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
“As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government
at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying
the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of
maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on
the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind
eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.”
New American militarism is connected with the desire to establish global neoliberal empire ruled by the USA (the dream of total world
dominance). It became official policy since the collapse of the USSR and involves "heliocentric" view on foreign policy,
when the USA is the center of the world order and other states just rotate around it on various orbits. The US population is by-and-large-completely
brainwashed into this vision.
Opposition to the US militarism is almost non-existent due contemporary US popular culture infused with the language of militarism
and American exceptionalism. As Bacevich noted:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with heavily armed and implacably determined
enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men
and women of America’s uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats. The typical
Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological aptitude and sheer decency of the nation’s
defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter a world of ‘virtuous men and perfect weapons’, as one reviewer noted. ‘All the Americans
are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly competent and occasionally inspired.
Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.’ Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October,
Clancy stipulated that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
The "New American militarism" or as it called "Neocon mentality" is not that different
from the early Soviets militarism (of Trotskyite variety), eager to spread the blessings of Scientific Socialism toward other
countries on the tips of bayonets. Here the role of scientific socialism is played by neoliberal ideology. With the slogan
"Transnational elite unite" and Davos style Congresses of the new "Neoliberal International" of comprador elites. While
converting other countries into neoliberal model using color revolution of direct military invasion or combination of both) are disguised
as spread of "democracy".
In this new Crusade for world hegemony the key ideas of Trotsky Permanent Revolution remains intact -- a crusade for establishing
new social system on all counties on the Earth. This is just Great Neoliberal Crusade, instead of Communist Crusade. This new
justification for Crusades has the same problems as two previous. But it does not matter as the key role of democracy here is the same
as in quote "the goal justifies the means"
Professor Andrew Bacevich wrote several short books on the subject. he avoids the term neoliberalism and did not try to explain new
American militarism in terms of the quest for neoliberal empire expansion. But he is a very good observer and the books contain many
insights into US elite thinking and blunders. Among them we can note two:
While all three books are excellent and raise important issues, they overlap. Probably the most original and the most important
on them is Washington Rules, were Bacevich attempts to explain "Permanent War for Permanent Peace" that the USA practice since the end
of WWII. All three books have the same weaknesses: Bacevich does not see connection between Neoliberalism demand for economic expansion
and "New American Militarism" and regime of permanent wars that the USA pursue since WWII.
He provide sharp critique of neocons, but never ask the question: which political forces brought those pathetic second or third rate
thinkers to the forefront of formulation of the US foreign policy and maintain them for more then a decade after Iraq debacle.
He also mistakenly believe that American people (who were completely estranged from any influence on nation's policies) bear some
guilt for the policy which was formulated to benefit the first hundred of the largest US corporations. In other words he does not understand
that the USA is yet another occupied country.
[Neocons] advocate permanent war for permanent peace
Professor Basevich
The foreign policy of the USA since 1945, but especially, after the dissolution of the USSR was and is "open militarism". Recently
John Quiggin tried to define militarism is came to the following definition (crookedtimber.org):
100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the catastrophe of the Great War and
the decades of slaughter that followed it. Rather than get bogged down (yet again) in specifics that invariably decline into arguments
about who know more of the historical detail, I'm going to try a different approach, looking at the militarist ideology that gave
us the War, and trying to articulate an anti-militarist alternative.
Wikipedia offers a definition of militarism which, with the
deletion of a single weasel word, seems to be entirely satisfactory and also seems to describe the dominant view of the political
class, and much of the population in nearly every country in the world.
Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and
be prepared to use it aggressively[^1] to defend or promote national interests
This new epidemic of the US militarism started after the dissolution of the USSR was called by Professor Bacevich (who is former
colonel of the US army) it New American Militarism.
global interventionism is used to achieve those ends.
Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially,
neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. They profess that the US that is
uniquely qualified to take on the worldwide foes of peace and democracy, forgetting, revising, or ignoring the painful lessons of World
War II, Vietnam, and Iraq. And that establishing and maintaining the neoliberal empire is worth the price we pay as it will take the
USA into the period of unprecedented peace.
Bacevich scored a direct hit on the foundations of the American national security state with this scathing critique, and demolishes
the unspoken assumptions that he believes have led the United States into a senseless, wasteful, and counter-productive "perpetual
war for perpetual peace".
Bacevich scores a direct hit on the foundations of the American national security state with this scathing critique, and demolishes
the unspoken assumptions that he believes have led the United States into a senseless, wasteful, and counter-productive posture of
nearly perpetual war. These assumptions take the form of the "credo" -- which holds that the United States has the unique responsibility
to intervene wherever it wants, for whatever purpose it wants, by whatever means it wants -- and the supporting "trinity" of
requirements for the U.S. to maintain a global military presence, to configure its military forces for global power projection, and
to counter threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism.
Lessons that President Obama is clearly never able to learn. In this sense his book
Washington Rules: America's
Path to Permanent War is an excellent peace of research with sections that some may find very troubling as it suggest that the USA
elite is suicidal and is ready to sacrifice the county for achieving its delusional goal of world domination.
UFPPC (www.ufppc.org) Digging Deeper CXXXVII: September 27, 2010, 7:00 p.m.
Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War (New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Company, August
2010).
Thesis
The Washington consensus on national security policy that constitutes convention wisdom in American foreign policy began with
the Cold War and survived, remarkably, the Vietnam War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, no longer serves American interests,
but the failure of the Obama administration to alter it shows that change can only come from the American people.
Introduction: Slow Learner
The author's faith in orthodoxy began to crumble when visiting the BrandenburgGate in Berlin in the winter of 1990-1991(1-4).
In October 1990 a visit to Jenarevealed the backwardness of EastGermany (4-6). During his years in the Army, Bacevich had kept down
doubts; after the end of the Cold War he retired, and his loss of status freed him to educate himself (6-10).
"George W.Bush's decision to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 pushed me fully into opposition" (10). "This book aims to
take stock of conventional wisdom" (11). The past 60 years of American history shows continuity: a symbiotic "credo" (formulated
by Henry Luce in 1941 as the "American Century") and a "sacred trinity" ("the minimum essentials of international peace and order
require the United States to maintain a global military presence, to configure its forces for global power projection, and to counter
existing or anticipated threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism") together define "the rules to which Washington
adheres" (11-15).
In this book, "Washington" refers to the upper echelons of the three branches of government, the main agencies of the national
security state, select think tanks and interest groups, "big banks and other financial institutions, defense contractors and major
corporations, television networks and elite publications like the New York Times, even quasi-academic entities like the Council on
Foreign Relations and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government" (15).
This book aspires to
(1) trace the history of the Washington rules;
(2) show who wins, who loses, and who pays under them;
(3) explain how itis perpetuated;
(4) show that the rules have lost what utility they might once have had;
and (5) re-legitimate "disreputable (or 'radical') views to our national security debates" (16).
The American Century is ending, and it "has become essential" to devise an "alternative to the reining national security paradigm"
(16-18).
Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar.
As president, Barack Obama's efforts to change the U.S.'s exercise of power "have seldom risen above the cosmetic"(20). He made
clear he subscribes to the "catechism of American statecraft," viz. that 1) the world must be organized, 2)only the U.S. can do it,
3) this includes dictating principles, and 4) not to accept this is to be a rogue or a recalcitrant (20-21).
