consistent
overseas aggressions against others.
Wars by the US will never end because arms manufactures own Trump. Almost one half of the
US budget goes for the security of the state, domestic and abroad. New weapon development
would come to a halt if the US was not threatened. Fake news about China and Russia planning
to attack the US keeps the arms industry humming. Over a million national security workers
and their families would be devastated if Trump stopped fighting fake wars. God bless
imagined threat of wars.
This has strengthened the possibility of the revival of the Islamic State in Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL or ISIS). There are around 10,000 such ISIS fighters currently lodged in
prisons run by the SDF.
And with this, "the war on terror" is guaranteed to go on, and on, and on..
Just in case you hadn't heard the good news, the last man from the president's foreign
policy "team" still standing, Trump whisperer Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, recently left
National Security Advisor John Bolton in the dust.
June 27, 2018 Harvard Research Scholar Explains How America Created Al-Qaeda & The
ISIS Terror Group
It's truly amazing how much the consciousness of the planet has changed within the past 5
years alone, and it's not just happening within one topic, but in several different areas
ranging from health to geopolitics and everything in-between.
What Trump wants to do and what he can do are two very different things. The MIC/Zionist rot
in DC is way too deep and entrenched for any one man to tackle.
Trump could make all his Schiffty problems go away by bombing Iran. Overnight, the man
would be lauded as the president we need and that aging hack Pelosi would suddenly drop that
phony impeachment hearing.
Trump is finding out that when making foreign policy, the safest route to take is to first
ask, "Is this good for Israel?"
I have always contended that the best way to use Trump is to support his ego. Let's
inundate him with praise for withdrawing from the Kurdish/Turkish quagmire. Sure, he hasn't
vacated Syria yet, however, he has no choice but to vacate or be evacuated. His ego will
opt for the former
@DESERT
FOX Exactly, with thousands of ISIS,ISIL(American/Israeli proxy forces)types now being
freed due to Turkey's incursions into Syria, these "rebels" will be free to re-group and
fight another day. Hence the need for American forces to STAY deployed in the Area. This is
nothing more than a distraction move by Trump, which will result in the opposite "intended"
actions of American forces being withdrawn from Syria. This will also guarantee the "need"
for a strong Soviet presence in Syria.
America/Israel/Russia have always wanted the partitioning of Syria, the only point of
contention between America/Israel and Russia was whether Assad was to be forced from power or
would be allowed to remain President as a puppet of Putin and the Russians. Syria was to
never remain a sovereign nation.
The US still hasn't acknowledged the Armenian Massacre by the Turks. Why should it care
about Kurds. US is the nation that said killing 500,000 kids in Iraq was worth it.
Syria, Iraq, Libya are now less of a threat to Israel than ever before so that is a kind
of peace.
Not really. All are still standing and not under US control. Iraq now leans even more
toward Iran and Syria toward Russia ..and that outcome in these countries has made Israel's
goal of destroying Iran much harder and less likely .
The curtailment of the Kurds, Israel's long time friends and proxy , is another blow to
Israel's plot.
It appears to me that Putin's idea is to force everyone back into their own countries and
borders .he may have shared that plan with Trump and that may have resulted in turning Turkey
loose to do that job.
@WJ
Right. But as Giraldi always points out, Trump almost attacked Venezuela. He said mean
words and rattled sabres! As opposed to Obama, who said no mean words ('cause he upheld the
"dignity of the office") but sent the fighter jets into Libya and turned that country from a
stable, secular regime into a human trafficking warzone. And also got an ambassador killed.
Here are some of Giraldi's gems from April 2011:
Libya is a humanitarian mission
it [the invasion] has no clearly stated objective except to protect Libyan
civilians
it is now clear that the rebels do not have any military organization to speak of and
Gaddafi has the whip hand
Nice analysis there, Mr. CIA lifer and Obama lickspittle. I can only assume Giraldi was
part of the crack CIA team of Sovietologists who were utterly blindsided when the Soviet
Union broke up. It's amazing how much slack he's given around here for his anti-Israel stuff.
It's like Teflon for him.
@Priss
Factor Agree, and the ZUS has killed millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and
Syria, for their zionist masters, the only lives the ZUS cares about is zionists.
@NoseytheDuke
The only question you failed to address is what was the true motives of Putin's intervention
into the whole mess. A few good points:
As in Ukraine, Putin will stay in Syria until it no longer suits him. He has no
long-term strategic goals beyond creating chaos and weakening the alliances of the free
world wherever possible. This allows him to play the big man on the international stage, an
essential element of his domestic appeal. 24/7 propaganda and Soviet nostalgia have turned
Putin's invasion into a domestic hit in Russia. In contrast, Russians have no interest in
Syria or Assad, but who cares what they want? Unlike the leaders of Europe, the U.S., and
other democratic countries, Putin doesn't have to worry about how popular his foreign
adventures are at home. There are no checks and balances in the Russian government, no free
media to criticize him, and no popularity polls that matter more than ranks of well-armed
riot police.
Licks for Giraldi: Giraldi has been careless but not where he lists Trumps lies about ending
'silly' wars. from what Trump has actually done compared to what he says about ending
America's wars he is a liar of clear and complete proportions
"the military the only real source of pride the only thing Americans feel they excel at"
An insightful point. Politicians support the military and its deployments for economic
reasons, but the support of the public might derive from "what else is there?" Examples of
institutional and private-sector failure abound in the news over recent years, and every day.
The Boeing Max. The hotel collapse. 250,000 deaths per year from medical negligence. Power
shutoffs. Useless college. The dive boat. A relaxed performance standard. The demise of
meritocracy and rationality. During Katrina, every agency except the Coast Guard went into
gridlock. There are remaining islands of expertise, but the unraveling is contagious.
The dirty, filthy hand of the Jew is all over America's Mideast policy. Israel backs ISIS in
Syria with weapons. The Israeli-Occupied Government in Washington D.C. has even protected
ISIS in Syria at times. The Jew-owned media gives no credit to Iran and Russia for defeating
Jew and American-supported terrorists inside Syria. Now the Jew-owned government is aching
for war with Iran, which is not a threat to Gentile America.
The goal was to topple Assad. Remember Obama? Assad must go? Assad and the Assad regime
are still there. The losers are the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Replacing Assad was an Globalist goal, heavily pushed by Erdogan. We also remember the
failed presidency of Barak Hussein that never represented the citizens of the U.S. So it
would be more precise to say that:
-- George Soros, Erdogan, Obama, Wahhabism, and the Globalists are losing.
-- Putin, Trump, Assad, and Populism are winning.
The real test will be Putin getting all other foreign troops & proxies to leave. The
Globalist agenda is to keep the fight between Iran (Shia) and Turkey (Sunni) going, when they
both leave combatants in Syria. Hopefully, Putin will be able to fully rout the Globalists
and move out both Turkish and Iranian agitators.
@Johnny
Walker Read Maybe you don't know who the author of that article is .Garry Kasparov
Kasparov might be great at chess but in Russia he was big fail as a politician .couldn't
get any votes on his campaign to make Russia like America. He went into a self-imposed exile
in the West. claiming Putin ruined his political campaigning.
Now everything Putin does infuses all Kasparov's punditry
Kasparow's love for Bolton should clue you to what he is about.
Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) · Twitter
As I said about Bolton entering the Trump admin nearly 3 years ago, you may not agree with
his views as much as I generally do, but he puts US interests first, not Trump's. Can't say
same about Pompeo & the rest.
31 mins ago
The short story on Syria, Turkey, USAISRAEL, Russia –
Turkey-Syria offensive: Russia vows to prevent clashes with Assad forces
BBC
Takeaways
THEN .
"When the US decided to equip and train Syrian Kurds, as well as some Arabs, to fight IS,
they were aware of a potential problem, that their would-be Kurdish allies were regarded as
terrorists by their Nato ally, Turkey. Washington turned a blind eye to a problem that could
be kicked into the future. Now the future is here, and it has blown up."
NOW .
"On Sunday the Kurds announced a deal with the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
agreeing that its troops could advance into the zone that had not been controlled by Damascus
since 2012, right up to the border with Turkey. That is a big victory for the regime. The
troops moved quickly out of bases they maintained in the north-east. Assad loyalists dug out
regime flags.
It was a disastrous day for American Middle East policy. The alliance with the Kurds, and the
security guarantee safeguarding their self-governing slice of Syria, gave the Americans a
stake in the war's endgame. It was also a way of pushing against the backers of the Assad
regime: Russia and Iran. The departure of the Americans, and the advance of the Syrian army,
are victories for them too.
European governments, rattled in the way that happens when the problems of the Middle East
come knocking at their doors, are calling on Turkey to stop the offensive. Some Nato members
can see a nightmare scenario unfolding, with Syria, backed by Russian power, potentially
facing off against Turkey, a fellow Nato member. The Russians say they are in regular contact
with Turkey. But in a fluid, violent theatre of war. the chances for misperception, mistakes
and escalation are always present.
Perhaps what has happened in the last week simplifies the endgame of the Syrian war. Two
major players, the Americans and the Kurds, look to be out of the picture. And President
Assad, along with his allies from Russia and Iran, continue to solidify their victory in
Syria's catastrophic war."
WHAT IS BEING LEFT OUT OF THE CURRENT COMBING THRU THE ASHES OF THE SYRIAN WAR IS THE FACT
SAUDI STARTED THE WHOLE FUCKING SYRIAN WAR.
The discussion, if one might even call it that, regarding the apparent President Donald
Trump decision to withdraw at least some American soldiers from Syria has predictably
developed along partisan, ideologically fueled lines.
Not too sure where this partisan line is, Dr. G.
It looks like they're screeching from both sides of the isle.
Both powerful Republican Liz Cheney and Hillary called the pull out "sickening".
While Republican Senator Rand Paul applauds the decision, Tulsi Gabbard condemns it.
As for 'ideological', we all know that ideologically, the vast majority of all
congress-critters (99+%) from both sides of the isle, are motivated by the ideology of
doing "what's good for the Jew$"
NATO agreement stipulates that if an alliance member is threatened, other members must
support it in its defense. Turkey has not made that claim, but it is completely
plausible that it should do so .
Are you joking, Dr. G?
Hasn't Turkey been engaged in waging an aggressive war on Syria these last few years?
Wouldn't Turkey demanding military aid from NATO, (for a "threat" from the Kurds or
Syria), amount to the US demanding NATO aid for a "threat" from Iran?
IOW, it's Turkey that has been the murderous aggressor, and the Kurds and Syrians their
victims. Not to mention that Turkey's military could make mince-meat out of the Kurdish
"threat" in a New York minute.
So it seems to me that the only thing holding Turkey back, is orders from the ZUSA and
Russia. Russia is certainly a large part of this equation, IMHO.
did not understand the Turkish mindset regarding the Kurdish threat, which they regard
as existential.
'Existential'?
Would a limited autonomy Kurdish state on Turkey's southern border, perhaps incorporating
a small swath of Turkey, be the end of Turkey's existence?
When Nazi Germany invaded Poland, the world demanded that Germany sacrifice some of its
territory as recompense for its aggressive military imperialism.
If I were in a position to do so, I'd hand Syria a slice of Israel's and Saudi Arabia's
and Turkey's territory – as a punishment for their depraved attacks on an innocent and
unthreatening Syria.
Definitely the Hatay province, which arguably belongs to Syria anyways.
I'm sure Turkey would call that an existential! calamity, but I'd tell them 'karma's a
bitch'.
Finally, there is one other important issue that should be observed. Donald Trump's
actual record on ending useless wars is not consistent with his actions. He has sent more
soldiers to no good purpose in support of America's longest war in Afghanistan, has special
ops forces in numerous countries in Asia and Africa, has threatened regime change in
Venezuela, continues to support Saudi Arabia and Israel's bloody attacks on their neighbors
and has exited to from treaties and agreements with Russia and Iran that made armed
conflict less likely. And he has five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in
Iraq, a country that the United States basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity
and which is now experiencing a wave of rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds. Trump
is also assassinating more foreigners using drones based mostly on profile targeting than
all of his predecessors. These are not the actions of a president who seriously wants to
end wars
I remain you most loyal fan, Dr. G. But I confess this sounds to me like you think the
situation above started on the day of Trump's inauguration.
He inherited those things by the former ZUS regimes.
He has tried over and over again to disengage, only to be dragged back by the screeching
from the members of his own party. Not to mention the ((media)).
There are a lot of reasons to condemn the actions of Trump. The Golan Heights, for
instance. But it seem glaringly obvious to me at least, that Trump is not ideologically
committed to Eternal Wars.
As you put it, he threatened regime change in Venezuela.
He wanted to have talks with the Taliban, (and the whole deepstate and their ((media))
screeched)
He "continues to support Saudi Arabia" but as Pat Buchannan points out.. "The Saudis
got the message when the U.S., in response to a missile and drone strike from Iran or
Iranian-backed militias, which shut down half of Riyadh's oil production, did
nothing.
Said Washington, this is between Saudi Arabia and Iran."
And he has five thousand American soldiers sitting as hostages in Iraq, a country that
the United States basically destroyed as a cohesive political entity and which is now
experiencing a wave of rioting that has reportedly killed hundreds
You really do make it sound like all that is his fault.
I love your work Dr. G. And consider you one of the very best, most honorable and most
courageous writers out there.
But I confess, (like so many others!), it seems like to me that you have an irrational,
personal hatred for Donald Trump that colors your perspective.
IMHO.
I didn't have time to write this response well, have to go. Hope it's not too off
base..
@animalogicMore information on Trump & drone attacks would be useful & welcome.
There is a gigantic problem in America. It makes us dysfunctional. Certain news cannot get
to the American people.
Everyone in the know gets it – do not go to the NY Times with anti-Israel news. Do
NOT buck the AIPAC agenda – period. The darkest element of the ADL will be at your door
within minutes. The US government will soon follow.
It is obvious – when it comes to Jew matters, US government employees fear for their
jobs, if not their lives. Same for the MSM.
US President Donald Trump has lambasted American broadcaster ABC News for airing a video from
Knob Creek Gun Range in the town of West Point, Kentucky, claiming that the network used
footage from the facility to depict a Turkish attack on Kurdish civilians in northern Syria.
Trump called the mistake "a big scandal" and "a real disgrace".
"A big scandal at @ABC News. They got caught using really gruesome FAKE footage of the
Turks bombing in Syria. A real disgrace", the president wrote on Twitter early Tuesday
morning.
@renfro
The Crimean Peninsula was annexed by the Russian Federation in February–March 2014.
Despite all the protests about Crimea, the Donbass invasion using asymmetric tactics with
Putin out outright denying responsability, Ukraine is a vital interest for Putin, and he
would have been willing to confront America and Nato there because it is his home ground and
advantage. But Russia is powerful enough to; Putin only went into Syria after Obama decided
not to overthrow Assad. No one particularly cares about Syria and neither do they care about
the Kurds (despite them having as good a case as the Palestinians to be given a state) and
that is why jumped up Turkey can get away with invading Syria and attacking Kurds, just like
they INVADED Cyprus.
This whole thing is probably a a storm in a teacup, but if Turkey gets into trouble they
know, because they were already told very clearly over Cyprus, that if they play Lone Ranger,
Nato does not have their back. Doing something Israel is not happy about and Turkey
threatening to get their own nuclear weapons because Israel has them is not very good
diplomacy from Turkey's point of view. It is begining to experience delusions of its own
importance.
@renfroIt appears to me that Putin's idea is to force everyone back into their own countries and
borders .he may have shared that plan with Trump and that may have resulted in turning Turkey
loose to do that job.
Here is a very good video – Putin being interviewed. They asked him hard questions.
He came across as being very rational.
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
People! The internet is there for you to verify/debunk any statement you question. Running a
website is a lot of work, why don't you guys collect the information you demand from Mr. Unz,
and share with us?
Or are you looking at others to supply you with ready-made opinions?
@onebornfree
Thanks for the link about Mr.Bourne and you correct about his statement applying to ALL
states.
They are more like progressive, merciful and humanitarian slave owners.
Be free
I wonder why the "high IQ" westerners have never deemed it fit to study their undeniable mass
psychopathy.
If they were indeed as smart as claimed, they would begin to admit it, and given the claim
to their innate highly civilised humanitarian inclinations *cough* , they would come to the
conclusion that this world needs less of their cursed kind.
Since that is not going to happen, I guess nature has its way
@Rev.
Spooner The point he makes is extremely vague. No specificity. None. Yet 10's of
thousands are dead. Ok, how about some evidence.
Why don't you go back to kindergarten, Rev?
@SafeNow
The support of the public for the military derives from constant and pervasive propaganda
particularly through movies and TV shows , David Sirota calls it the "Military
Entertainment
Complex".
Zero Hedge : " Documents expose how Hollywood promotes war on behalf of the Pentagon , CIA
& NSA ".
@Johnny
Walker Read I was making a rhetorical point. I don't think the U.S. can decouple from the
Middle East.
I do, however, think that Trump wants value for blood and treasure.
Long-term, America simply lacks the financial strength to continue to project power. The
MIC costs the U.S. a tremendous amount of money. Budget to the MIC will continue to be
slashed over time. The Deep State in the U.S. will contract simply due to financial
realities.
Israel will be less and less of a priority.