It follows that the U.S. need not conform to the norms it sets for others and that it should maintain a worldwide network of bases
(22-23).
Imagine if China acted in a comparable manner (23-25). The extraordinary American military posture in the world (25-27). To call
this into question puts one beyond the pale(27). James Forrestal called this a permanent condition of semiwar, requiring high levels
of military spending(27-28).
American citizens are not supposed to concern themselves with it (29-30). As to how this came about, the "standard story line"
presents as the result of the decisions of a "succession of presidential administrations," though this conceals as much as it reveals
(30-32).
Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address on the "military-industrial complex" was a rare exception (32-34). More important than presidents
were Allen Dulles [1893-1969] and Curtis Lemay [1906-1990] (34-36).
Bacevich attributes the vision for an American-dominated post-World War II world with the CIA playing an active role to the patrician
Dulles (36-43). The development of the U.S. military into a force capable of dominating the world, especially in the area of strategic
weapons, he attributes to the hard-bitten Curtis LeMay, organizer of the StrategicAir Command (SAC) (43-52). Dulles and LeMay shared
devotion to country, ruthlessness, a certain recklessness (52-55). They exploited American anxieties and insecurities in yin (Dulles's
CIA) yang(LeMay's SAC) fashion, leaving the mainstay of American military power, the U.S. Army, in a relatively weak position(55-58).
Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control
Kennedy kept Dulles and LeMay to signal continuity, but there was a behind-the-scenes struggle led by Gen. Maxwell Taylor to reassert
the role of the U.S. Army by expanding and modernizing conventional forces that was "simultaneously masked by, and captured in, the
phrase flexible response " (60; 59-63).
This agenda purported to aim at "resisting aggression" but really created new options for limited aggressive warfare by the U.S.
(63-66).
McNamara engaged in a struggle with LeMay to control U.S. policy on nuclear weapons, but he embraced the need for redundancy based
on a land-sea-air attack "triad" and LeMay et al. "got most of what they wanted" (66-72).
In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy instituted the morally and legally "indefensible" Operation Mongoose," in effect,
a program of state-sponsored terrorism" against Cuba (80; 72-82 [but Bacevich is silent on its wilder elements, like Operation Northwoods]).
U.S. recklessness caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to his credit Kennedy acknowledged this (albeit privately) and "suspended
the tradition" in defusing the crisis (82-87).
Bacevich rejects as a romantic delusion the view that in the aftermath of this crisis Kennedy turned against the military-industrial
complex and the incipient Vietnam war and shows no interest in Kennedy's assassination itself (87-92).
He sees a parallel between escalation in Vietnam and post-9/11 aggression as "fought to sustain the Washington consensus" (107;
92-107).
Ch. 3: The Credo Restored.
William Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power (1966) urged a rethinking of the Washington rules (109-15). A radicalized David Shoup,
a Medal of Honor winner and former commandant of the MarineCorps, argued in "The New American Militarism" (Atlantic, April 1969)
that the U.S. had become "a militaristic and aggressive nation" (120; 115-21). The 1960s Zeitgeist shift made LeMay "an
embarrassment, mocked and vilified rather than venerated," which showed that the Washington rules had incurred serious damage in
Vietnam; the Army was in dire shape (122; 121-27).
Yet astonishingly, in the subsequent decade the "sacred trinity" (cf. 11-15) was "fully restored" (127). As in post-1918 Germany,
élites looked for scapegoats and worked to reverse "the war's apparent verdict" (128). The Council on Foreign Relations 1976 volume
entitled The Vietnam Legacy: The War, American Society, and the Future of American Foreign Policy is an expression of élite
consensus that the Vietnam war was insignificant, an anomaly (129-34).
By 1980, Democrats and Republicans were again on the same page (134-36).Reagan's election "sealed the triumph of Vietnam revisionism"
(136; 136-38). And the end of the Cold War posed no challenge to the Washington rules, as Madeleine Albright's pretentious arrogance
exemplifies (138-45).
Ch. 4: Reconstituting the Trinity
The period from 1980 to 2000 saw "notretrenchment but reconfiguration" (147). The new mission was not American defense but
facilitation of a new world order (148-50). After 9/11 this pretense was dropped and "[a]ctivism became the watchword" (150,
emphasis in original;150-52). Resorting to war became "notably more frequent and less controversial" in 1980-2000, finding "its ultimate
expression in the Bush Doctrine of preventive war" (152-53). Americans "passively assented" (154).
Behind the scenes, the shape this took was struggled over by the officer corps and civilian semi-warriors pushing RMA(Revolution
in Military Affairs) (154-64).Initially, U.S. élites held that victory in Iraq demonstrated that speed could be substituted for mass
in military campaigns (165-75). But the experience of the occupation revealed this to be a fantasy (175-81).
Ch. 5: Counterfeit COIN.
Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine, replacing "shock and awe" as "the Long War" replaced the "global war on terror," is the latest
doctrinal effort to preserve the Washington rules (182-86). The so-called "surge" implicitly marked a quest for conditions allowing
the U.S. to leave Iraq without admitting defeat (186-91).Gen. David Petraeus emerged as an advocate (and as salesman, through FM3-24,
the manual he revised and which Bacevich insists is in its emphasis on narrative replete with postmodernism) of counterinsurgency
doctrine as "a substitute [for warfare] suited to the exercise of great power politics in the twilight of modernity" (197; 191-97).
Implicitly, the manual argues that "war as such . . . no longer worked" (198; 198-202). Petraeus took credit for progress in Iraq
that he did not achieve (202-04).
The general with a Princeton Ph.D. was lionized with a view to normalizing war and lowering expectations, a view now embraced
by the Obama administration(205-11). Proponents of global counterinsurgency (GCOIN) emerged, like John Nagl and Gen. Benet Sacolick
(211-13). Obama embraced the GCOIN version of the Long War with Gen.Stanley McChrystal to carry it out in Afghanistan, forfeiting
the opportunity to reassess American policy (213-21).
Ch. 6: Cultivating Our Own Garden.
Time-honored no-nonsense American pragmatism has turned into an absurdity-swallowing herd mentality (222-23). The problem set the
U.S. faces has radically changed from the time of the early Cold War, but the "sacred trinity" (cf. 11-15) that proposes to address
them remains essentially the same (224-25).Eisenhower would have been appalled(225-26). The size of the Pentagon budget, the
size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, and the extent of overseas military presence cannot be justified(226-27).
These persist because of the interests they serve, not the mission the fulfill, and are likely to do so for sometime (228-30).
Bacevich invokes George Kennan, William Fulbright, and Martin Luther King Jr. in urging that the U.S. needs a new approach, to model
freedom rather than impose it (231-37). First and foremost, America should save not the world but itself (237).
Bacevich proposes a new trinity:
the purpose of the military is to defend the U.S. and its vital interests;
soldiers' primary duty stations are on American soil;
force should be used only as a last resort and in self-defense, in accord with the Just War tradition (238-41).
The American public must shoulder its complicity in what has happened, fostered by an all-volunteer force and debt-financed budgets
(241-47). It is tragic that Barack Obama, elected to institute change, has lacked the courage to alter the Washington rules,
instead "choosing to conform" (247-49). "If change is to come, it must come from the people"(249). The need for education "has
become especially acute" (249; 249-50).
Except from Macmillan
Introduction: Slow Learner Worldly ambition inhibits true learning. Ask me. I know. A young man in a hurry is nearly uneducable:
He knows what he wants and where he's headed; when it comes to looking back or entertaining heretical thoughts, he has neither the
time nor the inclination. All that counts is that he is going somewhere. Only as ambition wanes does education become a possibility.
My own education did not commence until I had reached middle age. I can fix its start date with precision: For me, education began
in Berlin, on a winter's evening, at the Brandenburg Gate, not long after the Berlin Wall had fallen. As an officer in the U.S. Army
I had spent considerable time in Germany. Until that moment, however, my family and I had never had occasion to visit this most famous
of German cities, still littered with artifacts of a deeply repellent history. At the end of a long day of exploration, we found
ourselves in what had, until just months before, been the communist East. It was late and we were hungry, but I insisted on walking
the length of the Unter den Linden, from the River Spree to the gate itself. A cold rain was falling and the pavement glistened.
The buildings lining the avenue, dating from the era of Prussian kings, were dark, dirty, and pitted. Few people were about. It was
hardly a night for sightseeing. For as long as I could remember, the Brandenburg Gate had been the preeminent symbol of the age and
Berlin the epicenter of contemporary history.
Yet by the time I made it to the once and future German capital, history was already moving on. The Cold War had abruptly ended.
A divided city and a divided nation had re united. For Americans who had known Berlin only from a distance, the city existed primarily
as a metaphor. Pick a date— 1933, 1942, 1945, 1948, 1961, 1989—and Berlin becomes an instructive symbol of power, depravity, tragedy,
defiance, endurance, or vindication. For those inclined to view the past as a chronicle of parables, the modern history of Berlin
offered an abundance of material. The greatest of those parables emerged from the events of 1933 to 1945, an epic tale of evil ascendant,
belatedly confronted, then heroically overthrown.
A second narrative, woven from events during the intense period immediately following World War II, saw hopes for peace dashed,
yielding bitter antagonism but also great resolve. The ensuing stand-off—the "long twilight struggle," in John Kennedy's memorable
phrase— formed the centerpiece of the third parable, its central theme stubborn courage in the face of looming peril. Finally came
the exhilarating events of 1989, with freedom ultimately prevailing, not only in Berlin, but throughout Eastern Europe.
.... ... ...
Although commonly depicted as the most advanced and successful component of the Soviet Empire, East Germany more closely resembled
part of the undeveloped world.
... ... ...
Briquettes of soft coal used for home heating made the air all but unbreathable and coated everything with soot. In the German
cities we knew, pastels predominated—houses and apartment blocks painted pale green, muted salmon, and soft yellow. Here everything
was brown and gray
... ... ...
Bit by bit, my worldview started to crumble. That worldview had derived from this conviction: that American power manifested a
commitment to global leadership, and that both together expressed and affirmed the nation's enduring devotion to its founding ideals.
That American power, policies, and purpose were bound together in a neat, internally consistent package, each element drawing strength
from and reinforcing the others, was something I took as a given. That, during my adult life, a penchant for interventionism had
become a signature of U.S. policy did not—to me, at least—in any way contradict America's aspirations for peace. Instead, a willingness
to expend lives and treasure in distant places testified to the seriousness of those aspirations. That, during this same period,
the United States had amassed an arsenal of over thirty-one thousand nuclear weapons, some small number of them assigned to units
in which I had served, was not at odds with our belief in the inalienable right to life and liberty; rather, threats to life and
liberty had compelled the United States to acquire such an arsenal and maintain it in readiness for instant use.2 I was not so naíve
as to believe that the American record had been without flaws. Yet I assured myself that any errors or misjudgments had been committed
in good faith. Furthermore, circumstances permitted little real choice. In Southeast Asia as in Western Europe, in the Persian Gulf
as in the Western Hemisphere, the United States had simply done what needed doing. Viable alternatives did not exist. To consent
to any dilution of American power would be to forfeit global leadership, thereby putting at risk safety, prosperity, and freedom,
not only our own but also that of our friends and allies.
The choices seemed clear enough. On one side was the status quo: the commitments, customs, and habits that defined American globalism,
implemented by the national security apparatus within which I functioned as a small cog. On the other side was the prospect of appeasement,
isolationism, and catastrophe. The only responsible course was the one to which every president since Harry Truman had adhered. For
me, the Cold War had played a crucial role in sustaining that worldview.
Given my age, upbringing, and professional background, it could hardly have been otherwise. Although the great rivalry between
the United States and the Soviet Union had contained moments of considerable anxiety — I remember my father, during the Cuban Missile
Crisis, stocking our basement with water and canned goods — it served primarily to clarify, not to frighten.
The Cold War provided a framework that organized and made sense of contemporary history. It offered a lineup and a scorecard.
That there existed bad Germans and good Germans, their Germans and our Germans, totalitarian Germans and Germans who, like Americans,
passionately loved freedom was, for example, a proposition I accepted as dogma. Seeing the Cold War as a struggle between good and
evil answered many questions, consigned others to the periphery, and rendered still others irrelevant.
Back in the 1960s, during the Vietnam War, more than a few members of my generation had rejected the conception of the Cold War
as a Manichean struggle. Here too, I was admittedly a slow learner. Yet having kept the faith long after others had lost theirs,
the doubts that eventually assailed me were all the more disorienting. Granted, occasional suspicions had appeared long before Jena
and Berlin
My own Vietnam experience had generated its share, which I had done my best to suppress. I was, after all, a serving soldier.
Except in the narrowest of terms, the military profession, in those days at least, did not look kindly on nonconformity. Climbing
the ladder of career success required curbing maverick tendencies. To get ahead, you needed to be a team player. Later, when studying
the history of U.S. foreign relations in graduate school, I was pelted with challenges to orthodoxy, which I vigorously deflected.
When it came to education, graduate school proved a complete waste of time — a period of intense study devoted to the further accumulation
of facts, while I exerted myself to ensuring that they remained inert.
Now, however, my personal circumstances were changing. Shortly after the passing of the Cold War, my military career ended. Education
thereby became not only a possibility, but also a necessity. In measured doses, mortification cleanses the soul. It's the perfect
antidote for excessive self-regard. After twenty-three years spent inside the U.S. Army seemingly going somewhere, I now found myself
on the outside going nowhere in particular. In the self-contained and cloistered universe of regimental life, I had briefly risen
to the status of minor spear carrier. The instant I took off my uniform, that status vanished. I soon came to a proper appreciation
of my own insignificance, a salutary lesson that I ought to have absorbed many years earlier. As I set out on what eventually became
a crablike journey toward a new calling as a teacher and writer—a pilgrimage of sorts—ambition in the commonly accepted meaning of
the term ebbed. This did not happen all at once. Yet gradually, trying to grab one of life's shiny brass rings ceased being a major
preoccupation.
Wealth, power, and celebrity became not aspirations but subjects for critical analysis.
History—especially the familiar narrative of the Cold War—no longer offered answers; instead, it posed perplexing riddles. Easily
the most nagging was this one: How could I have so profoundly misjudged the reality of what lay on the far side of the Iron Curtain?
Had I been insufficiently attentive? Or was it possible that I had been snookered all along? Contemplating such questions, while
simultaneously witnessing the unfolding of the "long 1990s"— the period bookended by two wars with Iraq when American vainglory reached
impressive new heights—prompted the realization that I had grossly misinterpreted the threat posed by America's adversaries. Yet
that was the lesser half of the problem. Far worse than misperceiving "them" was the fact that I had misperceived "us." What I thought
I knew best I actually understood least. Here, the need for education appeared especially acute.