The next financial crisis is already beginning. The U.S. has a massive debt ratio relative to
the Money Supply. It is now 5:1. Good luck with that. It will be needed.
@Whitewolf
Yes, lack of talent and totall inane radical left wing proposals whiped up by the AOC wing
and swallowed by all the candidates 'hook, line and stinker '.
@OscarWildeLoveChild
After JFK's assassination, every successive president is/was shown a film clip of JFK's head
exploding from an angle nobody's ever seen.
It doesn't matter what party they're from; they'll tow TPTB's line. All of them.
US Foreign Policy = Occupied Palestine Foreign Policy.
That's all that's wrong with US foreign policies in a nutshell.
@Bragadocious
Whether he or his father served is irrelevant. Carter was in the Naval Academy, Reagan and
Bush 43 were in the reserves. Clinton had none and neither did Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge,
Harding, or Wilson.
What is telling, is the "alleged bone spurs", and "Trump's surname was changed from the
original German Drumpf".
An allegation is an unproven accusation. What Giraldi is stating, is that Trump's physician
falsified records. You think old man Trump sent Donnie for a megadollar military academy
education so he could avoid the military?
As for Drumpf, I was acquainted with a couple of Schmidts who became Smith, a Bryjolfson who
became Byron, a Pachkowski who became Berry and, no one says Roosevelt's name was changed
from Rosenfeld. The snide commentary doesn't help.
I have said all along, that there is a lot not to like about Trump, but let's keep it in the
realm of reality. Whether he wants to end the stupid wars or not, he will never be allowed
to, as long as Giraldi's old employer is in business and making up non-existent bullshit
"threats to American interests", whatever they are.
@Sean
"Doing something Israel is not happy about and Turkey threatening to get their own nuclear
weapons because Israel has them is not very good diplomacy from Turkey's point of view"
Israel is known to puff and bluff . It is grandiose polemic or rabid canine barking. It
was not exposed by the west . But the west now knows it ,thanks to Hizbullah
@anon
Getting women to work had nothing to do with their 'liberation.'
Even though my mom had her own [private] school, my dad's salary was enough to provide for
all 5 of us, go on annual holidays abroad and put three kids through college, loan-free.
To TPTB, it's better to tax 2 people instead of 1.
To them it's just a number game, like the 'Torches of Freedom' gambit, all spiel, smoke
and mirrors, to fool us gullible idiots into believing we do have a say
We should really start to use our guns and rifles to free the country and rid it of the
rot that's smothering it.
Oh, look, another Cartra$$hian selfie butt shot on Instagram!!!!!!
It's very old habit.Very much ingrained . It is also generational . Increasingly and suddenly
religious also as the feckless toothless Evangelicals are rooting for 1 second fame .
But here is a short chronology–
1 Plans for mayhem in Syria have been on the imperial table since the 1950s (Operation
Straggle).
2 US general Wesley Clark gave the game away years ago when he revealed US intentions in
the Middle East after 9/11: seven countries were to be invaded
3 Seymour Hersh gave the game away too in his 2007 New Yorker article: "The Redirection".
In this piece he revealed how the US were hooking up once again with the Saudi/Sunni
fundamentalists in and around Syria.
4 France's ex-foreign minister Roland Dumas also gave the game away when he revealed that the
British State (a definite CIA asset) was preparing for a war on Syria two years before the
start of the Syrian Holocaust in 2011.
"This operation [in Syria]," said the former French foreign minister Roland Dumas in June,
"goes way back. It was prepared, pre-conceived and planned."
As we recently learned from former French Foreign Minister Dumas, it was also about that
time, that actors in the United Kingdom began planning the subversion of Syria with the help
of "rebels"' (Christof Lehmann, Interview with Route Magazine)
Between 2006 to 2010, the US spent 12 million dollars in order to support and instigate
demonstrations and propaganda against the Syrian government. 6,3 million dollars was funneled
to the Movement for Justice and Development, a Syrian dissident organization based in London.
The Movement operated the Barada satellite channel
@Johnny
Walker Read Quote: "America/Israel/Russia have always wanted the partitioning of Syria "
Reply: Kindly allow me to correct your statement.
"America/Israel have always wanted the partitioning of Syria "
Russia has a wet entrance into the Med via Syria.
Perhaps you've dozed off a bit over the past few years, but Russia has been destroying and
killing the FUKZUIS 'war' machine goons in Syria [aka the takfiri terrorist].
They're assisting in getting the country back [on its feet] as a whole again.
@anon
I'll keep it short. You can find the beginnings back in the 2012 coverage.
In 2012 Saudi sent Saudi Prince Bandar to Syria to be in charge of helping Syrian rebels
bring down Assad, an ally of Riyadh's biggest regional rival Iran.
They were originally created, set up and armed and financed by Saudi.
The Saudis were then joined by Israel and Qatari and finally by the US under Obama.
A new twist appeared in the Saudi rebels war with Assad when ISI appeared and joined the
fight.
This scared Saudi shitless as they thought this ISI version of ALQ might be a threat to them
and lead to an invasion of Saudi as ALQ always saw it as a' westernerized' Saudi.
Everyone doubled down on both fighting Assad and fighting ISI ..which was a FUBAR if there
ever was one.
Then enter the proxies, the Kurds, the PPK terrorist group all fighting for their own
agendas within and under cover of the original war on Assad.
What could possibility go wrong in all this? LOL
Then enter Russia. Which gave some pause to the US in how far they wanted to go to throw
Assad out for Saudi and Israel and open a gateway to get Iran.
So now we are headed to the ending of the Saud and others Syrian adventure which is probably
best expressed by the fable of the fox and his shadow.
"A fox arose in the morning and saw his large shadow cast in the morning sun and said " I
will have a camel for lunch today'. The fox hunted all day for the camel without success. As
he paused in the afternoon setting sun he saw his shadow was much smaller and said "A mouse
will do after all."
In 1992, Alexandra Zapruder began to collect diaries written by children during
the Holocaust. These diaries speak eloquently of both hope and despair.
[Alexandra said:] "Anne Frank's diary was the first diary that was published. And her
voice was so powerful that it captured the voices of all the children and all the people
who had been killed. That's the way it's framed. And that by reading her diary and sort of
taking her into our hearts, we could redeem her life. . . ." [US Holocaust Memorial Museum
https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/antisemitism-podcast/alexandra-zapruder
]
Alexandra Zapruder is the author of Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the
Zapruder Film.
Her grandfather was Abraham Zapruder, who took a twenty-six second home movie of President
John F. Kennedy's assassination[1] -- now known as the Zapruder film.( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Zapruder
]
From a strategic point of view it is very noteworthy to observe that Kurdish troops are
fully positioned east of the Euphrates River. The Kurds are allies of Israel and a vital
proxy implemented to fracture Syria along the lines envisioned for Greater Israel (Oded Yinon
Plan).
It is perceived that Russia is an ally of Syria. However, Putin has not prevented Kurdish
troops from establishing themselves firmly within Syrian territory.
Israel along with their diaspora will never relent until their abomination of "Eretz
Yisrael" is achieved. It's not an accident that the ISIS flag is marked "All Jew."
@NoseytheDuke
Washingtonsblog : " Balkanizing the Middle East – The real goal of America and Israel :
shatter Iraq and Syria into many small pieces "
Thomas Harrington : " One of the prime goals of every empire is to foment ongoing internecine
conflict in the territories whose resources and/or strategic outposts they covet "
Sanchez : " Plan B is to Balkanize Israel is endorsing its plan B for Syria just when its
enemies are making it clear that its plan A (Assad must go) is not happening anytime soon ."
Pro-Israel America launched Tuesday endorsing 27 candidates -- 14 Democrats and 13
Republicans. All have long histories of working with the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee to advance the brand of pro-Israel legislation it favors. Its endorsements on its
website praise the named lawmakers for their actions favoring the legislative agenda closely
identified with the lobby: funding for Israel's defense, sanctions on Iran and its regional
proxies, and bills that seek to counter the boycott Israel movement.
They include Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Chris Coons, D-Del.; Rep. Steny Hoyer,
D-Md., the majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy,
R-Calif., the minority leader; Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, that committee's ranking Republican.
here are all of them listed .make sure you don't vote for one:
@barr
Blaming Saudi or Turkey or UAE has possibly some validity but as far as far the effect of the
independent move by any of them is concerned , it has less than zero effect on Syria on its
own.
It is like a hypothetical scenario where Florida and Alabama are independent countries .
Rest of America is splintered into 50 different states and Canada is trying to get rid of
Cuban regime for 50 years and only in last 5 years Florida and Alabama have joined the scheme
under dubious circumstances of pressure bribery and blackmail.
@NoseytheDuke
Israel was more powerful and also more favorite of the west across ideological drive until
2003
It is not a normal country . Somewhere that guilt and remorse of stealing and killing have
left a mark on its psyche . It doesn't know how to settle and be normal
It doesn't know the meaning of the power, advantage or gain . The paranoia drives to more
dangerous world of fear and insecurity . It can't rest . Even if it is left alone, he talks
to itself and bangs it head against wall . Recent election is the manifestation of more
madness . It's begging jaunt to Russia and screaming through US media show how badly weakened
the country is.
The countries that bow to Israel – UK, USA, Egypt, Saudi are finding themselves also
badly weakened ,
A seed was planted in 2006 in Lebanon . That tree is growing taller and establishing roots
, Israel will be a shrub hiding in the shadow of that tree in a few years time.
Soviet and Russia were both almost destroyed by Jews . Now they look for the Russian shadow
to hide .
@renfro
A pack of lions can bring down an adult elephant at night when they have the advantage, but
they are careful not to choose a really big strong one. Russia is fighting in the Ukraine its
traditional heartland and what H. Mackinder called the Heartland of the World Island. A
victory in Syria that only came because Obama chose to not crush Assad with a couple of days
of air raids is hardly evidence of the Empire falling.
The real meaning of Trump is the facing of the threat from China, and if the neocons want
to play games in the Middle East so what? There is a fight coming with China and it is a
match for the West led by giant Bull Elephant America, Backward ME shitholes all together
could not take down America in a thousand years.
And what were the Kurds in Iraq called?
Didn't Saddam use some type of gas on them and that's why we were siding with them? Who told
about the incubator babies, maybe some other terrorist group?
@renfro
Mmmm, okay, you must have meant something like 'organized shooting' when you said, "SAUDI
STARTED THE WHOLE FUCKING SYRIAN WAR." Sorry I bit on false advertising.
As you see from 'barr' at #119 above, your starting point is months, years, even decades
too late. For a fact (I've met some of the Syrians who met with Robert Ford in Damascus, now
here and still lobbying for regime-change), the US was meddling, encouraging, prompting the
anti-Assadists well before the 2011 demonstrations.
@Daniel
Rich Putin is not the nice guy we have been told he is. He is in Syria for a reason, and
that is not simply because he wants Syria returned to al-Assad. Syria is only one cog in the
wheel. World wide Communism marches on, if you hadn't noticed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=19&v=4sKxkY0Tz5s
LOL. My favourite rapid US evacuation was the CIA flying off the roof of the Saigon
Embassy while the Viet Kong were busting in through the door and running up the stairs.
who benefits from these wars – isn't it just one small but powerful segment of
America – AIPAC. Isn't it time to call these wars by the honest truthful term –
"AIPAC Wars?"
Except the main beneficiary of these wars is George Soros and his anti-Semitic Globalist
movement.
Soros intentionally orchestrated the ultra-weak, time limited JCPOA treaty to create a
nuclear arms race among Iran, SA, Turkey, and possibly other MENA nations. That way he and
his buddies with MIC investments could profit by selling weapons to all sides.
So let's put in everyone's face with a factual term
Trump confuses tweeting with taking action. How many times has he mentioned 'birthright
citizenship' and then done nothing about it?
A: Every time.
If Trump drives too hard, too early and the case arrives at the Supreme Court while it is
split 5-4 in favor of 'birthright citizenship' Is that a win? Or, a loss?
There is a huge difference between 'failed action' and 'successful action'.
Given the proven hostility of the deep state establishment, it makes a great deal of sense
to lay groundwork now (via tweets), but only launch the correct constitutional action once
the courts are prepared to support it.
With class, Philip Giraldi amused me by his article's mere title, "Trump wants to end the
"Stupid Wars?"
Oh yea! Thanks, Phil , & please continue with offering dashes of intelligent,
dissident, & unflappable humor. Haha. For example, "Trump's surname was changed from the
original German Drumpf and if there were any Drumpfs at Normandy, they were undoubtedly on
the German side."
(Zigh) The insatiable global tag team, M.I.C. and The Land of Bilk & Money , want "Big
Time" and more stupidly unnecessary & immoral wars. (Zigh) One sure path to a 2nd term
for President Bonespur is for him to get off the "low energy" Turkey/Syria skirmish, &
get on with real war against Iran , for Israel.
Thanks, Phil! Fyi, I think Senator Lindsey Graham wants to get Bolton back in The Blue
& White House, and sanction Camp Mar a Lago.
P.S.: For all commenters assembled here, linked below is Stephen Colbert's satiric
covering of President Drumpf's having followed Israel's yonder (fallen) , and establishing a
US Space Force Command! To that, Colbert quipped, "Trump can not join it because of his
galactic bonespur."
@9/11
Inside job Seven Nations to Destroy for the nine eleven false flag. Wesley Clark
mentioned the seven – Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran.
Seven Nations to Destroy for Yahweh's Israel – Deut. 7:1-2 –
Tanakh/OT.
Iraq 2003 invaded Purim – shattered in pieces
Libya 2011 invaded Purim – shattered in pieces
How four other nations on the list that were destroyed.
Somalia –
Since 2006 it has been a mess with Israel/US Al-Qaeda running the show.
Bizarre article about US/Israel terrorists "worried" about the environment.
Somalia-based militant group Al-Shabab has reportedly announced a ban on the use of
single-use plastic bags in territories under its control.
The Al-Qaeda-affiliated organization, which has been blamed for thousands of deaths
since its inception in 2006, dubbed plastic a "serious threat to the well-being of both
humans and animals," the BBC reported, citing Al-Shabab's radio station Radio Andalus.
It even mentions that Osama Bin Laden, the puppet of Israel/US, was "worried" about the
environment too. It makes one wonder if this Climate Change thing and Imperialism terror are
connected.
Bin Laden wrote that Americans needed to save Obama from corporate and other nefarious
influences to empower him to "save humanity from the harmful gases that threaten its
destiny."
He added that the world would be better off fighting climate change than waging what he
claimed was a war against Islam.
Sudan
Divided in two in 2011. Israel/US is pushing for more divisions.
Asked about his demand for protection during his meeting with Putin, al-Bashir said we
wanted to highlight "the big U.S. pressure and conspiracy" on Sudan in Darfur crisis and
the huge pressure exerted on his government to separate the South Sudan.
"Now we have information that the American quest is to divide the Sudan into five
countries If we do not find protection and security. America took the world leadership and
devastated the Arab world. (See) what happened in Afghanistan, what happened in Iraq, what
happened in Syria, what happened in Yemen and what happened in Sudan," said al-Bashir.
Lebanon
Invaded by Israel in the summer of 2006. It made a mess out of Lebanon. Israel had a lot
of trouble fighting off Hezbollah. This is the reason that Israel fears going into Lebanon
again. After this adventure, Golems like US and its friends are the go to for Israel's war
adventures.
Initially, both Israel and Hezbollah claimed victory in the war, with Nasrallah
declaring that Hezbollah had achieved a "divine, historic and strategic victory". Some
international observers saw the fact that Hezbollah had survived the Israeli assault,
despite the asymmetrical power balance, as a PR victory for the group. According to
Reuters, the Lebanese government estimated direct war damage at $2.8 billion, and lost
output and income for 2006 at $2.2 billion. The economy also shrank five per cent, with
tourism effectively halted.
Six of the seven were messed up, destroyed. It leaves only Iran left. Iran is in the
"news" everyday for this reason.
Trump is flawed, ok then, but we had Clinton as the alternative. She would have been ten
times worse so what choice did the American people have? He's rolling up the Obama-Clinton
project in Syria which was a huge atrocity. Can you imagine the bloodbath that would have
ensued had the US backed jihadi cannon fodder actually succeeded in overthrowing Assad? It's
not a one man show and Trump has to go along with much of what has been taking place. Much of
this has been imposed upon the American people as well as on Trump.
The brave Turks have been fighting a thirty year war against the "terrorist" Kurdish PKK. Why
so long? Maybe the Turks oppress them? There has to be a reason the Kurds have been resisting
for so long. But yet the mighty Turks are going to defeat the Kurds of Syria even as they
can't defeat the ones living in their own country? Perhaps they'll take on the inferior
Syrian army at the same time. After all, they're a big NATO ally with lots of weapons to dump
on lightly armed foes. Reality is they haven't fought anyone in a hundred years so who knows
how well they'd do.
Quit calling Afghanistan a "war". It's an occupation with anti-guerilla operations going on.
Apparently they don't like being occupied so they fight on.
Trump's name is Trump, not Drumpf. Or do we now refer to people by the family name used a
hundred years ago, or why not five hundred years ago?