George W. Bush's decision to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 pushed me fully into opposition. Claims that once seemed elementary—above
all, claims relating to the essentially benign purposes of American power— now appeared preposterous. The contradictions that found
an ostensibly peace-loving nation committing itself to a doctrine of preventive war became too great to ignore. The folly and hubris
of the policy makers who heedlessly thrust the nation into an ill-defined and open-ended "global war on terror" without the foggiest
notion of what victory would look like, how it would be won, and what it might cost approached standards hitherto achieved only by
slightly mad German warlords. During the era of containment, the United States had at least maintained the pretense of a principled
strategy; now, the last vestiges of principle gave way to fantasy and opportunism. With that, the worldview to which I had adhered
as a young adult and carried into middle age dissolved completely. *
What should stand in the place of such discarded convictions? Simply inverting the conventional wisdom, substituting a new Manichean
paradigm for the old discredited version—the United States taking the place of the Soviet Union as the source of the world's evil—would
not suffice. Yet arriving at even an approximation of truth would entail subjecting conventional wisdom, both present and past, to
sustained and searching scrutiny. Cautiously at first but with growing confidence, this I vowed to do. Doing so meant shedding habits
of conformity acquired over decades. All of my adult life I had been a company man, only dimly aware of the extent to which institutional
loyalties induce myopia. Asserting independence required first recognizing the extent to which I had been socialized to accept certain
things as unimpeachable. Here then were the preliminary steps essential to making education accessible. Over a period of years, a
considerable store of debris had piled up. Now, it all had to go. Belatedly, I learned that more often than not what passes for conventional
wisdom is simply wrong. Adopting fashionable attitudes to demonstrate one's trustworthiness—the world of politics is flush with such
people hoping thereby to qualify for inclusion in some inner circle—is akin to engaging in prostitution in exchange for promissory
notes. It's not only demeaning but downright foolhardy. This book aims to take stock of conventional wisdom in its most influential
and enduring form, namely the package of assumptions, habits, and precepts that have defined the tradition of statecraft to which
the United States has adhered since the end of World War II— the era of global dominance now drawing to a close. This postwar tradition
combines two components, each one so deeply embedded in the American collective consciousness as to have all but disappeared from
view.
The first component specifies norms according to which the international order ought to work and charges the United States with
responsibility for enforcing those norms. Call this the American credo. In the simplest terms, the credo summons the United States—and
the United States alone—to lead, save, liberate, and ultimately transform the world. In a celebrated manifesto issued at the dawn
of what he termed "The American Century," Henry R. Luce made the case for this spacious conception of global leadership. Writing
in Life magazine in early 1941, the influential publisher exhorted his fellow citizens to "accept wholeheartedly our duty to exert
upon the world the full impact of our influence for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit." Luce thereby captured
what remains even today the credo's essence.3 Luce's concept of an American Century, an age of unquestioned American global primacy,
resonated, especially in Washington. His evocative phrase found a permanent place in the lexicon of national politics. (Recall that
the neoconservatives who, in the 1990s, lobbied for more militant U.S. policies named their enterprise the Project for a New American
Century.) So, too, did Luce's expansive claim of prerogatives to be exercised by the United States.
Even today, whenever public figures allude to America's responsibility to lead, they signal their fidelity to this creed.
Along with respectful allusions to God and "the troops," adherence to Luce's credo has become a de facto prerequisite for high office.
Question its claims and your prospects of being heard in the hubbub of national politics become nil. Note, however, that the duty
Luce ascribed to Americans has two components. It is not only up to Americans, he wrote, to choose the purposes for which they would
bring their influence to bear, but to choose the means as well. Here we confront the second component of the postwar tradition of
American statecraft. With regard to means, that tradition has emphasized activism over example, hard power over soft, and coercion
(often styled "negotiating from a position of strength") over suasion. Above all, the exercise of global leadership as prescribed
by the credo obliges the United States to maintain military capabilities staggeringly in excess of those required for self-defense.
Prior to World War II, Americans by and large viewed military power and institutions with skepticism, if not outright hostility.
In the wake of World War II, that changed. An affinity for military might emerged as central to the American identity. By the midpoint
of the twentieth century, "the Pentagon" had ceased to be merely a gigantic five-sided building.
Like "Wall Street" at the end of the nineteenth century, it had become Leviathan, its actions veiled in secrecy, its reach extending
around the world. Yet while the concentration of power in Wall Street had once evoked deep fear and suspicion, Americans by and large
saw the concentration of power in the Pentagon as benign. Most found it reassuring. A people who had long seen standing armies as
a threat to liberty now came to believe that the preservation of liberty required them to lavish resources on the armed forces. During
the Cold War, Americans worried ceaselessly about falling behind the Russians, even though the Pentagon consistently maintained a
position of overall primacy. Once the Soviet threat disappeared, mere primacy no longer sufficed. With barely a whisper of national
debate, unambiguous and perpetual global military supremacy emerged as an essential predicate to global leadership. Every great military
power has its distinctive signature. For Napoleonic France, it was the levée en masse— the people in arms animated by the ideals
of the Revolution. For Great Britain in the heyday of empire, it was command of the seas, sustained by a dominant fleet and a network
of far-flung outposts from Gibraltar and the Cape of Good Hope to Singapore and Hong Kong. Germany from the 1860s to the 1940s (and
Israel from 1948 to 1973) took another approach, relying on a potent blend of tactical flexibility and operational audacity to achieve
battlefield superiority.
The abiding signature of American military power since World War II has been of a different order altogether. The United States
has not specialized in any particular type of war. It has not adhered to a fixed tactical style. No single service or weapon has
enjoyed consistent favor. At times, the armed forces have relied on citizen-soldiers to fill their ranks; at other times, long-service
professionals. Yet an examination of the past sixty years of U.S. military policy and practice does reveal important elements of
continuity. Call them the sacred trinity: an abiding conviction that the minimum essentials of international peace and order require
the United States to maintain a global military presence, to configure its forces for global power projection, and to counter existing
or anticipated threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism. Together, credo and trinity—the one defining purpose, the
other practice—constitute the essence of the way that Washington has attempted to govern and police the American Century. The relationship
between the two is symbiotic. The trinity lends plausibility to the credo's vast claims. For its part, the credo justifies the trinity's
vast requirements and exertions.
Together they provide the basis for an enduring consensus that imparts a consistency to U.S. policy regardless of which political
party may hold the upper hand or who may be occupying the White House. From the era of Harry Truman to the age of Barack Obama, that
consensus has remained intact. It defines the rules to which Washington adheres; it determines the precepts by which Washington rules.
As used here, Washington is less a geographic expression than a set of interlocking institutions headed by people who, whether acting
officially or unofficially, are able to put a thumb on the helm of state. Washington, in this sense, includes the upper echelons
of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government. It encompasses the principal components of the national
security state— the departments of Defense, State, and, more recently, Homeland Security, along with various agencies comprising
the intelligence and federal law enforcement communities. Its ranks extend to select think tanks and interest groups. Lawyers, lobbyists,
fixers, former officials, and retired military officers who still enjoy access are members in good standing. Yet Washington also
reaches beyond the Beltway to include big banks and other financial institutions, defense contractors and major corporations, television
networks and elite publications like the New York Times, even quasi-academic entities like the Council on Foreign Relations and Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government.
With rare exceptions, acceptance of the Washington rules forms a prerequisite for entry into this world. My purpose in writing
this book is fivefold: first, to trace the origins and evolution of the Washington rules—both the credo that inspires consensus and
the trinity in which it finds expression; second, to subject the resulting consensus to critical inspection, showing who wins and
who loses and also who foots the bill; third, to explain how the Washington rules are perpetuated, with certain views privileged
while others are declared disreputable; fourth, to demonstrate that the rules themselves have lost whatever utility they may once
have possessed, with their implications increasingly pernicious and their costs increasingly unaffordable; and finally, to argue
for readmitting disreputable (or "radical") views to our national security debate, in effect legitimating alternatives to the status
quo. In effect, my aim is to invite readers to share in the process of education on which I embarked two decades ago in Berlin. The
Washington rules were forged at a moment when American influence and power were approaching their acme. That moment has now passed.
The United States has drawn down the stores of authority and goodwill it had acquired by 1945. Words uttered in Washington command
less respect than once was the case. Americans can ill afford to indulge any longer in dreams of saving the world, much less remaking
it in our own image. The curtain is now falling on the American Century. Similarly, the United States no longer possesses sufficient
wherewithal to sustain a national security strategy that relies on global military presence and global power projection to underwrite
a policy of global interventionism. Touted as essential to peace, adherence to that strategy has propelled the United States into
a condition approximating perpetual war, as the military misadventures of the past decade have demonstrated.
To anyone with eyes to see, the shortcomings inherent in the Washington rules have become plainly evident. Although those most
deeply invested in perpetuating its conventions will insist otherwise, the tradition to which Washington remains devoted has begun
to unravel. Attempting to prolong its existence might serve Washington's interests, but it will not serve the interests of the
American people.
Devising an alternative to the reigning national security paradigm will pose a daunting challenge—especially if Americans look
to "Washington" for fresh thinking. Yet doing so has become essential. In one sense, the national security policies to which Washington
so insistently adheres express what has long been the preferred American approach to engaging the world beyond our borders. That
approach plays to America's presumed strong suit—since World War II, and especially since the end of the Cold War, thought to be
military power. In another sense, this reliance on military might creates excuses for the United States to avoid serious engagement:
Confidence in American arms has made it unnecessary to attend to what others might think or to consider how their aspirations might
differ from our own.
In this way, the Washington rules reinforce American provincialism—a national trait for which the United States continues
to pay dearly. The persistence of these rules has also provided an excuse to avoid serious self-engagement. From this perspective,
confidence that the credo and the trinity will oblige others to accommodate themselves to America's needs or desires — whether for
cheap oil, cheap credit, or cheap consumer goods—has allowed Washington to postpone or ignore problems demanding attention here at
home.
Fixing Iraq or Afghanistan ends up taking precedence over fixing Cleveland and Detroit. Purporting to support the troops in their
crusade to free the world obviates any obligation to assess the implications of how Americans themselves choose to exercise freedom.
When Americans demonstrate a willingness to engage seriously with others, combined with the courage to engage seriously with themselves,
then real education just might begin.
In their article ‘The American Century’ Has Plunged the World Into Crisis. What Happens Now?"
Conn Hallinan and
Leon Wofsy outlined important reasons of the inevitability
of the dominance of chicken hawks and jingoistic foreign policy in the USA political establishment:
U.S. foreign policy is dangerous, undemocratic, and deeply out of sync with real global challenges. Is continuous war inevitable,
or can we change course?
There’s something fundamentally wrong with U.S. foreign policy.
Despite glimmers of hope — a tentative nuclear agreement with Iran,
for one, and a long-overdue thaw with Cuba — we’re locked into seemingly irresolvable conflicts in most regions of the world. They
range from tensions with nuclear-armed powers like Russia and China to actual combat operations in the Middle East, South Asia, and
Africa.
Why? Has a state of perpetual warfare and conflict become inescapable? Or are we in a self-replicating cycle that reflects an
inability — or unwillingness — to see the world as it actually is?
The United States is undergoing a historic transition in our relationship to the rest of the world, but this is neither acknowledged
nor reflected in U.S. foreign policy. We still act as if our enormous military power, imperial alliances, and self-perceived moral
superiority empower us to set the terms of “world order.”
While this illusion goes back to the end of World War II, it was the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union that
signaled the beginning of a self-proclaimed “American Century.” The idea that the United States had “won” the Cold War and now —
as the world’s lone superpower — had the right or responsibility to order the world’s affairs led to a series of military adventures.
It started with President Bill Clinton’s intervention in the Yugoslav civil war, continued on with George W. Bush’s disastrous invasions
of Afghanistan and Iraq, and can still be seen in the Obama administration’s own misadventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and
beyond.
In each case, Washington chose war as the answer to enormously complex issues, ignoring the profound consequences for both foreign
and domestic policy. Yet the world is very different from the assumptions that drive this impulsive interventionism.
It’s this disconnect that defines the current crisis.
Acknowledging New Realities
So what is it about the world that requires a change in our outlook? A few observations come to mind.
First, our preoccupation with conflicts in the Middle East — and to a significant extent, our tensions with Russia in Eastern
Europe and with China in East Asia — distract us from the most compelling crises that threaten the future of humanity. Climate change
and environmental perils have to be dealt with now and demand an unprecedented level of international collective action. That also
holds for the resurgent danger of nuclear war.
Second, superpower military interventionism and far-flung acts of war have only intensified conflict, terror, and human suffering.
There’s no short-term solution — especially by force — to the deep-seated problems that cause chaos, violence, and misery through
much of the world.
Third, while any hope of curbing violence and mitigating the most urgent problems depends on international cooperation, old and
disastrous intrigues over spheres of influence dominate the behavior of the major powers. Our own relentless pursuit of military
advantage on every continent, including through alliances and proxies like NATO, divides the world into “friend” and “foe” according
to our perceived interests. That inevitably inflames aggressive imperial rivalries and overrides common interests in the 21st century.
Fourth, while the United States remains a great economic power, economic and political influence is shifting and giving rise to
national and regional centers no longer controlled by U.S.-dominated global financial structures. Away from Washington, London, and
Berlin, alternative centers of economic power are taking
hold in Beijing, New Delhi, Cape Town, and Brasilia. Independent formations and alliances are springing up: organizations like the
BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa); the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (representing 2.8 billion people);
the Union of South American Nations; the Latin American trade bloc, Mercosur; and others.
Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged
war and interventionism. We shell out
over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our
infrastructure crumbles. Democracy itself has become virtually
dysfunctional.
Short Memories and Persistent Delusions
But instead of letting these changing circumstances and our repeated military failures give us pause, our government continues
to act as if the United States has the power to dominate and dictate to the rest of the world.
The responsibility of those who set us on this course fades into background. Indeed, in light of the ongoing meltdown in the Middle
East, leading presidential candidates are
tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton
and Paul Wolfowitz — who still think the
answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power — for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lot’s advice
was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned.