Excerpt from
"Trump Mistake: Allowing Turkish Invasion of Northern Syria"
by Joel Skousen (there is no direct link to it but it is/was on his website World Affairs Brief ):
This week in a telephone conversation with Turkish dictator Recep Erdogan he [President
Trump] assented to Erdogan's demand from over a year ago to let them enter Turkey and
establish a buffer zone where Turkey can resettle the hundreds of thousands of Syrian
refugees that have burdened Turkey since the beginning of the US-created terror attacks on
Syria. But as part of that strategy, and without emphasizing that to Trump, Erdogan intends
to drive out or destroy the Syrian Kurds which occupy northern Syria. Erdogan calls them
terrorists because the US-backed YPG Kurds are affiliated with the homegrown Kurdistan
Workers Party (PKK) which represents about 20% of the Turkish population, and which has
been fighting for independence from Turkey. So while the Turkish Foreign Minister plays lip
service to Syrian sovereignty, Turkey has already begun the invasion and occupation of
northern Syria. While Trump claims he is fulfilling a campaign promise to remove troops
from Syria, this isn't really a pullout at all since only two observation posts in the path
of the Turkish invasion are pulling out. There are thousands of other US troops elsewhere
in Syria protecting US-backed terrorist rebels.
@Johnny
Walker Read H.E. Mr. Putin has clearly stated it's up to the Syrian population to choose
who leads them, not him.
Tartus has a port Russia needs and uses.
Khmeimim Air Base is also needed and used by the Russian AF.
These are military strategic assets and used to counter balance the FUKZUS 'war' machine's
bases dotted around the ME region. Of course, those you don't mention.
No president actually controls the government, least of all Trump. The Deep State controls
the government. Trump is a an interloper. Why does one have to remind the author of this
elementary fact? The threat to destroy the economy of Turkey was made by Stephen Israel
Mnuchin. Trump had to make noises as if it was his "decision" when in fact he had nothing to
do with it. What Trump wants to do, and what he can do, are entirely different things. And
anyone who has anything to do with Americans knows what happened to all the previous allies.
Mnuchin has clued in those Turks who may have had illusions.
@renfro
very bad US is indeed . It continues to sabotage ,cast evil eye,try to strangle ,and continue
to punish Cuba . That long history is really long punctuated by half hearted Obama attempt
.
Once empire decided a project,it becomes , NASA , Present Danger , PNAC or NED . The project
goes on losing the aim . The project goes on because the vested interest
,employees,pensioner,glory seeking men, arm merchant, politicians and expatriate find means
to rake up profit and launder dishonest living into honest lifestyle . Name is changed when
it suits the project . Aim is not lost. It becomes the final destination . It never stops
energegizing the dishonest, looter,profit seekers, and opportunists . Often the brains that
gather under the flag are not that intelligent or ideologically certain.
Money and corruption drive them.
It's truly amazing how much the consciousness of the planet has changed within the past
5 years alone, and it's not just happening within one topic, but in several different areas
ranging from health to geopolitics and everything in-between.
Going broke happens slowly at first, then quickly. The Western cities are going broke, as
are those in the Third World. Nothing else changes peoples minds like having their basic
income reduced or eliminated.
All the promises (including self-governmement and freedom and equality) have turned out to
be lies, smoke. Computers, which were supposed to be a seamless adjunct to human existence, a
source of education and information, and a liberation from the bad parts of part of reality,
have turned into (poor but cheap) entertainment, gossip, a drug substitute, and a propaganda
source. The result is shock and horror, sometimes followed by violent psychosis [1] (e.g.
antifa).
Once again, I recommend "Marat/Sade"
(1967). It gives you a feel for what a revolution is like once the revolution gets going.
Note the movie's final scene, which almost breaks the "fourth wall" convention. It was made
during our last revolution, and the director wanted to record the spirit of what he had
seen.
@Art I
like it, very catchy, original, Art said: "AIPAC Wars."
Oh yea, Art, thanks, and a "spade is a spade" when one manages to get the hell out of the
AIPAC shade.
Unfortunately tonight, millions of process estranged Amerikan Democrat & GOP voters
are now "beamed up" to an AIPAC-approved strange & hostile telescreen's DebateLand.
(Zigh) Across aisle, including a possible Beaming Bloomberg entry, , "winnable" 2020
presidential nomination contestants shall pick & choose, finagle & sell, an either/or
USrael foreign policy posture, as regrettably follows:
1.) The Zio-Democrat War to end the deplorable Trump's stupid call to end all Amerika's
endless Wars just for the paltry good of gradually achieving Greater Israel's unending
endgame. or,
2.) The Zio-GOP's War to end all Democrat Party hopefuls' stupid call to end all US endless
wars just because a lefty AIPAC-Branch put an Israel Labor Party "bug in their ear" about
having lowly dead-ender 'Merikan workers fucking pay for it.
Thanks again, Art, and "Good night America."*
* Phil Giraldi inhabits Sinatra's City That Never Sleeps.
The next financial crisis is already beginning. The U.S. has a massive debt ratio
relative to the Money Supply. It is now 5:1. Good luck with that. It will be needed.
Agree.
And the financial debt must be augmented by degradation of physical infrastructure
(especially in cities and city support infrastructure) and the degradation of human capital
by importation of low IQ populations and effective destruction of education. And the capital
misallocation that continues today.
The world will be surprised at what happens when the US power projection ends, as global
trade will end with it.
The brave Turks have been fighting a thirty year war against the "terrorist" Kurdish
PKK. Why so long? Maybe the Turks oppress them? There has to be a reason the Kurds have
been resisting for so long.
Turkish birth rate low (lower in cities than in hinterlands), Kurdish birth rate high.
Kurds replace Turks in a few decades. Kurds don't follow Turkish cultural norms, nor Turks
follow Kurdish. Kurds don't want to wait a few decades, want power _now_ (c.f. Black Power
and Whiteness in USA). Kurds use destructive commando raides ("terrorism") to get power now.
Turks don't like that, respond with same.
Long term: demography wins barring very large change.
Please correct parts of this that are wrong. I'm not following this conflict closely.
Latest TruNews godcast, E. Michael Jones: The Deception Facing the Church by Christian
Zionism
YT Description:
Today on TruNews, Dr. E. Michael Jones joins us to talk about the influence of modern
Christian Zionism upon the American Church, and how that has led to a dramatic
radicalization of US foreign policy in favor of one nation, Israel.
Prof. Jones takes the deluded xian Zionists to task, calling them "useful idiots." My
favourite passage starts @ 18:58:
.. which means you got a lot of Christians who don't understand the gospel. Because
there are plenty of Christians out there who are Christian Zionists. It's a simple fact of
life. I think it can be traced to Jewish influence in our culture Jewish influence over the
publishing industry, for example. How did the Scofield Bible end up being published by
Oxford University Press? Because it's a great scholarly work? No! Because of people like
Mr. Untermeyer pulled strings. This is the way this happened. It's the biggest issue facing
American politics, right now. The role that Zionism is playing right now, in corrupting the
government of the United States, in diverting American resources into a quagmire in the
Middle East, which doesn't serve the interests of the American people at all and is all
done in the name of Israel.
@Counterinsurgency
I'm kind of having a mental barrier with this now.
There is a guy in Vancouver who predicted the 2008 financial crisis, Jensen I believe (he
wrote to the Bank of Canada and a list of people in 2006). He argues that the fundamentals
are even worse now due to the failure to finance these foreign adventures and other factors
(expenditures on domestic expenses not matching tax income, etc.).
I haven't even taken the time to consider the knock on effects. Mentally, I've been more
focused on having to sit through the screaming match that is going to occur over who is to
blame and the lying that will go on with respect to needing to move to a sound money system
but having bankers et al try to argue for a rollover into a new currency. It is going to be
ugly, I can feel it. It will provide an opportunity for some serious structural change and
constitutional amendments. A whole host of reforms are open when you have a debt induced
currency collapse. I just know it could be really ugly and I've been dreading thinking
through how this will play out. I keep thinking that I never expected to live in a time like
this; I think back to being a teenager during the Reagan years and, despite the Cold
War-nuclear war scenario hanging over our heads, it seemed a much more optimistic time.
I am not optimistic. I'm very worried.
@Robjil
Somalia under a failing Siad Barre regime was going to the dogs with various warlords
cannibalising each other. Then the Americans were told in the flush of victory in the Gulf in
1991, that they should just kick the door in to save the dumb Muslims. It is not the fault of
the late senior Bush that Somalia is compounded of that specimen of humanity that emerges
like clockwork when African tribalism is married to Islamic fanaticism (but is there any
other kind?) . The Americans were minding their own business, but were told that it was the
humanitarian thing (and furthermore quite cheap to boot) to do at little cost to themselves
to save Muslim chillun'.
Afghanistan was no better : The idiot, the younger George Bush instead of bombing the the
hell out of Al-Queda and leaving was instead misled by mystagogues of various hues, including
his own self into sinking lives and treasure in a vain attempt to civilise the Afghans.
The truth is the further you keep away from Muslims, the better it is for your health and
sanity, notwithstanding the parallel machinations of various neocohens, for Islam is a
pernicious religion that breeds insanity, intolerance and bloodshed all by itself.
E. Michael Jones: a very wise man. He believes in free speech and is hated by Jews who, of
course, label him an 'anti-semite'. I would argue they are 'truth averse' fanatical
maniacs.
He makes a good case that 'Christian Zionism' is a heresy. I don't believe he uses that term
BUT I do.
It's just another bubbling that is bursting.
What will they do besides scream and throw tantrums? Is it time for another false flag 911
type event?
What the media never really exposed was how Syria, and every Middle East country that has
been attacked by the DeepStateZio monster, has seen the oldest Christian communities on the
planet under attack. Strange pattern. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism, initiated by the
British alliance with the Wahabi's and the Saud Family and furthered by the CIA/Mossad in
Afghanistan, has corresponded with the destruction and diasporas of the world's oldest
Christian communites.
Somehow, Europe has ended up with a bunch of Muslims when these Christians would have fit
into their societies much better.
I think that none of this just 'happened'. I strongly suspect that if we were to kick over
some rocks we would find the usual suspects: the Khazar/Black Nobility Alliance.
@renfro
How?????????????????????????????????????????
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I do think it was Mc Cain.
Concerning historically lazy Saudis I am entirely confident that they were only taking care
of payroll.
( I am not entirely confident but there is a possibility that CIA did channel some profits
from Afghanistan poppy fields for this noble cause.
@Counterinsurgency
Quote: "The world will be surprised at what happens when the US power projection ends, as
global trade will end with it."
Reply: Given the vast sums of money set aside to implement China's 1 belt 1 road project,
[IMO] the global dollar trade will turn into a trickle over time, but the global trade will
not nosedive along with it.
Too much a stake for the multinationals [not necessary a good thing, but alas].
Damascus had supported U.S. intelligence operations after 9/11 and it was Washington
that soured the relationship beginning with the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, which
later was followed by the Syrian War Crimes Accountability Act of 2015, both of which were,
at least to a certain extent, driven by the interests of Israel.
It's very challenging to come up with any foreign policy initiatives that do not serve
Zionist Israel's interests, first and foremost. Israeli interests have defined American
foreign policy objectives in the ME for much of the post-WWII era. Not at Israel's behest,
but on Israel's instructions and demands via pro-Zionist lobbies and the infestation of the
Administration with Israel First officials, Israeli citizens and spies. Add to that the
Israel First MSM.
@ivan
Is it methamphetamine instead of regular fentanyl ? Anyway, this logic and perverted emotion
make sense to you. Unfortunately it will reinforce your decision to switch . Business will
sure be coming back from China to rural America.
@A123 I
respectfully disagree on this particular matter. There is no US law bestowing birthright
citizenship. All that would change is recognition of what the law really says.
Trump waiting to win another 4 (still a gamble) AND for RBG's animatronics to fizzle out
AND for her replacement to not be another skunk like Roberts is foolish.
There is no underwater 38th-dimensional quantum chess being played here, and we still have
no wall.
Oops, I posted this under another writer. (Small wonder I got no answer.) Since then, someone
else remarked that at the end of WWI this land (northern Syria) was taken from Turkey. So
this is a long grievance, with deep sense of entitlement.
Rurik wrote, " .the Americans (Obama regime), created ISIS- with the intention that they
use Libya's stolen arms caches to hack and slaughter their way across Syria "
Yes, and that's why I'm skeptical of dumping of Erdogan. How eager was he for this
conflict? Did the Obama CIA promise him N. Syria for his complicity? Doubtless assuring that
Assad would fall quickly! Or maybe they dangled EU membership, if he joined the team.
Maybe Phil can enlighten us:
We know that Robert Ford, US Embassador to Syria, was meeting privately with Syrian "civil
society" activists before the 2011 demonstrations.
-- Was Erdogan/Turkey also involved in infiltrating, inflaming those anti-Assad
elements?
-- How did Turkey involvement begin?
-- Was the CIA actively involved in Syria before the fall of Libya?
C'mon guys.
Using prior military service as some sort of litmus test to the right to critique involvement
and opinion sharing today plays to an audience mentality that encourages blind
patriotism.
There really are no necessary wars these days as they are all being fought for the banker
elite which holds no loyalty to country though it plays on ppl's ignorance to use such
loyalties for propaganda purposes.
There is no justification for US troops to be all over the world as a banker mercenary force
and this site acknowledges 911 was an Israeli- internationalist false flag which removes all
justifications for the meddling in Israeli neighbor's internal affairs.
Tolerating this to get air time with magazines that lie for power is encouraging this
negative behavior for personal advantage in a country and world striving to control the most
minute areas of our lives.
Going along to get along only brings the eternal boot down of the forehead forever@!
The fact that none of these bickering forces are targeting Israel who always was the
catalyst for the divisions there, is a huge clue that we and Israel are the problem causers
primarily. Of course we need false flags to excite the population to support the fake war on
terror within the US and Europe (as well as justify the reverse colonialism going on). Jews
for hundreds of years have counted on stupid goyim to do the fighting but now that Israel is
a supposed stand alone nation, that should be harder to accomplish but apparently total
corporate media control keeps the truth hidden from 85% of the public.
Reply: Given the vast sums of money set aside to implement China's 1 belt 1 road
project, [IMO] the global dollar trade will turn into a trickle over time, but the global
trade will not nosedive along with it.
I actually hadn't thought of that. Now that you point it out, of course the dollar trade
will decrease. Negative interest rates are, in a way, saying that nobody wants US Dollars
anymore, and trades that are not in US Dollars are being actively sought. The decrease will
happen a bit before the USN becomes ineffective. And that will be hard on the
multi-nationals, but I can't say I have much sympathy. They were firmly behind the move of
Western manufacturing to East Asia – what did they think would happen?
But I do disagree over the assertion that global trade will remain about as it is.
The New Silk Road. Interesting topic.
Well, first of all it's a reasonable thing for the PRC to do. Historically, the Silk
Road has paid off for China, at least in terms of precious metals, and being dependent on a
single transportation mode for one's raw materials is strategically undesirable. It's a
good move. It's also an attempt to realize McKinder's proposed making the World Island into
a unified state[1].
But a couple of points:
a) New Silk Road is much more expensive than sea transport [2]. If sea lanes are cut
off, China's raw materials costs increase by several times.
b) New Silk Road recapitulates the interaction of European empires of the 1800s through
1900s with ethnicities along the Silk Road. The Europeans were resented and eventually
ejected. The Chinese are having similar problems.
China has loaned money to various nations which have then spent that money on immediate
consumption and are attempting to repudiate the debt. The Chinese (who have no compunctions
about debt repudiation through currency devaluation) are apparently taking over completion
of the Silk Road facilities for which the natives can no longer pay (having spent the money
on other things). Local rulers are saying that this makes the Chinese foreign invaders (on
a very low level so far). Just like the Europeans.
Chinese society also does not mix well with either Islamic or African tribal society, yet
the Silk Road crosses both cultural territories.
So far as I know, the Chinese takeover of the Panama Canal since the US evacuation has gone
well. Last I heard, a few years back, Panama had started teaching Chinese in its public
schools. Chinese operations in South and Meso America are increasing, however, and I know
little about how they are going.
The nice thing about policed sea lanes is that shippers don't have to worry much about
the natives. Piracy is and has been a problem, but so far not a serious one. New Silk Road
goes overland, and that has (historically) always led to security problems with the locals,
whoever the locals may be.
So: Let's suppose that the USN were to become ineffective. Only the part of the Silk
Road guarded by the Russian Federation would remain secure. The rest would be subject to
local raids and extortion from the local government. Note that raw materials costs would
increase drastically for everybody (because of less shipping), so local governments and
bandits would have motives for confiscating goods.
This would be especially the case in Africa, which is largely dependent on food imports.
That conflict could become severe, as China is increasingly dependent on Africa for raw
materials (as is the rest of the world).
In other words, sole reliance on the New Silk Road (should that ever be necessary) would
be expensive in terms of shipping and in terms of security / warfare costs. China's
bellicose policy is, IMHO, counterproductive. China should be positioning itself to police
the sea lanes cooperatively but reluctantly with a declining USN, gradually assuming the
mantle of worldwide protection of the sea lanes that China needs so badly. Current efforts
to be able to interdict the sea lanes are not in the PRC's interest, as the PRC needs these
sea lanes open. It's sort of like developing a hyperbomb to make the Sun go nova. Under
what circumstances would you use such a device? Under what circumstances would China want
to cease shipping by sea?