While the Obama administration has sought, with limited success, to end the major wars it inherited, our government makes wide
use of killer drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and has put troops
back into Iraq to confront the
religious fanaticism and brutality of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) — itself a direct consequence of the last U.S. invasion
of Iraq. Reluctant to find common ground in the fight against ISIS with designated “foes” like Iran and Syria, Washington clings
to allies like Saudi Arabia, whose leaders are fueling the crisis of religious fanaticism and internecine barbarity. Elsewhere, the
U.S. also continues to give massive support to the Israeli government, despite its expanding occupation of the West Bank and its
horrific recurring assaults on Gaza.
A “war first” policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President
Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee
Chairman John McCain. Though it’s attempted
to distance itself from the neocons, the Obama administration adds to tensions with planned military realignments like the “Asia
pivot” aimed at building up U.S. military forces in Asia to confront China. It’s also taken a more aggressive position than even
other NATO partners in fostering a new cold war with Russia.
We seem to have missed the point: There is no such thing as an “American Century.” International order cannot be enforced by a
superpower alone. But never mind centuries — if we don’t learn to take our common interests more seriously than those that divide
nations and breed the chronic danger of war, there may well be no tomorrows.
Unexceptionalism
There’s a powerful ideological delusion that any movement seeking to change U.S. foreign policy must confront: that U.S. culture
is superior to anything else on the planet. Generally going by the name of “American exceptionalism,” it’s the deeply held belief
that American politics (and medicine, technology, education, and so on) are better than those in other countries. Implicit in the
belief is an evangelical urge to impose American ways of doing things on the rest of the world.
Americans, for instance, believe they have the best education system in the world, when in fact they’ve dropped from 1st
place to 14th place in the number of college graduates. We’ve made students of higher education the most indebted section
of our population, while falling to 17th place in international education ratings. According to the Organization for Economic
Cooperation, the average American pays more than twice as much for his or her education than those in the rest of the world.
Health care is an equally compelling example. In the World Health Organization’s ranking of health care systems in 2000, the United
States was ranked 37th. In a more recent
Institute of Medicine report in 2013, the U.S. was ranked the lowest among 17 developed nations studied.
The old anti-war slogan, “It will be a good day when schools get all the money they need and the Navy has to hold a bake sale
to buy an aircraft carrier” is as appropriate today as it was in the 1960s. We prioritize corporate subsidies, tax cuts for the wealthy,
and massive military budgets over education. The result is that Americans are no longer among the most educated in the world.
But challenging the “exceptionalism” myth courts the danger of being labeled “unpatriotic” and “un-American,” two powerful ideological
sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices.
The fact that Americans consider their culture or ideology “superior” is hardly unique. But no other country in the world has
the same level of economic and military power to enforce its worldview on others.
The United States did not simply support Kosovo’s independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the
U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of
projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders.
The U.S. currently accounts for anywhere from 45 to 50 percent of the world’s military spending. It has hundreds of overseas bases,
ranging from huge sprawling affairs like Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo and unsinkable aircraft carriers around the islands of Okinawa,
Wake, Diego Garcia, and Guam to tiny bases called “lily
pads” of pre-positioned military supplies. The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson estimated that the U.S. has some
800 bases worldwide, about the same as the British Empire had at its height in 1895.
The United States has long relied on a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans have been at war almost continuously
since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were major undertakings: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan,
Iraq (twice), Libya. Some were quick “smash and grabs” like Panama and Grenada. Others are “shadow wars” waged by Special Forces,
armed drones, and local proxies. If one defines the term “war” as the application of organized violence, the U.S. has engaged
in close to 80 wars since 1945.
The Home Front
The coin of empire comes dear, as the old expression goes.
According Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, the final butcher bill for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars — including
the long-term health problems of veterans — will cost U.S. taxpayers around
$6 trillion.
One can add to that the over $1 trillion the U.S. spends each year on defense-related items. The “official” defense budget of some
half a trillion dollars doesn’t include such items as nuclear weapons, veterans’ benefits or retirement, the CIA and Homeland Security,
nor the billions a year in interest we’ll be paying on the debt from the Afghan-Iraq wars. By 2013 the U.S. had already paid out
$316 billion in interest.
The domestic collateral damage from that set of priorities is numbing.
We spend more on our “official” military budget than we do on Medicare, Medicaid, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing
and Urban Development combined. Since 9/11,
we’ve spent $70 million an hour
on “security” compared to $62 million an hour on all domestic programs.
As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic inequality. The poor and working
millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are
a horrific reminder of how deeply racism — the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth —
continues to plague our homeland.
The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many
dictators would envy. The Senate torture report, most of
it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs
the most extensive Big Brother
spy system ever devised.
Bombs and Business
President Calvin Coolidge was said to have remarked that “the business of America is business.” Unsurprisingly, U.S. corporate
interests play a major role in American foreign policy.
Out of the top 10 international arms producers, eight are American. The arms industry spends millions lobbying Congress and state
legislatures, and it defends its turf with an efficiency and vigor that its products don’t always emulate on the battlefield. The
F-35 fighter-bomber, for example — the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history — will cost $1.5 trillion and doesn’t work.
It’s over budget, dangerous to fly, and riddled with defects. And yet few lawmakers dare challenge the powerful corporations who
have shoved this lemon down our throats.
Corporate interests are woven into the fabric of long-term U.S. strategic interests and goals. Both combine to try to control
energy supplies, command strategic choke points through which oil and gas supplies transit, and ensure access to markets.
Many of these goals can be achieved with standard diplomacy or economic pressure, but the U.S. always reserves the right to
use military force. The 1979 “Carter Doctrine” —
a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin America — put that strategy in blunt terms vis-à-vis
the Middle East:
“An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital
interests of the United States, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”
It’s no less true in East Asia. The U.S. will certainly engage in peaceful economic competition with China. But if push comes
to shove, the Third, Fifth, and Seventh fleets will back up the interests of Washington and its allies — Japan, the Philippines,
South Korea, and Australia.
Trying to change the course of American foreign policy is not only essential for reducing international tensions. It’s critically
important to shift the enormous wealth we expend in war and weapons toward alleviating growing inequality and social crises at home.
As long as competition for markets and accumulation of capital characterize modern society, nations will vie for spheres of influence,
and antagonistic interests will be a fundamental feature of international relations. Chauvinist reaction to incursions real or imagined
— and the impulse to respond by military means — is characteristic to some degree of every significant nation-state. Yet the more
that some governments, including our own, become subordinate to oligarchic control, the greater is the peril.
Finding the Common Interest
These, however, are not the only factors that will shape the future.
There is nothing inevitable that rules out a significant change of direction, even if the demise or transformation of a capitalistic
system of greed and exploitation is not at hand. The potential for change, especially in U.S. foreign policy, resides in how social
movements here and abroad respond to the undeniable reality of: 1) the chronic failure, massive costs, and danger inherent in “American
Century” exceptionalism; and 2) the urgency of international efforts to respond to climate change.
There is, as well, the necessity to respond to health and natural disasters aggravated by poverty, to rising messianic violence,
and above all, to prevent a descent into war. This includes not only the danger of a clash between the major nuclear powers, but
between regional powers. A nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, for example, would affect the whole world.
Without underestimating the self-interest of forces that thrive on gambling with the future of humanity, historic experience and
current reality elevate a powerful common interest in peace and survival. The need to change course is not something that can be
recognized on only one side of an ideological divide. Nor does that recognition depend on national, ethnic, or religious identity.
Rather, it demands acknowledging the enormous cost of plunging ahead as everything falls apart around us.