So, what's likely to happen? The USN will decline because it needs recapitalization due
to age and a changing threat, and the US is instead devoting its income to debt repayment
and immediate social stability expenditures. The PRC, which has never been a naval power,
will still attempt to keep global trade alive. When that fails, the PRC will trade more
with the Russian Federation It will also take what sea and land it has, make an
expeditionary force out of it, and deploy it in some trading zones (possibly in countries
that have resources China needs) rather than see its population starve and itself
overthrown. That's the standard response from any H. Sap. political organization. Things
will get very messy.
And please remember that I'm like the weatherman: I report, I don't cause.
@Stan
Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue for the
West, just as the way the Kurds are treated is unfortunate but hardly our responsibility. A
confrontation with burgeoning China beckons, and America needs to be united. Going off on
tangents to play Santa to peoples who lost the geopolitical game and are without a state
would weaken the West,
@Daniel
Rich What part of BOTH the US and Russia are only there to serve their own
interest don't people understand. My only point is Russia is not there out of the goodness of
their hearts. People who claim Russia is fighting the globalist juggernaut and is only in
Syria to "fight ISIS/ISL" and to make Syria "safe for Democracy" aren't seeing the big
picture. Russia is working hand in hand with China to make sure America is reduced to a
second rate global power. Assad has become nothing more than Putin's puppet on a string.
Syria will need money for re-construction, thanks to Russia destroying much of their
infrastructure, that money more than likely will come from China(China's version of "Economic
Hit Men"). All the while, lurking in the back ground, that little shit stain known as Israel.
This report will present the reality of Russia's Syrian campaign. Russia launched air
strikes on hospitals, water treatment plants, and mosques. Russia used cluster bombs.
Russia almost exclusively targeted non-ISIS targets. These are the truths that Russia will
not admit, and the truths that must be understood when negotiating with Russia as a
potential partner.
It's all about the "Belt and Road Initiative". There are no good guy's in this mess, and
the real losers in this conflict are the citizens of Syria. Russia is a main partner in
"Globalization".
One of the main problems of the People's Republic is to connect the "Belt" with the
"Road". For China it is crucial to be able to bypass the choke points represented by the
straits that separate the South China Sea from the Indian Ocean (Malacca, Sunda and Lombok)
that, being controlled by the US, prevent the Chinese maritime power to fully develop. A
first important asset in this sense is represented by the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor,
which connects by land Eastern China to the port of Gwadar in Pakistan, in turn connected
to the String of Pearls.
Why Syria?
In this perspective, Syria becomes a crucial junction within the BRI: a possible
development of its transport and port infrastructures, properly connected with each other
and with the Belt and Road Initiative, would allow China a further maritime outlet for its
land trade and a formidable trade post in the Mediterranean. A further advantage is
represented by the increased quantity of goods that China could deliver into the
Mediterranean, overcoming the further bottleneck of the Suez Canal.
Syria also has at least two important factors that represent opportunities to be
exploited by Beijing: the country's urgent need to obtain funds to be allocated to
reconstruction and development and the simultaneous disengagement of the United States from
the Middle East, an empty space not filled by the EU. Syria is therefore an extremely
interested and receptive partner to the proposals of the Chinese government, which finds
itself at the same time freed from any diplomatic controversy that could slow down its
action.
@Counterinsurgency
Chinese seem very naive in their willingness to deal with and trust black Africans and other
third worlders to honour deals and not be corrupt, etc. I suspect it will all turn sour for
them eventually.
@Abdul
Alhazred Thank you for that video. I've never been so proud of a U.S. president in my
life, as I was watching that video. He may have been cynically pandering to people like me,
but I don't care. Even if he was pandering, he said what he said.
More on Trump by Shamir's recent article:
What is much worse for Israel, is Trump's intent to leave the region. There is a good
chance you haven't seen relevant tweets of the President, for the MSM doomed to surround it
by the wall of silence. That is what the President said while ordering withdrawal:
"Fighting between various groups that has been going on for hundreds of years. USA
should never have been in Middle East. The stupid endless wars, for us, are ending! The
United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East.
Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have
died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE
HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers
& military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE!"
Just for this recognition "GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN
THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY" and for this promise "The stupid endless wars, for us, are
ending!" Trump deserves to be re-elected and remembered as the most courageous and
independent US President since Richard Nixon.
His efforts on withdrawing from the Middle East remind of Nixon's hard struggle to leave
Vietnam and to make peace with Russia and China. If he succeeds in this endeavour, he will
be rewarded by the American people in 2020..
If he succeeds, then he sure will have my support!
One of the main instigators of the Syrian imbroglio – Saudi Arabia – had
been beaten in Yemen and is no longer eager for battle; ditto Qatar and UAE. Europe is less
keen on removing "bloody dictators" than it was. CIA, Jewish Lobby and Clintonite Democrats
would keep Syria boiling, but mercifully they are not in full command in Washington. .
@A123
What is allegedly being built is the same worthless fence. The wall prototypes couldn't
legally be used per a clause in one of the terrible spending bills hastily signed by "Master
Negotiator" Trump.
Better than cacklin' cankles? Yes, but so is my last bowel movement.
Even if we got a real wall, Orangemeister wants legal gimmegrants in record numbers. We
just can't effing win.
Don't you think Trump was a tad premature in announcing "Only I can fix," to all these
problems?
Chinese seem very naive in their willingness to deal with and trust black Africans and
other third worlders to honour deals and not be corrupt, etc. I suspect it will all turn
sour for them eventually.
Every high value PRC project in Africa seems to come with as suspiciously large number of
military age, ethnic Han Chinese staff.
The PRC colonization effort is informed by the lessons of former Euro colonies. They have
built-in measures to make them very hard to displace. And, should they eventually be forced
out, the locals will get nothing but destroyed and poisoned lands.
@geokat62
Know more News with Adam News covers the Christian Zionist story. He is still on you
tube.
Jones was banned from that platform recently. He can still be heard on bitchute as well as
his own website, Culturewars.com
the Americans (Obama regime), created ISIS- with the intention that they use Libya's
stolen arms caches to hack and slaughter their way across Syria "
Yes, and that's why I'm skeptical of dumping of Erdogan. How eager was he for this
conflict? Did the Obama CIA promise him N. Syria for his complicity? Doubtless assuring
that Assad would fall quickly! Or maybe they dangled EU membership, if he joined the
team.
I have a metric that I use.
If a person or action is in anyway aligned with Israel, then that person or action is
suspect, at best.
Insofar as Erdogan has been aligned with Israel and its interests and agendas (the
destruction and carving up of Syria)- is the degree to which he has been a malefactor on the
world's stage.
/
Vs. the degree to which he's opposed to Israel's nefarious agendas;
– he's demonstrated actual statesmanship.
So that's my metric. That's why generally I don't have to pour over the minutia of every
action or issue with a fine tooth comb, rather I just ask, 'is this person or action aligned
with Israel's agenda.. (genocide, theft, murder, hegemony, strife ), and the question always
seems to answer itself!
Just consider the Obama regime. When I approved of what Obama was doing- peace with Iran-
it was when he was in Israel's crosshairs.
When I disapproved of Obama's treasons, it was when his actions were perfectly aligned
with Israel – destruction of Libya, destruction of Syria and so forth.
It really is a near perfect, if not perfect metric.
When Trump is betraying America and Americans, is when he's serving Israel – open
borders, drones, sanctions on Iran and Russia and others..
When he's acting like an actual American president, in the service of this nation, is when
he's in direct opposition to Israel's agenda – ending the Eternal Wars, making videos
about dead American soldiers, firing Bolton, talking about nationalism at the UN..
I'm really sort of waiting for this test to ever fail, it's been so reliably perfect for
so long.
So if you want to know if Erdogan is acting in good faith, just check to see if what he's
doing pleases Israel, and you'll know all you need to know!
Is a Kurdish state a good thing?
Well, what does the 'metric' say?
Is Turkey's incursion into Syria a good thing?
Here, a mouthpiece of Zion posits 'no'.
The Turkish government is no longer interested in helping Syrians liberate themselves
from Assad's murderous regime.
The video is very powerful, and this video linked in this link features Trump's speaking
with attendant images of the families of the soldiers and what they have to go through
.because of the lies of the warmongers.
@Rurik
As Commander in Chief tRump wanted to kill Syria President Basher Assad for having gassed his
own people & having to be restrained by his Generals, Amerikans now see another side to
their president which Rurik observed on video & gushed: "I've never been so proud of a
U.S. president in my life, as I was watching that video. He may have been cynically pandering
to people like me, but I don't care. Even if he was pandering, he said what he said Thank
God. Peace."
Am sincerely glad you're "happy," Rurik, that Trumpstein moved to shed some of his
Adelson/Netantahu skin implants. Nonetheless, & I don't want to be a GOP Likud-Party
pooper, but am sticking with Philip Giraldi's advisory to, "Let's see what he actually
does."
At any rate, linked below (& fyr in ), is Brother Nathanael's latest video. In order
to stave off our nation's descent into Greater Sodom & Gomorrah, it's understandable to
me how Bro Nat prefers "The Chosen One" to continue as ZUS president over his uber-liberal
& decadent Zio-Democrat opponents.
Thanks Rurik, and enjoy the good times of tRump's proclamation of an end to endless wars
for Greater Israel while it lasts!
"Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue
for the West . . . A confrontation with burgeoning China beckons"
Israel's overall shiftiness IS not at all a "side issue" to USA, it is at the heart of US
FP dysfunction.
According to the video below, Israel is firmly on board and participating in China's
rise.
The wonderful context is, it's not up to Trump. It's not up to the US government. The world
will squeeze the CIA regime out of Syria. Russian doctrine of coercion to peace works equally
well on degenerate great powers, with the minor filip of face-saving subterfuge for routed US
functionaries.
Lindsay Graham gets to shake his tiny fist ineffectually at a sneering NATO ally instead
of shaking his tiny fist ineffectually at a nuclear power with overwhelming hypersonic
nonballistic missile capability. Much safer.
@Wally
The only way to change this cast of filthy charACTORs we have running this country is to have
a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" box located prominently at the bottom of every ballot. One I
would take the time and effort needed to check.
@Cloak And
Dagger Trump's problem is that he has very little support for his MAGA agenda in his own
party. People like Lindsey Graham who support him here and there will not hesitate to turn on
him if he takes positions that offend Sheldon Adelson. Trump's none-too-sophisticated,
none-too-affluent base is opposed by the media, academe, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the FBI
and CIA, and the Rainbow Coalition assemblage of minority voices. Even Fox News (apart from
Tucker) opposes Trump's agenda even as it defends Trump against spurious charges of colluding
with the Russians. For example, Hannity regularly charges the Democrats with being in league
with Putin, in effect conceding that the Russians are evil enemies. Yet Trump's MAGA proposal
was detente and friendly cooperation with (now-Christian) Russia.
At the end of the day, the 4D Chess view seems more right than wrong. While Trump's
commitment to the right is both shallow and wavery, in the present setting he cannot do more
than hold the enemy at bay and wait for reinforcements to show up. That means it's up to US,
his supporters, to find ways to weigh in on his side. As the fascists used to say, a bundle
of sticks can be strong even if the individual sticks are weak.
@Sean
My question to you is: a confrontation between who or what and China? To the extent that
America collapses into a post-Christian, post-European congeries of plutocrats and their
commercial interests, such a confrontation has no clear shape. The evolving character of
American society has been put on the table by the Trump/populist revolution, and the role of
Jews in our cultural evolution is part of that even if it is taboo to discuss it. The issue
over the Palestinians is the only way to challenge the successful assumption of moral carte
blanche by the secular Jewish community, which Jewish thought leaders have parlayed into an
effective assault on freedom of speech and assembly (particularly in Europe but also here),
and a campaign to stigmatize whiteness, Christianity, and the nuclear family.
Conclusion: The issue of Palestine is a proxy for the larger issue of whether secular
Judaism deserves its current status as moral hegemon. It is the only way to raise this issue
that is not instantly dismissed as neo-Nazism.
@SolontoCroesus
SolontoCroesus wrote: "Israel's overall shiftiness IS not at all a "side issue" to USA, it is
at the heart of US FP dysfunction.
According to the video below, Israel is firmly on board and participating in China's rise."
To All commenters,
Above, when SolontoCroesus speaks, I listen & learn.
When President Bonespur speaks, it pains to listen, & I can potentially become
deceived.
Will likely get friendly fire from Rurik, but I truly wish he reads your comment &
astutely watches the very informative linked Talpiot video. Hurts when I see good men (like
him) gush while listening to "The Chosen One's" tear jerking words.
Thanks for your patriotic servus, S2C!
P.S.: Behind D.C.'s Blue & White House curtain, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin licks his
choppers in anticipation of effectual ZUS sanctions, & the Chinese communist government's
finally granting Goldman Sachs Group permission to do "untethered" investment business" in
the mainland; the largest consumer market on the planet.
@Sean'Israel is a shitty little country but its treatment of the Palestinians is side issue for
the West, just as the way the Kurds are treated is unfortunate but hardly our responsibility.
A confrontation with burgeoning China beckons, and America needs to be united. Going off on
tangents to play Santa to peoples who lost the geopolitical game and are without a state
would weaken the West,'
As usual you've being dishonest. You agree Israel is a 'shitty little country' -- but
manage to insinuate we should continue to support it.
After all, we don't have to spend a penny to 'play Santa' to the Palestinians (as if we
had nothing to do with their expulsion.). It's the Israelis we subsidize and protect, not the
Palestinians.
In fact, we can help the Palestinians and save money too! Yank Israel off our tit and we
get to have our cake and eat it too. The Palestinians get their home back, and we save
billions every year. All we have to do is to stop funding their tormentors,
If a person or action is in anyway aligned with Israel, then that person or action is
suspect, at best.'
It is always wrong to support Israel.
In 2008, I voted for McCain instead of Obama. I told myself they'd both be equally
supportive of Israel, but I knew deep down inside that was a lie.
I voted for McCain because he wasn't black. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is
that I allowed some other consideration to seduce me into supporting Israel -- however
trivially and as it turned out ineffectually.
If you establish 911 was a fraud then subsequent war on terror is a fraud. The West will
exhaust themselves waging war against Islam and the Muslims despite killing millions of
people. They will dig their own graves and cast themselves in hell fire for eternal damnation
for subscribing to Santa Claus lies and Jesus died for their evils by supporting the money
changer's ideology for greater Israel project to usher in their Anti-Christ as their Messiah.
Anti-Christ Dajjal will take them for a ride to hell. He will play them "By way of Deception"
just as they are playing the rest of the world "By way of Deception wage wars." So how many
of us are willing to sell our souls in exchange for the worldly gains and pay a penalty for
eternal damnation?
gush while listening to "The Chosen One's" tear jerking words.
"I've never been so proud of a U.S. president in my life, as I was watching that video.
"
Gushing?
Perhaps, I suppose, depending on your definition.
But when's the last time you heard a Z.U.S. president speak of the war dead with
compassion and pathos? Hell, when's the last time you heard them speak of these tragic
victims of American f0lly (treason and war crimes), and their families- at all?
He was saying 'enough of this madness!'
And from what I understand, American troops are indeed vacating Syrian bases.
BTW, leaving for a few days, so keep up the good fight, Brother Chuck!
@Wally
Wally likes to cheap shot P.G., haha, and once again futilely asked him: "Has Giraldi ever
stated which current candidate is his preference vs. Trump?"
Get on the ball, wailing Wall! (zzZigh) Likely, even some knowledgeable CODAH associates
will inform that YOU'LL get what Supremacist Jews give you.
Haha. The Zionized D.N.C. is presently fretting over which Jewish Lobby-approved
presidential 2020 candidate they should give to their "base" voters. Haha. Liberal tribe
chieftains are confident that even Mayor Pete Buttigieg will make incumbent, Trumpstein,
Tweet-out "endless" sweat on election night.
Nonetheless, had Amerika a real choice, , Ron Paul would be my #1 "anti-Chosen One"
alternative. Refer to his article below, wailing Wall?
Yet Trump's MAGA proposal was detente and friendly cooperation with (now-Christian)
Russia.
That's why the NeoCohens hate Putin so much, for re-establishing Russian Christian
Orthodoxy as the 'national' religion. Trump, on the other hand, admires Putin for his
nationalism and wants white Christian Russia to be friends with nominally Christian
America. Unfortunately he must bow down to the Satanic anti Christ power brokers, the Cabal,
that keeps him in power and checks his nationalist leanings. Hopefully he will overcome this
in a second term but I've been saying that about presidents for years!
@ChuckOrloski
Thanks ChuckOrloski.
Undeserved, tho -- I was just being a shepherd guiding the flock to other people's good work,
a practice I learned from your comment style.
I don't want to be in the business of educating you on un-American actions undertaken by
"Z.U.S. presidents." You really know better, but since Jacques Sheete, peace be upon him, is
M.I.A., I will now do my best.
No doubt, Trumpstein is different. Please pause momentarily and consider how he very
recently wanted to sell/provide nuclear weapons systems to Saudi Arabia. Fyi, and lucky for
the entire Middle East's general population, Trump's lack of "compassion" was overuled by
those higher in the ZUS's Blue & White House Lowerarchy. (Note: He ain't "The Decider,"
he is the ever useful & divisive Zion Tweet-Chord)
So given the U.R. Moderator sword is not activated, linked down below, is a joint radio
show, hosted by Dr. David Duke & Ryan Dawson. Ideally, this action will take the job of
trying to educate YOU from off my shoulders, Rurik. No reading needed, & just carefully
listen!
Fyi, Dr. Duke and Mr. Dawson will provide the means by which an anti-Zionist &
patriotic American can resist the evil sway dished-out daily by our "Homeland's" Zionist
Corporate Media. These largely demonized gentlemen/scholars explain how Zionized Republicans
& Democrats are curiously "on the same page" when it comes to humanely protecting the
Kurds.
But when it comes to supporting & defending The Land of Bilk & Money, they unite.
Yippie! On other hand, and when it comes to actually helping the restless & sorry lot of
dumb goyim working Amerikans, they fight like , er, "Tom and Jerry." (Zigh) Why Trumpstein
even moved to kill the underachieving & oft unaffordable "Affordable Care Act," a.k.a.,
Obamacare.
Enjoy your time off, my Brother Rurik, and I suggest, at minimum, partial evacuation from
the dug-in Jewish Corporate Media "bases."
@Rurik'That's a very honest act of self-reflection, Colin.
I voted for Ron Paul, (If I recall, I wrote in his name).
I would have preferred the racist commie to the war mongering scumbag, but only because by
then I understood the nature of McCain all too well '
Now you're reminding me of 2012. Of course, I was going to vote for Obama over Israel's
man-in-the-White House-to-be. An unpleasant choice, but there it was
So my wife and I were down in Alameda at a winery. Somewhat incongruously, the server was
right-wing, and started praising Romney. I stayed tactful, as I didn't want to kill my buzz,
but my wife -- who is easily influenced -- came out of there going 'Romney number one.
Yeah -- I'm going to vote for him!'
In an unusual display of wisdom, I bit my tongue. We'll see how this plays out
You need to understand my wife comes from a poor background. If you want to meet 'the
working poor,' go see her relatives.
So the very next day, Romney comes out with his '49%' remark. It was classic.
@Johnny
Walker Read Right. This happens every so often. I am not recommending de Sade or any of
his works.
I'm recommending the movie:
"The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the
Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade ", play 1963, movie 1967 [1].
The movie has very little to do with the writings of the original Marquis de Sade [2], but it
does do a good job of showing the spirit of revolutions.
de Sade had a good reputation with the revolutionaries. He was elected a delegate to the
French National Convention, but fell during the Reign of Terror [3]. He really did direct
publicly presented plays at Charenton starting in 1803, but was eventually arrested and
denied paper and pen in 1809. Died 1815, and several large manuscripts were subsequently
burned by his son, who apparently thought that de Sade had done quite enough harm
already.
Insofar as tje video has anything to do with the real de Sade, it is that the director
(fictional de Sade) manages to stage a small revolution himself in the final scene, _after_
demonstrating that the audience is little more sane than de Sade is ("15 glorious years"
scene). As in the link given by Read [4], de Sade acts as the philosophical godfather of
revolution and revolt as an end in itself.
The really pathetic attempt by ABC to pass off Kentucky gun range footage as a Syrian
conflict zone is a good example of the consequences of Congress' horrible 2013 decision
(that you may not have heard of) to totally legalize domestic propaganda. @_whitneywebb
In the age of legal, weaponized propaganda directed against the American people, false
narratives have become so commonplace in the mainstream media that they have essentially
become normalized, leading to the era of "fake news" and "alternative facts."
The bad and ugly shepherds persistently hit vulnerable & trusting Unzers with their
"best shot." For one example, the currently M.I.A. commenter, Maven Sam Shama.
Subsequently, I see no valid reason why intelligent & good men -- like you! -- should
not give their "best shot" and attempt to support & rescue lost sheeple who regularly
appear here.*
* Some lost sheep simply like it that way, and therefore, bad shepherds, for one example,
the featherweight commenter "Sean," get lots of practice at misguiding the flock.
@steinbergfeldwitzcohen
Right, what to do is the question now that everybody has been taken by surprise.
I'd say that the advice "get out of debt, get out of the major cities" is fairly good, and
fairly obvious, and has been so for some time. As to income, I just don't know. You might try
linking up to some group (non-Left) that seems to be cohesive and has _some_ plan of action
that isn't too weird. Under stress, cohesive groups can survive better than individuals.
You might also remember the rule of thumb that prophets can predict either what or when,
but not both. It's obvious that the US in general and cities in particular are in severe
decline, but _when_ the current system will cast off much of the population it now supports
is simply not known. Abandon it too soon and you end up extremely poor, so a sharp break is
extremely risky. I'd say that retiring debt, hardening your house against home invasion, and
finding some group as above, would be about all that would be justified right now. If your
neighborhood is deteriorating, it might be a good idea to go to another one that isn't, since
the deterioration is unlikely to reverse itself. If you're in with an ethnic group that
doesn't like your ethnic group, it might be a good idea to displace, if only to avoid the
unpleasantness.
@jack
daniels The current US system / world order will end within the next decade no matter
what Trump does. Trump is trying to shut it down with minimal casualties and replace it with
something viable, which is a good thing to do, but if Trump were to vanish tomorrow the
current US system / world order would still end within the next decade, maybe two decades if
things went very badly wrong.
Trump has the wind at his back, he's trying to do things that would do themselves (although
not as well) and that's why the appearance of 4D Chess. But, as you point out, Trump leads a
very small force of government officials, and would lose without the strength given by his
supporters. Continued support, in word and in deed, should reduce casualties (to include
Trump and his family) during the current transition.
MEANWHILE, Millions Hungry and Food Insecure in the US
"According to the US Department of Agriculture in 2018, food insecurity affects 37 million
Americans, including over 11 million children -- the numbers likely way understated."
"Around 40 million Americans experience hunger annually."
"At least 15 million US households endure food insecurity."
"Hunger is caused by poverty and inadequate financial resources, a nationwide
problem."
"Around 45 million Americans rely on food stamps, an eroding program providing inadequate
help."
"1 in 6 American children may not know where their next meal is coming from."
"22 million children in America rely on the free or reduced-price lunch they receive at
school, but as many as 3 million children still aren't getting the breakfast they need."
@Rurik
I applaud the sentiment too.
I'm hearing rumours that Trump has put a thousand troops into Saudi Arabia and claimed they
are paying for it.
Is it now America's lot to be not just Israel's but SA's mercenaries?
2020 can't come fast enough. I'd love to see a Trump super majority and some serious
reform.
It's pretty clear the Evangelical Zionist's are Israelis' b@tches.
America, it seems, must not only reclaim itself but also it's religion. EV is a heresy and
the leaders are on their knees f@llating Israel. It is disgusting to watch.
Yes, I agree, having trucks and trains go overland and via various countries comes with
the risk of conflicts erupting between 2 or more states participating in Chinese projects.
China burnt itself badly in Libya, where Hillary " We Came, We Saw, He Died! Haw, haw,
haw " Rotham Clingon ran amok.
China is actively setting up routes via the attic as well, so I think China carefully
weighs all its options, but doing business comes with certain risks, those are
unavoidable.
When I was in Africa [The Gambia and there about], I noticed a lot of Chinese merchandise
being sold all over the place. I heard stories of some Chinese being attacked and/or murdered
elsewhere in Africa, but haven't dealt with any Chinese businessman myself or heard their
stories in person.
Having been on that vast continent doesn't make me an expert whatsoever, but I see Africa
become a huge anchor around the world's neck. Can't use a single brush to paint entire
nations, I know, but what I saw didn't look good.
side note : I didn't live in a hotel with armed guards, I lived in a compound with
Africans, so it's not that I have no up close experience. Furthermore, I was always treated
with kindness, respect and warmth.
"... How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook expansion.. NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the target area. ..."
"... Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. ..."
"... Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to mind. ..."
"... A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion? ..."
"... As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians. ..."
"... The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly acquired ones. ..."
"... Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor Cohen ascribes to the US. ..."
"... We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU, or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay. ..."
"... Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an individual example with AP, but they all seem like that. ..."
Thanks for your sharing you views about Prof Cohen, a most interesting and principled
man.
Only after reading the article did I realize that the UR (that's you) also provided the
Batchelor Show podcast. Thanks.
I've been listening to these broadcasts over their entirety, now going on for six or so
years. What's always struck me is Cohen's level-headeness and equanimity. I've also detected
affection for Kentucky, his native state. Not something to be expected from a Princeton / NYU
academic nor an Upper West Side resident.
And once again expressing appreciation for the UR!
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt
politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in the
target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials. Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs of
the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes to
mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump said
to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is the
exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption can
be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of other
plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with
inevitable impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally elected president Viktor
Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment -- none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) -- how fucking hypocritical is it to
presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? -- none of it would
have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
According to a recent govt study, only 12% of Americans can read above a 9th grade level.
This effectively mean (((whoever))) controls the MSM controls the world. NOTHING will change
for the better while the (((enemy))) owns our money supply.
There was NO "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Crimea WAS annexed, but by Ukraine.
Russia and Crimea re-unified. Crimea has been part of Russia for long than America has
existed – since it was taken from the Ottoman Empire over 350 yrs ago. The vast
majority of the people identify as Russian, and speak only Russian.
To annex, the verb, means to use armed force to seize sovereign territory and put it under
the control of the invading forces government. Pretty much as the early Americans did to
Northern Mexico, Hawaii, etc. Russia used no force, the Governors of Crimea applied for
re-unification with Russia, Russia advised a referendum, which was held, and with a 96%
turnout, 97% voted for re-unification. This was done formally and legally, conforming with
all the international mandates.
It is very damaging for anyone to say that Russia "annexed" Crimea, because when people
read, quickly moving past the world, they subliminally match the word to their held
perception of the concept and move on. Thus they match the word "annex" to their conception
of the use of Armed Force against a resistant population, without checking.
All Cohen is doing here is reinforcing the pushed, lying Empire narrative, that Russia
invaded and used force, when the exact opposite is true!!
@Carlton
Meyer One wonders if Mr. Putin, as he puts his head on the pillow at night, fancies that
he should have rolled the Russian tanks into Kiev, right after the 2014 US-financed coup of
Ukraine's elected president, which was accomplished while he was pre-occupied with the Sochi
Olympics, and been done with it. He had every justification to do so, but perhaps feared
Western blowback. Well, the blowback happened anyway, so maybe Putin was too cautious.
The new Trump Admin threw him under the bus when it installed the idiot Nikki Haley as UN
Ambassador, whose first words were that Russia must give Crimea back. With its only major
warm water port located at Sevastopol, that wasn't about to happen, and the US Deep State
knew it.
Given how he has been so unfairly treated by the media, and never given a chance to enact
his Russian agenda, anyone who thinks that Trump was 'selected' by the deep state has rocks
for brains. The other night, on Rick Sanchez's RT America show, former US diplomat, and
frequent guest Jim Jatras said that he would not be too surprised if 20 GOP Senators flipped
and voted to convict Trump if the House votes to impeach.
The deep state can't abide four more years of the bombastic, Twitter-obsessed Trump, hence
this Special Ops Ukraine false flag, designed to fool a majority of the people. The smooth
talking, more warlike Pence is one of them. The night of the long knives is approaching.
The US actions in Ukraine are typical, not exceptional. Acting as an Empire, the US
always installs the worst possible scum in power in its vassals, particularly in newly
acquired ones.
The "logic" of the Dem party is remarkable. Dems don't even deny that Biden is corrupt,
that he blatantly abused the office of Vice-President for personal gain. What's more, he was
dumb enough to boast about it publicly. Therefore, let's impeach Trump.
These people don't give a hoot about the interests of the US as a country, or even as an
Empire. Their insatiable greed for money and power blinds them to everything. By rights,
those who orchestrated totally fake Russiagate and now push for impeachment, when Russiagate
flopped miserably, should be hanged on lampposts for high treason. Unfortunately, justice
won't be served. So, we have to be satisfied with an almost assured prospect of this
impeachment thing to flop, just like Russiagate before it. But in the process incalculable
damage will be done to our country and its institutions.
Those who support the separation of Kosovo from Serbia without Serbian consent cannot
argue against separation of Crimea from Ukraine without the consent of Kiev regime.
On the other hand, those who believe that post-WWII borders are sacrosanct have to
acknowledge that Crimea belongs to Russia (illegally even by loose Soviet standards
transferred to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1956), Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Soviet Union
should be restored, and Germany should be re-divided.
At least now I know why Ukraine is so essential to American national security. It's so even
more of my and my families' taxes can pay for a massive expansion of Nato, which means
American military bases in Ukraine. Greenland to the borders of China.
We're encircling the earth, like those old cartoons about bankers.
@Ron
Unz I had to stop listening after the 10th min. where the good professor (without any
push-back from the interviewer) says:
Victor Yanukovich was overthrown by a street coup . at that moment, the United States
and not only the United States but the Western European Governments had to make a decision
would they acknowledge the overthrow of Yannukovic as having been legitimate, and therefore
accept whatever government emerged, and that was a fateful moment within 24hours, the
governments, including the government of president Obama endorsed what was essentially a
coup d'etat against Yanukovich.
Has the good Professor so quickly forgotten about Victoria Nuland distributing cookies
with John McCain in the Maidan as the coup was still unfolding? Her claim at the think tank
in DC where she discusses having spent $30million (if I remember correctly) for foisting the
Ukraine coup ?
Has he forgotten the historical conversation of Nuland and Payatt picking the next
president of Ukraine "Yats is our guy" and "Yats" actually emerging as the president a week
later ? None of these facts are in any way remotely compatible with passive role professor
Cohen ascribes to the US.
These are not simple omissions but willful acts of misleading of fools. The good
professor's little discussed career as a resource for the secret services has reemerged after
seemingly having been left out in the cold during the 1st attempted coup against Trump.
No, the real story is more than just a little NATO expansion as the professor does
suggest, but more directly, the attempted coup that the US is still trying to stage in Russia
itself, in order to regain control of Russia's vast energy resources which Putin forced the
oligarchs to disgorge. The US desperately wants to achieve this in order to be able to
ultimately also control China's access to those resources as well.
In the way that Iraq was supposed to be a staging post for an attack on Iran, Ukraine is
the staging post for an attack on Russia.
The great Russian expert stirred miles very clear of even hinting at such scenarios, even
though anyone who's thought about US world policies will easily arrive at this logical
conclusion.
What about the theft of Ukraine's farmland and the enserfing of its rural population? Isn't
this theft and enserfing of Ukrainians at least one major reason the US government got
involved, overseeing the transfer of this land into the hands of the transnational banking
crime syndicate? The Ukraine, with its rich, black soil, used to be called the breadbasket of
Europe.
Consider the fanatical intervention on the part of Victoria Nuland and the Kagans under
the guise of working for the State Dept to facilitate the theft. In a similar fashion,
according to Wayne Madsen, the State Dept. has a Dept of Foreign Asset Management, or some
similar name, that exists to protect the Chabad stranglehold on the world diamond trade, and,
according to Madsen, the language spoken and posters around the offices are in Hebrew, which
as a practical matter might as well be the case at the State Dept itself.
According to an article a few years ago at Oakland Institute, George Rohr's NCH Capital,
which latter organization has funded over 100 Chabad Houses on US campuses, owns over 1
million acres of Ukraine farmland. Other ownership interests of similarly vast tracts of
Ukraine farmland show a similar pattern of predation. At one point, it was suggested that the
Yinon Plan should be understood to include the Ukraine as the newly acquired breadbasket of
Eretz Israel. It may also be worth pointing out that now kosher Ivy League schools'
endowments are among the worst pillagers of native farmland and enserfers of the indigenous
populations they claim to protect.
@Mikhail
Well, if we really go into it, things become complicated. What Khmelnitsky united with Russia
was maybe 1/6th or 1/8th of current Ukraine. Huge (4-5 times greater) areas in the North and
West were added by Russian Tsars, almost as great areas in the South and East taken by Tsars
from Turkey and affiliated Crimean Khanate were added by Lenin, a big chunk in the West was
added by Stalin, and then in 1956 moron Khrushchev "gifted" Crimea (which he had no right to
do even by Soviet law). So, about 4/6th of "Ukraine" is Southern Russia, 1/6th is Eastern
Poland, some chunks are Hungary and Romania, and the remaining little stub is Ukraine proper.
@anon
American view always was: "yes, he is a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch". That
historically applied to many obnoxious regimes, now fully applies to Ukraine. In that Dems
and Reps always were essentially identical, revealing that they are two different puppets run
by the same puppet master.
Trump is hardly very intelligent, but he has some street smarts that degenerate elites
have lost. Hence their hatred of him. It is particularly galling for the elites that Trump
won in 2016, and has every chance of winning again in 2020 (unless they decide to murder him,
like JFK; but that would be a real giveaway, even the dumbest sheeple would smell the
rat).
@follyofwar
The only reason I can imagine that Putin/Russia would want to "take over" Ukraine and have
this political problem child back in the family might be because of Ukraine's black soil.
But it is probably not worth the aggravation.
Russia is building up its agricultural sector via major greenhouse installations and other
innovations.