After the latest U.S. midterm elections, the political outlook is certainly bleak. But experience shows that elections, important
as they are, are not necessarily indicators of when and how significant change can come about in matters of policy. On issues of
civil rights and social equality, advances have occurred because a dedicated and persistent minority movement helped change public
opinion in a way the political establishment could not defy.
The Vietnam War, for example, came to an end, despite the stubbornness of Democratic and Republican administrations, when a stalemate
on the battlefield and growing international and domestic opposition could no longer be denied. Significant changes can come about
even as the basic character of society is retained. Massive resistance and rejection of colonialism caused the British Empire and
other colonial powers to adjust to a new reality after World War II. McCarthyism was eventually defeated in the United States. President
Nixon was forced to resign. The use of landmines and cluster bombs has been greatly restricted because of the opposition of a small
band of activists whose initial efforts were labeled “quixotic.”
There are diverse and growing political currents in our country that see the folly and danger of the course we’re on. Many Republicans,
Democrats, independents, and libertarians — and much of the public — are beginning to say “enough” to war and military intervention
all over the globe, and the folly of basing foreign policy on dividing countries into “friend or foe.”
This is not to be Pollyannaish about anti-war sentiment, or how quickly people can be stampeded into supporting the use of force.
In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans
agreed that “over-reliance on military
force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism.” Only 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the
hysteria around the Islamic State began, those
numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it.
It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another
military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater
now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual
war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy.
Making Space for the Unexpected
Given that there is a need for a new approach, how can American foreign policy be changed?
Foremost, there is the need for a real debate on the thrust of a U.S. foreign policy that chooses negotiation, diplomacy, and
international cooperation over the use of force.
However, as we approach another presidential election, there is as yet no strong voice among the candidates to challenge U.S.
foreign policy. Fear and questionable political calculation keep even most progressive politicians from daring to dissent as the
crisis of foreign policy lurches further into perpetual militarism and war. That silence of political acquiescence has to be broken.
Nor is it a matter of concern only on the left. There are many Americans — right, left, or neither — who sense the futility of
the course we’re on. These voices have to be represented or the election process will be even more of a sham than we’ve recently
experienced.
One can’t predict just what initiatives may take hold, but the recent U.S.-China climate agreement suggests that necessity can
override significant obstacles. That accord is an important step forward, although a limited bilateral pact
cannot substitute for an essential
international climate treaty. There is a glimmer of hope also in the U.S.-Russian joint action that
removed chemical weapons from Syria,
and in negotiations with Iran, which continue despite
fierce opposition from U.S. hawks and the Israeli
government. More recently, there is Obama’s bold move — long overdue — to
restore diplomatic relations with Cuba. Despite
shifts in political fortunes, the unexpected can happen if there is a need and strong enough pressure to create an opportunity.
We do not claim to have ready-made solutions to the worsening crisis in international relations. We are certain that there is
much we’ve missed or underestimated. But if readers agree that U.S. foreign policy has a national and global impact, and that it
is not carried out in the interests of the majority of the world’s people, including our own, then we ask you to join this conversation.
If we are to expand the ability of the people to influence foreign policy, we need to defend democracy, and encourage dissent
and alternative ideas. The threats to the world and to ourselves are so great that finding common ground trumps any particular interest.
We also know that we won’t all agree with each other, and we believe that is as it should be. There are multiple paths to the future.
No coalition around changing foreign policy will be successful if it tells people to conform to any one pattern of political action.
So how does the call for changing course translate to something politically viable, and how do we consider the problem of power?
The power to make significant changes in policy ranges from the persistence of peace activists to the potential influence of the
general public. In some circumstances, it becomes possible — as well as necessary — to make significant changes in the power structure
itself.
Greece comes to mind. Greek left organizations came together to form Syriza, the political party that was
successfully elected to power on a platform of ending austerity.
Spain’s anti-austerity Podemos Party — now the number-two party in the country — came out of massive demonstrations in 2011 and was
organized from the grassroots up. We do not argue one approach over the over, but the experiences in both countries demonstrate that
there are multiple paths to generating change.
Certainly progressives and leftists grapple with the problems of power. But progress on issues, particularly in matters like war
and peace and climate change, shouldn’t be conceived of as dependent on first achieving general solutions to the problems of society,
however desirable.
... ... ...
Conn Hallinan is a journalist and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. His writings appear online at
Dispatches From the Edge. Leon Wofsy is a retired
biology professor and long-time political activist. His comments on current affairs appear online at
Leon’s OpEd.
"...These rules have pushed the United States to a state of perpetual war. With enemies supposedly everywhere, the pursuit of
security has become open-ended. "
"...One is reminded of John Winthrop,
who, in 1630, told the future residents of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "We shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are
upon us." Over subsequent decades, Winthrop's sermon became the American mission, fired by self-righteousness and fueled by self-confidence.
From that mission emerged the idea of Manifest Destiny -- American ideals should spread across the continent and around the globe. Along
the way, Americans lost sight of what Winthrop actually meant. His words were both inspiration and warning: Aspire to greatness, but
remain honorable. Power lies in virtue. Winthrop envisaged a shining beacon, worthy of emulation. He saw no need to come down from the
hill and ram ideals down the throats of the recalcitrant. "
"...Back in 1963, the Kennedy administration was faced with a steadily disintegrating situation in Vietnam. At a turbulent cabinet
meeting, Attorney General Robert Kennedy asked: If the situation is so dire, why not withdraw? Arthur Schlesinger, present at the meeting,
noted how "the question hovered for a moment, then died away." It was "a hopelessly alien thought in a field of unexplored assumptions
and entrenched convictions." The Washington rules kept the United States on a steady course toward disaster. "
"...Barack Obama once promised that change was coming, but then quickly adhered to the old rules by escalating an unwinnable and
certainly unaffordable war in Afghanistan. Failures, as Steffens hoped, have been illuminating, but after each flash of light, darkness
has prevailed. "
"We need some great failures," the muckraking journalist
Lincoln Steffens wrote in his autobiography. "Especially
we ever-successful Americans -- conscious, intelligent, illuminating failures." What Steffens meant was that a people confident in
righteousness need occasionally to be reminded of their fallibility. The past 50 years have produced failures aplenty -- the Bay
of Pigs, Vietnam and Iraq among them. Unfortunately, as Andrew Bacevich and John Dower demonstrate, the light of failure has not
penetrated the darkness of delusion. As a result, wars provide a repeating rhythm of folly.
"Washington
Rules" and "Cultures
of War" are two excellent books made better by the coincidence of their publication. In complementary fashion, they provide a
convincing critique of America's conduct of war since 1941. Steffens would have liked these books, specifically for the way they
use past failures to explain the provenance of our current predicament.
Read "Cultures of War" first. It's not an easy book, but it is consistently perceptive. Dower examines Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima,
Sept. 11 and the second Iraq War, drawing disconcerting linkages. Pearl Harbor and Iraq, he feels, demonstrate how otherwise
intelligent leaders are drawn toward strategic imbecility. Both attacks were brilliantly executed in the short term, but neither
paid sufficient attention to the long-term problem of winning a war. More controversially, Dower pairs Hiroshima with Sept. 11, both
acts of terror born of moral certitude. Osama bin Laden and Harry Truman justified wanton killing with essentially the same Manichean
rhetoric. Motives, context and scale might have been different; methods were not. For both leaders, the ability to separate good
from evil made killing easy.