@AP
Well, you are a true simpleton who repeats shallow conventional views. You don't ever seem to
think deeper about what you write, e.g. if Yanukovitch could beat anyone in a 1-on-1 election
than he obviously wasn't that unpopular and that makes Maidan illegal by any standard. You
say he could beat Tiahnybok, who was one of the leaders of Maidan, how was then Maidan
democratic? Or you don't care for democracy if people vote against your preferences?
Trade with Russia is way down and it is not coming back. That is my point – there
was definitely a way to do this better. It wasn't a choice of 'one or the other' –
actually EU was under the impression that Ukraine would help open up the Russian market. Your
either-or wasn't the plan, so did Kiev lie to EU? No wonder Ukraine has a snowball chance in
hell of joining EU.
@Skeptikal
Russia moved to the first place in the world in wheat exports, while greatly increasing its
production of meat, fowl, and fish. Those who supplied these commodities lost Russian market
for good. In fact, with sanctions, food in Russia got a lot better, and food in Moscow got
immeasurably better: now it's local staff instead of crap shipped from half-a-world away.
Funny thing is, Russian production of really good fancy cheeses has soared (partially with
the help of French and Italian producers who moved in to avoid any stupid sanctions).
So, there is no reason for Russia to take Ukraine on any conditions, especially
considering Ukraine's exorbitant external debt. If one calculates European demand for
transplantation kidneys and prostitutes, two of the most successful Ukrainian exports,
Ukraine will pay off its debt – never. Besides, the majority of Russians learned to
despise Ukraine due to its subservient vassalage to the US (confirmed yet again by the
transcript of the conversation between Trump and Ze), so the emotional factor is also
virtually gone. Now the EU and the US face the standard rule of retail: you broke it, you own
it. That infuriates Americans and EU bureaucrats more than anything.
@Sergey
Krieger "Demography statistic won't support fairy tales by solzhenicin and his kind."
-- What's your point? Your post reads like an attempt at saying that Kaganovitch was white
like snow and that it does not matter what crimes were committed in the Soviet Union because
of the "demography statistic" and because you, Sergey Krieger, are a grander person next to
Solzhenitsyn and "his kind." By the way, had not A. I. S. returned to Russia, away from the
coziness of western life?
S.K.: "You should start research onto mass dying of population after 1991 and subsequent
and ongoing demographic catastroph in Russia under current not as "brutal " as soviet
regime."
@AP
Maidan was an illegal coup that violated Ukrainian constitution (I should say all of them,
there were too many) and lots of other laws. And that's not the worst part of it. But it
already happened, there is no going back for Ukraine. It's a "yes or no" thing, you can't be
a little bit pregnant. We can either commiserate with Ukraine or gloat, but it committed
suicide. Some say this project was doomed from the start. I think Ukraine had a chance and
blew it.
@AnonFromTN
I usually refrain from labelling off-cycle changes in government as revolutions or coups
– it clearly depends on one's views and can't be determined.
In general, when violence or military is involved, it is more likely it was a coup. If a
country has a reasonably open election process, violently overthrowing the current government
would also seem like a coup, since it is unnecessary. Ukraine had both violence and a coming
election that was democratic. If Yanukovitch would prevent or manipulate the elections, one
could make a case that at that point – after the election – the population could
stage a ' revolution '.
AP is a simpleton who repeats badly thought out slogans and desperately tries to save some
face for the Maidan fiasco – so we will not change his mind, his mind is done with
changes, it is all about avoiding regrets even if it means living in a lie. One can almost
feel sorry for him, if he wasn't so obnoxious.
Ukraine has destroyed its own future gradually after 1991, all the elites there failed,
Yanukovitch was just the last in a long line of failures, the guy before him (Yushenko?) left
office with a 5% approval. Why wasn't there a revolution against him? Maidan put a cherry on
that rotting cake – a desperate scream of pain by people who had lost all hope and so
blindly fell for cheap promises by the new-old hustlers.
We don't know what happens next, but we know the following: Ukraine will not be in EU,
or Nato. It will not be a unified, prosperous country. It will continue losing a large part
of its population. And oligarchy and 'corruption' is going to stay.
Another Maidan would most likely make things even worse and trigger a complete
disintegration. Those are the wages of stupidity and desperation – one can see an
individual example with AP, but they all seem like that.
@AP
You intentionally omitted the second part of what I wrote: 'a reasonably democratic
elections', neither 18th century American colonies, nor Russia in 1917 or Romania in 1989,
had them. Ukraine in 2014 did.
So all your belly-aching is for nothing. The talk about 'subverting' and doing a
preventive 'revolution' on Maidan to prevent 'subversion' has a very Stalinist ring to it. If
you start revolutionary violence because you claim to anticipate that something bad might
happen, well, the sky is the limit and you have no rules.
You are desperately trying to justify a stupid and unworkable act. As we watch the
unfolding disaster and millions leaving Ukraine, this "Maidan was great!!!" mantra will sound
even more silly. But enjoy it, it is not Somalia, wow, I guess as long as a country is not
Somalia it is ok. Ukraine is by far the poorest large country in Europe. How is that a
success?
@Beckow
True believers are called that because they willfully ignore facts and logic. AP is a true
believer Ukie. Ukie faith is their main undoing. Unfortunately, they are ruining the country
with their insane dreams. But that cannot be helped now. The position of a large fraction of
Ukrainian population is best described by a cruel American saying: fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me.
@AnonFromTN
You are right, it can't be helped. Another saying is that it takes two to lie: one who lies,
and one to lie to. The receiver of lies is also responsible.
What happened in Ukraine was: Nuland&Co. went to Ukraine and lied to them about '
EU, 'Marshall plan', aid, 'you will be Western ', etc,,,'. Maidanistas swallowed it
because they wanted to believe – it is easy to lie to desperate people. Making promises
is very easy. US soft power is all based on making promises.
What Nuland&Co. really wanted was to create a deep Ukraine-Russia hostility and to
grab Crimea, so they could get Russian Navy out and move Nato in. It didn't work very well,
all we have is useless hostility, and a dysfunctional state. But as long as they serve
espresso in Lviv, AP will scream that it was all worth it, 'no Somalia', it is 'all normal',
almost as good as 2013 . Right.
@AP
I don't disagree with what you said, but my point was different:
lower living standards than there would be otherwise for most Ukrainians
Without the unnecessary hostility and the break in business relations with Russia the
living standards in Ukraine would be higher. That, I think, noone would dispute. One can
trace that directly to the so-far failed attempt to get Ukraine into Nato and Russia out of
its Crimea bases. There has been a high cost for that policy, so it is appropriate to ask:
why? did the authors of that policy think it through?
@AP
I don't give a flying f k about Yanukovitch and your projections about what 'would be growth'
under him. He was history by 2014 in any case.
One simple point that you don't seem to grasp: it was Yanuk who negotiated the association
treaty with EU that inevitably meant Ukraine in Nato and Russia bases out of Crimea (after a
decent interval). For anyone to call Yanuk a 'pro-Russian' is idiotic – what we see
today are the results of Yanukovitch's policies. By the way, the first custom restrictions on
Ukraine's exports to Russia happened in summer 2013 under Y.
If you still think that Yanukovitch was in spite of all of that somehow a 'Russian
puppet', you must have a very low opinion of Kremlin skills in puppetry. He was not, he was
fully onboard with the EU-Nato-Crimea policy – he implemented it until he got
outflanked by even more radical forces on Maidan.
@Beckow
Well, exactly like all Ukrainian presidents before and after him, Yanuk was a thief. He might
have been a more intelligent and/or more cautious thief that Porky, but a thief he was.
Anyway, there is no point in crying over spilled milk: history has no subjunctive mood.
Ukraine has dug a hole for itself, and it still keeps digging, albeit slower, after a clown
in whole socks replaced a clown in socks with holes. By now this new clown is also a
murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although so far he has committed fewer crimes
than Porky.
There is no turning back. Regardless of Ukrainian policies, many things it used to sell
Russia won't be bought any more: Russia developed its own shipbuilding (subcontracted some to
South Korea), is making its own helicopter and ship engines, all stages of space rockets,
etc. Russia won't return any military or high-tech production to Ukraine, ever. What's more,
most Russians are now disgusted with Ukraine, which would impede improving relations even if
Ukraine gets a sane government (which is extremely unlikely in the next 5 years).
Ukraine's situation is best described by Russian black humor saying: "what we fought for
has befallen us". End of story.
@Peter
Akuleyev How many millions? It is same story. Ukraine claims more and more millions dead
from so called Hilodomor when in Russia liberals have been screaming about 100 million deaths
in russia from bolsheviks. Both are fairy tales. Now you better answer what is current
population of ukraine. The last soviet time 1992 level was 52 million. I doubt you got even
40 million now. Under soviet power both ukraine and russia population were steadily growing.
Now, under whose music you are dancing along with those in Russia that share your views when
die off very real one is going right under your nose.
By now this new clown is also a murderer, as he did not stop shelling Donbass, although
so far he has committed fewer crimes than Porky.
Have you noticed that the Republicans, while seeming to defend Trump, never challenge the
specious assertion that delaying arms to Ukraine was a threat to US security? At first I
thought this was oversight. Silly me. Keeping the New Cold War smoldering is more important
to those hawks.
Tulsi Gabbard flipping to support the impeachment enquiry was especially disappointing.
I'm guessing she was under lots of pressure, because she can't possibly believe that arming
the Ukies is good for our security. If I could get to one of her events, I'd ask her direct,
what's up with that. Obama didn't give them arms at all, even made some remarks about not
inflaming the situation. (A small token, after his people managed the coup, spent 8 years
demonizing Putin, and presided over origins of Russiagate to make Trump's [stated] goal of
better relations impossible.)
Not really. Ukies are wonnabe Nazis, but they fall way short of their ideal. The original
German Nazis were organized, capable, brave, sober, and mostly honest. Ukie scum is
disorganized, ham-handed, cowardly, drunk (or under drugs), and corrupt to the core. They are
heroes only against unarmed civilians, good only for theft, torture, and rape. When it comes
to the real fight with armed opponents, they run away under various pretexts or surrender.
Nazis should sue these impostors for defamation.
Yanukovych signed an internationally brokered power sharing agreement with his main
rivals, who then violated it. Yanukovych up to that point was the democratically elected
president of Ukraine.
Since his being violently overthrown, people have been unjustly jailed, beaten and killed
for politically motivated reasons having to do with a stated opposition to the
Euromaidan.
Yanukovych refrained from using from using considerably greater force, when compared to
others if put in the same situation, against a mob element that included property damage and
the deaths of law enforcement personnel.
In the technical legal sense, there was a legit basis to jail the likes of Tymoshenko. If
I correctly recall Yushchenko offered testimony against Tymoshenko. Rather laughable that
Poroshenko appointed the non-lawyer Lutsenko into a key legal position.
@Beckow
The undemocratic aspect involving Yanukovych's overthrow included the disproportionate number
of Svoboda members appointed to key cabinet positions. At the time, Svoboda was on record for
favoring the dissolution of Crimea's autonomous status
@AP
Grest comment #159 by Beckow. Really, I'm more concerned with the coup against POTUS that's
happening right now, since before he took office. The Ukraine is pivotal, from the Kiev
putschists collaborating with the DNC, to the CIA [pretend] whistleblowers who now subvert
Trump's investigation of those crimes.
Tragic and pitiful, the Ukrainians jumped from a rock to a hard place. Used and abandoned
by the Clinton-Soros gang, they appeal to the next abusive Sugar-Daddy. Isn't this FRANCE 24
report fairly objective?
Revisited: Five years on, what has Ukraine's Maidan Revolution achieved?
@AP
This from BBC is less current. (That magnificent bridge -the one the Ukies tried to sabotage-
is now in operation, of course.) I'm just trying to use sources that might not trigger you.
@AP
"Whenever people ask me how to figure out the truth about Ukraine, I always recommend they
watch the film Ukraine on Fire by director @lopatonok and executive produced by
@TheOliverStone. The sequel Revealing Ukraine will be out soon proud to be in it."
– Lee Sranahan (Follow @stranahan for Ukrainegate in depth.)
" .what has really changed in the life of Ukrainians?"
@Malacaay
Baltics, Ukrainians and Poles were part of the Polish Kingdom from 1025-1569 and the
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569-1764.
This probably explains their differences with Russia.
Russia had this area in the Russian Empire from 1764-1917. Russia called this area the
Pale of Settlement. Why? This Polish Kingdom since 1025 welcomed 25000 Jews in, who later
grew to millions by the 19th century. They are the Ashkenazis who are all over the world
these days. The name Pale was for Ashkenazis to stay in that area and not immigrate to the
rest of Russia.
The reasoning for this was not religious prejudice but the way the Ashkenazis treated the
peasants of the Pale. It was to protect the Russian peasants. This did not help after 1917. A
huge invasion of Ashkenazis descended all over Russia to take up positions all over the
Soviet Union.
Ukraine US is like the Pale again. It has a Jewish President and a Jewish Prime
Minister.
Ukraine and Poland were both controlled by Tartars too. Ukraine longer than Russia. Russia
ended the Tartar rule of Crimea in 1783. The Crimean Tartars lived off raiding Ukraine,
Poland, and parts of Russia for Slav slaves. Russia ended this Slav slave trade in 1783.
Looks like our stable genius" pushed Putin against Erdogan and sided with Erdogan in the
process.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. has seven NATO allies on the Med -- Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Albania, Greece and Turkey, and two on the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. We have U.S. forces and bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Djibouti. Russia has no such panoply of bases in the Middle East or Persian Gulf. ..."
"... There is first President Erdogan, who is demanding a 20-mile deep strip of Syrian borderland to keep the Syrian Kurds from uniting with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK. Erdogan wants the corridor to extend 280 miles, from Manbij, east of the Euphrates, all across Syria, to Iraq. ..."
"... Then there is Bashar Assad, victorious in his horrific eight-year civil war, who is unlikely to cede 5,000 square miles of Syrian territory to a permanent occupation by Turkish troops. ..."
"... The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS, Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted, and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe. ..."
"... Our foreign policy elites have used Trump's decision to bash him and parade their Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining American values. ..."
"... Endless demonization of Putin by the elitist press is pure idiocy. Putin's aim is no different from any decent leader. Do the best for your countrymen and countrywomen; yet without harming others. ..."
"... The answer lies in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Sadly, today's USA revenue to large extent dependent on militaristic revenue; even though most of that revenue ends up in the coffers of the MIC, supported by the media that is sustained by the MIC. Yet, I still believe that with a bit of pain Americans can turn around this horrid situation. ..."
"... The war in Syria and the growth of ISIS was entirely the result of actions by the Obama administration - and it is an outrage that no one in a position of power, not even Donald Trump, has called the Democrats out on this. ..."
"... Oh yeah, Name you seem to have forgotten Obama authorizing CIA training the moderate rebels (AKA Al qaida or moderate head choppers). By the way we handed the ME at least to Iran when Bush invaded Iraq under the false pretenses. Saintly Obama wanted to look forward but not backward on the false pretenses and he in turn engaged on the same BS as Bush. When history is written in a few years all this will come out. ..."
"... ISIS formed in the chaos that was the Iraq War, neat how you guys never accept blame for anything. ..."
"... The people who are obsessed w/staying in Syria, just for the sake of denying Russia a 'victory', at admitting that they just want to be a spoiler. They want to keep Syria partitioned into two weak states and not allow it to reform into a single state and heal. ..."
"... Our imperialists must have misread Tacitus, because it seems they aspire to making peaceful deserts. ..."
"... Putin is trusted in the middle east (and in most of the rest of the world) because he is an intelligent, consistent and respected world leader. Now compare this to the clown show of US politicians (Republican and Democrat). ..."
"... No serious person can say that US politicians are better than Putin, which is also the reason Putin is so demonized by the US political elite. ..."
"Russia Assumes Mantle of Supreme Power Broker in the Middle East," proclaimed Britain's
Telegraph .
The article began:
"Russia's status as the undisputed power-broker in the Middle East was cemented as Vladimir
Putin continued a triumphant tour of capitals traditionally allied to the U.S."
"Donald Trump Has Handed Putin the Middle East on a Plate" was the title of yet another
Telegraph column. "Putin Seizes on Trump's Syria Retreat to Cement Middle East Role,"
declared the Financial Times .
The U.S. press parroted the British: Putin is now the new master of the Mideast. And woe is
us.
Before concluding that Trump's pullout of the last 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria is America's
Dunkirk, some reflection is needed.
Yes, Putin has played his hand skillfully. Diplomatically, as the Brits say, the Russian
president is "punching above his weight."
He gets on with everyone. He is welcomed in Iran by the Ayatollah, meets regularly with Bibi
Netanyahu, is a cherished ally of Syria's Bashar Assad, and this week was being hosted by the
King of Saudi Arabia and the royal rulers of the UAE. October 2019 has been a triumphal
month.
Yet, consider what Putin has inherited and what his capabilities are for playing power
broker of the Middle East.
He has a single naval base on the Med, Tartus, in Syria, which dates to the 1970s, and a new
air base, Khmeimim, also in Syria.
The U.S. has seven NATO allies on the Med -- Spain, France, Italy, Croatia, Albania,
Greece and Turkey, and two on the Black Sea, Romania and Bulgaria. We have U.S. forces and
bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Djibouti. Russia has no such
panoply of bases in the Middle East or Persian Gulf.
We have the world's largest economy. Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's, and not a
tenth the size of ours.
And now that we are out of Syria's civil war and the Kurds have cut their deal with
Damascus, consider what we have just dumped into Vladimir Putin's lap. He is now the man in the
middle between Turkey and Syria.
He must bring together dictators who detest each other. There is first President
Erdogan, who is demanding a 20-mile deep strip of Syrian borderland to keep the Syrian Kurds
from uniting with the Turkish Kurds of the PKK. Erdogan wants the corridor to extend 280 miles,
from Manbij, east of the Euphrates, all across Syria, to Iraq.
Then there is Bashar Assad, victorious in his horrific eight-year civil war, who is
unlikely to cede 5,000 square miles of Syrian territory to a permanent occupation by Turkish
troops.
Reconciling these seemingly irreconcilable Syrian and Turkish demands is now Putin's
problem. If he can work this out, he ought to get the Nobel Prize.
"Putin is the New King of Syria," ran the op-ed headline in Thursday's Wall Street
Journal.
The Syria of which Putin is now supposedly king contains Hezbollah, al-Qaida, ISIS,
Iranians, Kurds, Turks on its northern border and Israelis on its Golan Heights. Five hundred
thousand Syrians are dead from the civil war. Half the pre-war population has been uprooted,
and millions are in exile in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Europe.
If Putin wants to be king of this, and it is OK with Assad, how does that imperil the United
States of America, 6,000 miles away?
Wednesday, two-thirds of the House Republicans joined Nancy Pelosi's Democrats to denounce
Trump's decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria and dissolve our alliance with the Kurds. And
Republican rage over the sudden abandonment of the Kurds is understandable.
But how long does the GOP believe we should keep troops in Syria and control the
northeastern quadrant of that country? If the Syrian army sought to push us out, under what
authority would we wage war against a Syrian army inside Syria?
And if the Turks are determined to secure their border, should we wage war on that NATO ally
to stop them? Would U.S. planes fly out of Turkey's Incirlik air base to attack Turkish
soldiers fighting in Syria?
If Congress believes we have interests in Syria so vital we should be willing to go to war
for them -- against Syria, Turkey, Russia or Iran -- why does Congress not declare those
interests and authorize war to secure them?
Our foreign policy elites have used Trump's decision to bash him and parade their
Churchillian credentials. But those same elites appear to lack the confidence to rally the
nation to vote for a war to defend what they contend are vital American interests and defining
American values.
If Putin is king of Syria, it is because he was willing to pay the price in blood and
treasure to keep his Russia's toehold on the Med and save his ally Bashar Assad, who would have
gone under without him.
Who dares wins. Now let's see how Putin likes his prize.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
Endless demonization of Putin by the elitist press is pure idiocy. Putin's aim is no
different from any decent leader. Do the best for your countrymen and countrywomen; yet
without harming others. At a recent interview with Arabic media a UAE journalist tried to
drive a wedge between Russia and Iran in favor of Saudi Kingdom by challenging Putin to
condemn Iran for alleged attacks on Saudi oil installations by Iran.
To which Putin
skillfully replied: "Russia will never be friends 'with one country against another' in the
Middle East". Nor would Putin condemn Iran unless he was presented with clear evidence - not
just accusations - of Iran's guilt. Point in case: Putin does it better than others; sure,
but why is that bad?
Oh of course envy and fear of one being exposed for inept leadership.
Time long overdue to shake hands with Putin and Russia.
https://www.rt.com/russia/o...
I haven't a concern for Russia in the middle east.
Russia is doing the US the biggest unasked favor proving where our friends and allies
loyalties in the middle east lay by forcing them to make choices in the face of shifting
alliances that they wouldn't reveal if the US continued its presence.
Russia is depopulating and it has choke points with China, with Central Asia, with the
middle east and Europe. Russia will eventually not have the population to defend all these
choke points and will eventually withdraw and focus on its own national security. At that
time, I think its possible to see Russia shift its relationship in eastern Europe while
distancing itself from Chinese expansionism that might one day want its old north pacific
territories back (like what is today Vladivostok and Sakhalin).
Depopulating? Where did you get that from? Population decrease in Russia stopped. By the
latest stats it is just about breaking even (death rates = birth rates). Moreover, population
is growing albeit very slowly. Sorry but Russkies won't die out like extinct species. As far
as its own national security; well, the old notion of "Russia is, more or less, a giant gas
station pretending to be a real country." is as dead as Senator McCain, who pretended to know
something about Russia; alas he was sadly and dangerously uninformed.
https://www.forbes.com/site...
The US has troops and a base or more in Syria?
I don't see any Syrian army bases in the US...
And, the US is telling/demanding where the Syrian army come and goes in...Syria?
What the hell is wrong with this picture?
You know!?
Oh, now hypocrite neo-con enabler Pelosi and some of the freaky other politicians are
concerned with human lives in Syria? Ha ha
But...not about the lives of children dying in Yemen and Afghanistan and Gaza?
How come?
And, the US is telling Turkey what it had better do with it's border? Also, friends and enemies o' mine,just which entity, nation and group is not a US ally?
Ally? What does that mean?
As if the American people know the hell that words means anymore and as if there's even a
meaning to that. And the American people do not watch the news, read magazines (news) as they
did before.
They don't know what is going on in the world, they gave up.
People under 50 automatically tune world news out, thanks mostly to the phonies at CNN and
the major, basically neo-con supporting networks confusing the public, purposely so that they
don't see the misery that is in the nations of the MId-East thanks to US invasions and
bombings. Just look at cnn-they spend all day talking about what Trump or some politician
said, no coverage of battles overseas, unless it benefits the continuing spinning of the news
for intervention and so on.
The US won't get a grip and stop threatening nation after nation
(while Russia does not) and so, people all over the world are thinking,
you now what, look at how dumb Americans are that they allow people from Obama, Hillary,
Schumer, Pelosi, Graham and more to conduct foreign policy that makes enemies for America
daily. And don't forget Cheney and that group, too from before. These people are actually an
insult to America.
Compare how the leaders of Russia and America talk and conduct themselves.
Russia has Lavrov, the gentleman diplomat, the US has Pompeo and the likes of Bolton and
Kushner, the Israeli lobbyist and the Presidents son in law.
How does a so-called Republic allow the President to have his daughter and Kushner, her
husband, to be security/foreign policy advisers. You're really losing it, America.
"But those same elites appear to lack the
confidence to rally the nation to vote for a war to defend what they
contend are vital American interests and defining American values."
No, they don't lack "confidence". They've got all the confidence in the world. What they
lack is competence, integrity, and credibility with the American people and the rest of the
world. They have dragged America through the mud in the Middle East for nearly two decades.
They transformed the once proud American military and diplomatic corps into a customer
service operation for Israel and Saudi Arabia.
We don't need more lectures and directives about "our interests" and "Western values" that
always turn out to be Israeli and Saudi Arabian interests and values. We need new foreign
policy elites, free of the current elite's miserable record of failure, corruption, and
subordination to foreign interests. Above all, we need to get out of the Mideast swamps that
the younger Bush and Obama pushed us into, bring our troops back to America, start defending
America and American interests again.
How simple and true what U've said. Sounds like a sound position and logical too. So why is
this not happening? The answer lies in the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Sadly, today's
USA revenue to large extent dependent on militaristic revenue; even though most of that
revenue ends up in the coffers of the MIC, supported by the media that is sustained by the
MIC. Yet, I still believe that with a bit of pain Americans can turn around this horrid
situation.
The war in Syria and the growth of ISIS was entirely the result of actions by the Obama
administration - and it is an outrage that no one in a position of power, not even Donald
Trump, has called the Democrats out on this.
Oh yeah, Name you seem to have forgotten Obama authorizing CIA training the moderate rebels
(AKA Al qaida or moderate head choppers). By the way we handed the ME at least to Iran when
Bush invaded Iraq under the false pretenses. Saintly Obama wanted to look forward but not
backward on the false pretenses and he in turn engaged on the same BS as Bush. When history
is written in a few years all this will come out.
The people who are obsessed w/staying in Syria, just for the sake of denying Russia a
'victory', at admitting that they just want to be a spoiler. They want to keep Syria
partitioned into two weak states and not allow it to reform into a single state and heal.
Trump is indeed our Dorian Gray, he is just outwardly reflecting our narcissism, 'if we
don't get to do it then no one else can'.
Obvious Pat we have no consistent foreign policy in the region since we inherited the mantle
from the Brit Empire post WW 2. Oil and Israel were a marketable justification for our wars
and changing partners ( regime change ), for a long time. Now neither is relevant. We have
all the fossil fuels we need, and Israel is all powerful.. Long term I doubt the Russians
will make a difference, in the Muslim quest to resurrect the Ottoman Empire. We have lost too
many of our sons and daughters. get out.
Trump is a genius.
At the moment, Syria is a poisoned chalice to anyone accepting responsibility for it.
Russia is only there because they cannot get a naval base in any other Mediterranean
country.
When, or if peace is achieved in Syria, it will be the US that swoops in to market the
brands the Arabs love. The Syrians won't be buying Russian products.
Name an American brand the "Arabs love": Toyota, Lexis, Rollex, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic,
Samsung, iPhone (made in China)? Which one(s). While their infrastructure and basic
technology are and will continue to be Russian.
Putin is trusted in the middle east (and in most of the rest of the world) because he is an
intelligent, consistent and respected world leader. Now compare this to the clown show of US
politicians (Republican and Democrat).
No serious person can say that US politicians are better than Putin, which is also the
reason Putin is so demonized by the US political elite.
The Middle East is home to oil, terrorism, access points for maritime transportation (The Red
Sea, The Bosphorus, Suez Canal, Persian Gulf). It is strategically important. It was a
mistake for Obama to leave Iraq before there was a stable situation and it is a mistake for
Trump to leave before there is a stable situation.
To say, "Just let them all fight it out" is foolhardy and likely just a rationalization
for your mistake to support the narcissistic fool in the White House.
I don't think Putin is going to be unhappy about it. The various powers of the ME will now go
to him for favors, and he will get favors in return. I doubt US interests will be among them.
Putin said, I've got your no fly zone right here. After Russian deployment of the SA400's,
america had no choice but to begin withdrawal.
And kind of missing from Buchanan's list of
putin friends, is erdogan himself.
So, it will be interesting to see what happens now. Putin
holds all the cards and is in the best position of anybody on the planet to broker a deal
between assad and erdogan. Part of that deal will likely be very bad for those who threw
their lot in with the US.
Turkey is not a small country and has an enormous military.
Buchanan himself said that we should stay out of Syria and let the Turks deal with ISIS.
But
they were too smart for that, and had their own coup to worry about. I have always thought
that the US should have brokered a homeland for the kurds. It would have been hard, but now
it is impossible.
Turkey is now a client state of Russia much more than a member of NATO. At
least in appearance. They now buy SA400's and SU-57's from mother russia.
Who supplies and
maintains your best weapon systems indicates who your real allies are. What has the US lost?
I would say we lost anybody across the globe that we ever hoped would ally with us against
the new sino-russian superpower. Russia has unlimited space and resources. China has
unlimited people and no limits on its technical growth and markets. The US? We are the
biggest debtor third world nation that has ever existed. But hey, we have the most stable
genius as our president, and the sky is the limit for what he will accomplish other than
permanent tax cuts for corporations. Right? The right again.
Except for 2 wrongs, they
wouldn't even exist. Can faith overcome inconvenient truth? Real faith probably could by
accepting inconvenient truth. But real faith is mostly dead. It was replaced with tax free
religiosity and assault weaponry sponsored by corporate fascist government. I watched it
happen. And his story is being rewritten in days or weeks instead of years and decades.
It's not often that I would agree with Pat B. Essentially never.
But on this point, yes. If Putin wants the Middle East, by all means proceed.
That region has been messing up our politics for literally my whole life - It is most
decidedly not a Promised Land for the United States. Let the Saudis and the
Iranians and the Russians and the Turks fight it out. It should be lovely. The Israelis call
sell weapons to all of them.
Thank you for this small bit of obvious wisdom, Mr. Buchanan. Your insights are very common
sensical here, and thus, most valuable. Too bad they will mostly fall on the deaf ears of our
moronic "Elites".
I believe Obama said that Putin would be overwhelmed in Syria. However, Putin has overseen an
excellent strategy of picking an area of insurgents, militarily pounding them, then offering
them free passage to a safe area (Idlib). After doing this across Syria, he and Assad now
have all of the jihadist groups in one place where they can pound them senseless or just sit
back and wait for them to start shooting each other.
Trump did not screw up the Kurds' clearing of ISIS above the Euphrates. Now he has given
Putin and Assad the results of that. I expect the PA team will stabilize that area in short
order.
So, Idlib and NW Syria will be a cauldron for a while. Now Al Tanf is the only insurgent
holdout. Be interesting to see how that unfolds.
Lest Trumpland forget, there is a reason we got involved in the region. Jihadists can and
will use neglect to later come after us.
Putin shows us how its done. 3 billion or so, find good Muslims (anyone other than Sunni
islamists) and help them blow up, conquer, and occasionally repress the bad Muslims.
We spent several TRILLION ourselves and thousands of American lives for nothing. We never
had a single achievable objective in any of these conflicts.
Donald is a moron for selling out the Kurds, who it cost nothing to back, to Turkey but
the DC elites made this inevitable by refusing to cut a deal with Assad for the Kurds. He's
been the only realistic option for a long time now.
"... I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against 'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans. ..."
"... This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a good description ..."
"... The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely two branches of the Business Party. ..."
"... Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points across at the same time. ..."
"... Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment. ..."
"... Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local. ..."
Hillary Clinton appeared to suggest that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is the "favorite of the Russians" to win the 2020 presidential
election and is being groomed by Moscow to run as a third-party candidate against the eventual Democratic nominee.
...
The Russians already have their "eye on somebody who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party
candidate," she said, in an apparent reference to Gabbard.
"She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her, so far," Clinton
told David Plouffe, the podcast's host and the campaign manager for former President Obama's 2008 campaign.
"And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset," Clinton added, referring
to the 2016 Green Party presidential candidate.
The responses were appropriate:
Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard - 22:20 UTC
· Oct 18, 2019
Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton. You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that
has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy,
there has been a ...
... concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through
your proxies and ...
... powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose.
It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly.
The Streisand effect of Clinton's shoddy remark will help Tulsi Gabbard with regards to name recognition. It will increase her
poll results. With Joe Biden faltering and Elizabeth Warren increasingly exposed as a phony Clinton copy, Bernie Sanders could become
the Democrats leading candidate. Then the “favorite of the Russians” smear will be applied to him.
Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party for damaging it's chances to regain the White House. But the Democratic
establishment would rather sabotage the election than to let one of the more progressive candidates take the lead.
Voters do not like such internal squabble and shenanigans. The phony Ukrainegate 'impeachment inquiry' is already
a gift for Trump. Messing with the candidate field on top
of that will inevitably end with another Trump presidency.
and Suspend her from what? a lamp post? That's a little bit harsh.
Hillary is actually doing something constructive for the first time in her career - by giving a boost to Tulsi Gabbard who
is the only candidate who challenges the military industrial complex, which has probably caused more death and destruction than
anyone else in history.
I suspect that Gabbard has very little chance of beating Trump because he is also campaigning - quite successfully - against
'endless wars', and Gabbard is too radical for most Americans.
But none of the other Democratic candidates stand a chance of beating Trump either. The two front-runners are medically unfit
for any important challenging job - Biden (senility) and Sanders (recent heart attack/stroke?).
Tulsi is urging Hillary to "enter the race" !! Hillary is foaming at the mouth with desire to enter the 2020 race. Is Tulsi
working for Hillary?
Behind the scenes it was decided to make HunterBidenGate the pretext for a Trump impeachment. This, it
was thought, would damage Trump AND Biden and make way for the resurrection of Hillary Clinton. There were so many other pretexts
available but they chose this one.
"Clinton should be suspended from the Democratic Party"
This sparks some interesting questions, such as, exactly who are party members, and how do they become members? The actual
structure and functioning of political parties in the US is seldom discussed, and I wonder why that is. "Opaque" seems to be a
good description. Even a quick review of the Wikipedia entry reveals little.
As best I can tell, a person is a party member by checking the box on the voter registration form. The few times I have registered,
I did not check a box for any party. It is none of the state's business who I associate with or vote for.
It is also not the state's business to supervise and fund the selection of party candidates. But that is what happens in the
US. The primary voting system is a huge financial subsidy to the two officially approved parties, which are, of course, merely
two branches of the Business Party.
"It didn't come much clearer nor more explicit than when Gabbard fired up the Democratic TV debate this week. It was billed
as the biggest televised presidential debate ever, and the Hawaii Representative told some prime-time home-truths to the nation:
"Donald Trump has blood of the Kurds on his hands, but so do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have
supported this ongoing regime-change war in Syria that started in 2011 along with many in the mainstream media who have been championing
and cheer-leading this regime-change war."
The 38-year-old military veteran went on to denounce how the US has sponsored Al Qaeda terrorists for its objective of overthrowing
the government in Damascus."
Good for Tulsi. I love the way she punches. She not only decked Clinton in one, but she got a lot of other important points
across at the same time. The way she tries to finesse her stances on Iran, India and Israel is disturbing though.
Whenever she tries to curve her stance close to the establishment, she comes off as someone who is running for Secretary
of State or Secretary of Defense; as someone with her eyes on a high status job in the establishement.
When she's forthright, punches hard and says the things that many people are thinking but few dare say - as she did in her
statement on Syria, but didn't in her statement on Iran - she comes off as the first real candidate for President that I've seen
in my lifetime (I don't count the likes of Dennis Kucinich, who never seemed to actually want to win).
If Tulsi is serious about doing the world good, this is the path she needs to take. Speak the truths no one else is willing
to say; punch hard; stick with it. Yeah and be willing to die for it. If they can't stop you, which I don't think they can, they'll
come gunning for you...
Finally, at last, foreign affairs (i.e wars) has made it into a presidential campaign, and by a veteran, with veterans currently
being sanctified in the U.S. The women (Tulsi, Jill and Hillary) are getting down and dirty, too, which is always a good thing
and a feature of politics in time past, as in the Truman era. President Harry Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen. If you cannot handle the pressure, you should not remain in a position where you have to deal with it."
Let's hope that they get into the details of Hillary's failures, including Libya, Somalia, and especially Syria. Let's get
it on! In the last election she never was forced to answer for her specific failures. Now's the time.
Hillary Clinton can't be thrown out of the Dem party because she in a sense IS the Dem party as it stands now, a long way
from its roots. The Dem party now has been fully integrated into the bureaucracy, the intelligence services and the corporate
media similar to how Tony Blair in the UK took the Labour Party to be deeply embedded in the UK establishment.
What Trump has successfully done from the right that Sanders/Gabbard (like Corbyn in the UK) are struggling to do from the
left is to attack the establishment that's in a permanent state of warfare abroad and at home against its "enemies" and unfettered
capitalism at home For a brief moment it was hoped by progressives that Obama - who defeated the faces of the establishment, Clinton
and McCain in 2008 - would really fight the establishment but he ended up becoming more of a celebrity politician like Trudeau
who talked a good game but was unable to effect real change on the ground which of course led to a large number or African Americans
not voting in 2016 and a lot of white blue collar Obama 2008 voters going for Trump.
The corporate media which has been totally corrupted and infiltrated by intelligence agencies - quote openly versus covertly
as in the past - is going to make every effort to shut down not just Gabbard but Sanders and ensure that Warren - a wannabe feel-gooder
like Obama - be completely neutered to effect real change.
Hillary is still around because she literally owns the Democrat party. Follow the funding: in 2016, almost all of it flowed
through HRC. Not just the presidential, but the state and significant part of the local.
Negotiators for Russia, Ukraine, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe recently met in Minsk to revive the
agreement previously reached in the Belarus capital. They set an election schedule in the contested east, to be followed by passage
of Ukrainian legislation to grant the region greater autonomy and separatists legal immunity. Despite strong opposition from nationalists,
passage is likely since Zelensky's party holds a solid legislative majority.
Many challenges remain, but the West could aid this process by respecting Russian security concerns. The U.S. and its allies should
formally foreclose Ukraine's membership in the transatlantic alliance and end lethal military aid. After receiving those assurances,
Moscow would be expected to resolve the Donbass conflict, presumably along the lines of Minsk: Ukraine protects local autonomy while
Russia exits the fight. Sanctions against Russia would be lifted. Ukrainians would be left to choose their economic orientation,
since the country would likely be split between east and west for some time to come. The West would accept Russia's control of Crimea
while refusing to formally recognize the conquest -- absent a genuinely independent referendum with independent monitors.
Such a compromise would be controversial. Washington's permanent war lobby would object. Hyper-nationalistic Ukrainians would
double down on calling Zelensky a traitor. Eastern Europeans would complain about appeasing Russia. However, such a compromise would
certainly be better than endless conflict.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the
author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
I understand why you want to thread the needle. After the invasions, having to add more failure or at the very least recognition
of dysfunction to our foreign policy choices and consequences is a bitter pill. But as you note had the US and the EU seriously
had the desire to add the Ukraine into the western European sphere of influence, they could have offered a better deal on oil
- they didn't.
I think we have got to stop accusing the then existing government of corruption. As your own article states, the history of
unstable governance with accompanying "corruption" seems a staple and nonunique. And as is the case in developing countries, what
we call corruption is a cultural staple of how business and affairs are conducted. Whatever the issues, the Ukrainian public was
not overly beset by the results so as to spontaneously riot. How the civil unrest spun out of control the second in ten years,
can be linked directly to US and EU involvement.
It is a deeply held belief that democracy is a system that by definition a generally acceptable path forward. That belief is
false as democracy is still comprised of human beings. And democracy in their hands is no "cure all". It can be a turbulent and
jerky bureaucratic maze process that pleases no one and works over time.
The US didn't accomplish it without violence until after more than 130 years, when the native populations were finally subdued.
And as for a system that embodied equal treatment to similar circumstance -- we are still at it. But a violent revolution every
ten years certainly isn't the most effective road to take.
-----------------
Why we insistent on restarting the cold war is unclear to me save that it served to create a kind of strategic global clarity
Though what that means would troublesome because Russia's ole would now be as a developing democratic state as opposed to a communist
monolith. And that means unfettered from her satellites and empowered by more capital markets her role as adversary would be more
adroit. As time after time, Ores Putin has appeared the premier diplomat for peace and stability in situations in which the US
was engaged or encouraging violence.(the Ukraine). I certainly don't think that our relations with Russia or China are a to be
kumbaya love fests, there is still global competition and there's no reason to pretend it would be without tensions. But seriously,
as a democratic/capital market player -- there really was no way to contain Russia.
----------------------
Given what we experienced during 2007 --- corruption comes in a mryiad of guises.
All so very true. The crux of the matter is the word competition. US doesn't like that, as a monopolist entity (the world would
be hegemonic power). So you get Cold War 2.0 in overdrive now. Just think Great Britain, Russia, and Germany, at the end of 19th
century beginning of 20th. All three monarchies, with cousins in power, with more or less parliamentarian structures in place,
competing for a place under sun. And UK fretting that will loose its place...
"... For those who don't speak fluent neoconservative, "isolationist" here means taking even one small step in any direction other than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and "We are becoming isolationist" here means "We have hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world." ..."
"... a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is endangering peace with his "isolationism" ..."
"... Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness that the opposite of "war" is no longer "peace", but "isolationism". By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things. ..."
Humanity was treated to an important lecture on peace at a recent event for the NIR School of the Heart by none other than Ellen
Degeneres BFF and world-renowned peace expert George W Bush.
"I don't think the Iranians believe a peaceful Middle East is in their national interest," said the former president according
to The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin, whose
brief Twitter thread on the subject appears
to be the only record of Bush's speech anywhere online.
"An isolationist United States is destabilizing around the world," Bush said during the speech in what according to Rogin was
a shot at the sitting president.
"We are becoming isolationist and that's dangerous for the sake of peace."
For those who don't speak fluent neoconservative, "isolationist" here means taking even one small step in any direction other
than continued military expansionism into every square inch of planet Earth, and "We are becoming isolationist" here means "We have
hundreds of military bases circling the globe, our annual military budget is steadily climbing toward the trillion-dollar mark, and
we are engaged in countless undeclared wars and regime change interventions all around the world."
It is unclear why Bush is choosing to present himself as a more peaceful president than Trump given that by this point in his
first term Bush had launched not one but two full-scale ground invasion wars whose effects continue to ravage the Middle East to
this very day, especially given the way both presidents appear to be in furious agreement on foreign policy matters like Iran. But
here we are.
From a certain point of view it's hard to say which is stranger:
(A) a war criminal with a blood-soaked legacy of mass murder, torture and military expansionism telling Trump that he is
endangering peace with his "isolationism", or
(B) the claim that Trump is "isolationist" at all.
But these bogus warnings about a dangerous, nonexistent threat of isolationism are nothing new for Dubya. In
his farewell address to the nation , Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism
and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity
at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
As we discussed
recently , use of the pro-war buzzword "isolationism" has been re-emerging from its post-Bush hibernation as a popular one-word
debunk of any opposition to continued US military expansionism in all directions, and it is deceitful in at least three distinct
ways. Firstly, the way it is used consistently conflates isolationism with non-interventionism, which
are two wildly
different things . Secondly, none of the mainstream political figures who are consistently tarred with the "isolationist" pejorative
are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination, or even proper non-interventionists; they all support many interventionist positions
which actual non-interventionists object to. Thirdly, calling someone who opposes endless warmongering an "isolationist" makes as
much sense as calling someone who opposes rape a man-hating prude; opposing an intrinsically evil act is not the same as withdrawing
from the world.
Nobody actually believes that US foreign policy is under any threat of anything remotely resembling isolationism. The real
purpose of this buzzword is to normalize the forever war and drag the Overton window so far in the direction of ghoulish hawkishness
that the opposite of "war" is no longer "peace", but "isolationism". By pulling this neat little trick, the propagandists of the
political/media class have successfully made endless war seem like a perfectly normal thing to be happening and any small attempt
to scale it back look weird and freakish, when the truth is the exact opposite. War is weird, freakish and horrific, and peace is
of course normal. This is the only healthy way to see things.
It would actually be great if George W Bush could shut the fuck up forever, ideally in a locked cell following a public war tribunal.
Failing that, at the very least people should stop looking at him as a cuddly wuddly teddy bear with whom it's fun to
share a sporting arena suite or a
piece of hard candy or to
hang award medals on for his treatment of veterans. This mass murdering monster has been
growing more and more popular with
Democrats lately just because he offers mild criticisms of Trump sometimes, as have war pigs like
Bill Kristol and Max Boot and even John
Bolton for the same reason, and it needs to stop. And in the name of a million dead Iraqis, please don't start consulting this
man on matters of peace.
But its not just the US that is a war machine. Bourne's statement equally applies to _all_
states everywhere, past present and future.
If any state appears to not be making war on other countries at any particular time,
its only because it is too busy making war on its own citizens [ eg taxes, drug laws,
weapons/gun laws, religion laws, speech laws, environmental laws etc.etc. etc.], and has not
yet created enough fake money via its central bank to enable it to debt-fund consistent
overseas aggressions against others.
Wars by the US will never end because arms manufactures own Trump. Almost one half of the
US budget goes for the security of the state, domestic and abroad. New weapon development
would come to a halt if the US was not threatened. Fake news about China and Russia planning
to attack the US keeps the arms industry humming. Over a million national security workers
and their families would be devastated if Trump stopped fighting fake wars. God bless
imagined threat of wars.
This has strengthened the possibility of the revival of the Islamic State in Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL or ISIS). There are around 10,000 such ISIS fighters currently lodged in
prisons run by the SDF.
And with this, "the war on terror" is guaranteed to go on, and on, and on..
@WJ The
machinations people are making on this topic are truly stunning when it's clear Trump is
doing the right thing. Today are reports that US positions and bases in N. Syria have been
turn keyed over the Assad and Russian forces. Trump IS Protecting the Kurds, just not with
American blood, as he promised.
The one thing Turkey has always wanted is a broken Syria so it can gobble up the remnants.
Past US (and many current) leaders and Democrats were complicit in this by funneling cash and
weapons to Syrian opposition, which directly led to the rise of Isis and deaths of thousands
– can you say evil?
I have hope that Trumps current actions will bring an end to thus war for good –
Turkey was OK to beat up on some kurds but war with Russia is something else.
@OscarWildeLoveChild
imho Jewish power keeps Trump on a perpetual short leash (Schiff is this month's designee to
'walk the dog') until Iran is wrecked.
[edit: renfro commented on Giraldi's earlier thread reminding readers that Israel has a
major interest in the Kurds, their territory, which is oil rich. Remember the proposals to
divide Iraq into three ]
Warren -- BDS is one thing, but her agenda to tax >$50million -- that's the part people
hear & cheer: Hooray! Soak the rich!
The next thing she says is, "Use the money to pay for universal child care, universal
kindergarten, increase pay for child care workers."
This gets cheers from millennials struggling to keep two people employed and kids cared
for.
But think about how drastically anti-family those proposals are.
TOTALLY turn over the care of our children to the loving embrace of the federal government
aka the Frankfurt school
The combined synthesis of social theory and psychoanalysis thus allows resituating on
new bases the Marxist optimism according to which the working class, due to its position in
the relations of production, is disposed to adopt a point of view scientifically based on
reality as well as promote legitimate forms of action.
Knowledge of the forms of the becoming-adult of humanity conceived by Freud, in the form
of a theory of passage through different stages that must result in an assumed genital
sexuality, leads to the recognition of a working class that is believed to be less
encumbered by typically bourgeois prejudices and perversities.
Just in case you hadn't heard the good news, the last man from the president's foreign
policy "team" still standing, Trump whisperer Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, recently left
National Security Advisor John Bolton in the dust.
June 27, 2018 Harvard Research Scholar Explains How America Created Al-Qaeda & The
ISIS Terror Group
It's truly amazing how much the consciousness of the planet has changed within the past 5
years alone, and it's not just happening within one topic, but in several different areas
ranging from health to geopolitics and everything in-between.
@eah
Yes, indeed. He is a loose cannon. Don't those people who are still kissing the hem of
Trump's garments remember all that stuff he said during his campaign? Sure, we all know that
politicians lie in order to get elected – but nothing on this level. Like the Scorpion
and Frog poem, or at least his version of it (the Snake).
@NoseytheDuke
The goal was to topple Assad. Remember Obama? Assad must go? Assad and the Assad regime are
still there. Where is Saddam Hussein? Where is Muammar Gaddafi? After seven years of war in
Syria the victors are Syria, Iran and Russia. The losers are the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia
and Turkey. The real losers of course are the dead and the maimed. The widows and orphans.
And the millions who have been displaced and have become refugees. All are victims of
Imperial aggression. And the real winners of course are the war profiteers who have grown
fatter and fatter since 9/11.
What Trump wants to do and what he can do are two very different things. The MIC/Zionist rot
in DC is way too deep and entrenched for any one man to tackle.
Trump could make all his Schiffty problems go away by bombing Iran. Overnight, the man
would be lauded as the president we need and that aging hack Pelosi would suddenly drop that
phony impeachment hearing.
Trump is finding out that when making foreign policy, the safest route to take is to first
ask, "Is this good for Israel?"
I have always contended that the best way to use Trump is to support his ego. Let's
inundate him with praise for withdrawing from the Kurdish/Turkish quagmire. Sure, he hasn't
vacated Syria yet, however, he has no choice but to vacate or be evacuated. His ego will
opt for the former
@DESERT
FOX Exactly, with thousands of ISIS,ISIL(American/Israeli proxy forces)types now being
freed due to Turkey's incursions into Syria, these "rebels" will be free to re-group and
fight another day. Hence the need for American forces to STAY deployed in the Area. This is
nothing more than a distraction move by Trump, which will result in the opposite "intended"
actions of American forces being withdrawn from Syria. This will also guarantee the "need"
for a strong Soviet presence in Syria.
America/Israel/Russia have always wanted the partitioning of Syria, the only point of
contention between America/Israel and Russia was whether Assad was to be forced from power or
would be allowed to remain President as a puppet of Putin and the Russians. Syria was to
never remain a sovereign nation.
The US still hasn't acknowledged the Armenian Massacre by the Turks. Why should it care
about Kurds. US is the nation that said killing 500,000 kids in Iraq was worth it.
Syria, Iraq, Libya are now less of a threat to Israel than ever before so that is a kind
of peace.
Not really. All are still standing and not under US control. Iraq now leans even more
toward Iran and Syria toward Russia ..and that outcome in these countries has made Israel's
goal of destroying Iran much harder and less likely .
The curtailment of the Kurds, Israel's long time friends and proxy , is another blow to
Israel's plot.
It appears to me that Putin's idea is to force everyone back into their own countries and
borders .he may have shared that plan with Trump and that may have resulted in turning Turkey
loose to do that job.
@WJ
Right. But as Giraldi always points out, Trump almost attacked Venezuela. He said mean
words and rattled sabres! As opposed to Obama, who said no mean words ('cause he upheld the
"dignity of the office") but sent the fighter jets into Libya and turned that country from a
stable, secular regime into a human trafficking warzone. And also got an ambassador killed.
Here are some of Giraldi's gems from April 2011:
Libya is a humanitarian mission
it [the invasion] has no clearly stated objective except to protect Libyan
civilians
it is now clear that the rebels do not have any military organization to speak of and
Gaddafi has the whip hand
Nice analysis there, Mr. CIA lifer and Obama lickspittle. I can only assume Giraldi was
part of the crack CIA team of Sovietologists who were utterly blindsided when the Soviet
Union broke up. It's amazing how much slack he's given around here for his anti-Israel stuff.
It's like Teflon for him.
@Priss
Factor Agree, and the ZUS has killed millions in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and
Syria, for their zionist masters, the only lives the ZUS cares about is zionists.
@NoseytheDuke
The only question you failed to address is what was the true motives of Putin's intervention
into the whole mess. A few good points:
As in Ukraine, Putin will stay in Syria until it no longer suits him. He has no
long-term strategic goals beyond creating chaos and weakening the alliances of the free
world wherever possible. This allows him to play the big man on the international stage, an
essential element of his domestic appeal. 24/7 propaganda and Soviet nostalgia have turned
Putin's invasion into a domestic hit in Russia. In contrast, Russians have