In 1941, Americans drew comfort from the stereotype of the irrational Oriental. They assumed that the Japanese would be easily
defeated because they were illogical -- as their attack upon Pearl Harbor proved. That attack was indeed illogical (given the impossibility
of defeating the United States in a protracted war), but it was not peculiarly Japanese. As Dower reveals, the wishful thinking,
delusion and herd behavior within the court of Emperor Hirohito was a symptom of war, not ethnicity. The same deficiencies,
in 2003, convinced those in the Oval Office that invading Iraq was a good idea.
Since the culture of war encourages patterned behavior, folly proliferates. This is the essence of the Washington rules that Bacevich
elucidates. The rules dictate that protection of the American way of life necessitates a global military presence and a willingness
to intervene anywhere. Power and violence are cleansed by virtue: Because America is "good," her actions are always benign. These
rules have pushed the United States to a state of perpetual war. With enemies supposedly everywhere, the pursuit of security has
become open-ended.
The alternative, according to Bacevich, is not isolationism or appeasement, two politically loaded words frequently used to pummel
those who object to Washington's behavior. He advocates, instead, a more level-headed assessment of danger, advice all the more cogent
since it comes from a former soldier. Iraq and Afghanistan did not threaten America; in fact, those countries and the world have
become more dangerous because of heavy-handed American intervention. Nor does North Korea pose a threat. Nor did Vietnam.
One is reminded of John Winthrop,
who, in 1630, told the future residents of Massachusetts Bay Colony: "We shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are
upon us." Over subsequent decades, Winthrop's sermon became the American mission, fired by self-righteousness and fueled by self-confidence.
From that mission emerged the idea of Manifest Destiny -- American ideals should spread across the continent and around the globe.
Along the way, Americans lost sight of what Winthrop actually meant. His words were both inspiration and warning: Aspire to greatness,
but remain honorable. Power lies in virtue. Winthrop envisaged a shining beacon, worthy of emulation. He saw no need to come down
from the hill and ram ideals down the throats of the recalcitrant.
The power of virtue is Bacevich's most profound message. Instead of trying to fix Afghanistan's
Helmand Province, he insists, Americans should fix Detroit
and Cleveland. Instead of attempting to export notions of freedom and democracy to nations that lack experience of either, America
should demonstrate, by her actions, that she is still a free, democratic and humane nation. Her real strength lies in her liberal
tradition, not in her ability to kill.
Back in 1963, the Kennedy administration was faced with a steadily disintegrating situation in Vietnam. At a turbulent cabinet
meeting, Attorney General Robert Kennedy asked: If the situation is so dire, why not withdraw? Arthur Schlesinger, present at the
meeting, noted how "the question hovered for a moment, then died away." It was "a hopelessly alien thought in a field of unexplored
assumptions and entrenched convictions." The Washington rules kept the United States on a steady course toward disaster.
Those unexplored assumptions and entrenched convictions have now pushed the United States into a new quagmire. Despite that
predicament, both Dower and Bacevich try to end positively. "If change is to come, it must come from the people," argues Bacevich.
Dower agrees. But these feeble attempts at optimism are the least convincing parts of two otherwise brilliant books. Barack Obama
once promised that change was coming, but then quickly adhered to the old rules by escalating an unwinnable and certainly unaffordable
war in Afghanistan. Failures, as Steffens hoped, have been illuminating, but after each flash of light, darkness has prevailed.
Gerard De Groot is a professor of history at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland and author of "The Bomb: A Life."
For his first 40 years, Andrew Bacevich lived the conventional life of an army officer. In the military world where success depended
on conformity, he followed the rules and “took comfort in orthodoxy…[finding] assurance in conventional wisdom.” Comfort, that is,
until he had a chance to peer behind the Iron Curtain, and was shocked to find East Germany more third-world shambles than first-rate
threat.
That experience, combined with the introspection that followed his subsequent retirement from the army, led Bacevich to reevaluate
the relationship between truth and power. After having taken his superiors at their word for decades, he slowly came to understand
“that authentic truth is never simple and that any version of truth handed down from on high…is inherently suspect. The exercise
of power necessarily involves manipulation and is antithetical to candor.”
Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War
is Bacevich’s fourth book on the subject of American exercise of power. This time, he takes up the question of the political calculations
that have produced the basic tenets of American foreign policy since the beginning of the Cold War, examining how and why they came
to exist and to survive all challenges to their supremacy.
Bacevich describes two components that define U.S. foreign policy.
The first is what he dubs the “American credo,” which calls on “the United States — and the United States alone — to lead
save, liberate, and ultimately transform the world.”
Second is what he calls the “sacred trinity,” which requires that the United States “maintain a global military presence,
to configure its forces for global power projections, and to counter existing or anticipated threats by relying on a
policy of global interventionism.”
These rules, Bacevich argues, are no longer vital to the existence of the United States, and have led to actions that threaten
to break the army and bankrupt the treasury. Rather, they are kept in place by individuals who derive personal benefit from their
continuance. Bacevich does not hesitate to blame a Washington class that “clings to its credo and trinity not out of necessity, but
out of parochial self-interest laced with inertia.”
This is a theme that runs throughout the book: that those who make the rules also benefit from them, and thus their demands should
always be regarded skeptically.
While abstaining from questioning the patriotism of past leaders, Bacevich is not reluctant to point out how many policies that
were later widely embraced were originally trumpeted by ambitious men who had as much to gain personally by their acceptance as did
the country:
General Curtis LeMay, who built a massive nuclear arsenal as head of Strategic Air Command;
Allen Dulles, who backed coups across the globe as CIA director;
General Maxwell Taylor, who rode the idea of “flexible response” from retirement to the position of chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The story of foreign policy, then, is not so much different than any government bureaucracy through which vast sums of money
flow, and is driven as much by officials jockeying for status than by genuine concern for policy outcomes. Whether in disputes
between the Army and the Air Force or the Pentagon and the White House, and whether over money or over purpose, different sectors
of the national security establishment propose and promote new doctrines that necessitate increasing their budgets and enhancing
their importance.
But Bacevich is not content to only blame leaders. In contrast to George Washington’s ideal of the citizen who would consider
it his duty to actively serve his country, Bacevich finds today’s Americans “greedy and gullible,” pursuing personal gain in the
stead of collective benefit. Any solution, he argues, must come from an awakened people who demand change from the people they put
in office.
As for what that change should look like, Bacevich proposes a new credo and trinity. As a new mission statement, he offers: “America’s
purpose is to be America, striving to fulfill the aspirations expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as
reinterpreted with the passage of time and in light of hard-earned experience.”
As a new trinity, he suggests that “the purpose of the U.S, military is not to combat evil or remake the world but to defend the
United States and its most vital interests…the primary duty station of the American soldier is in America…consistent with the Just
War tradition, the United States should employ force only as a last resort and only in self defense.”
Bacevich writes in the short, clipped style with which he also speaks, presumably a legacy of his West Point education and decades
in the military. His style allows for easy comprehension and neat packaging of his ideas, and readers will not get bogged down in
flowery language.
Parts of Bacevich’s thinking require further scrutiny and remind readers of his self-identification as a conservative (lowercase
“c”). Economically, he is no fan of stimulus spending, and socially he places blame on individual failings and personal flaws, choosing
not to mention an unequal economic system that leaves tens of millions of Americans with barely the resources to take care of their
families, much less have time to be informed and active citizens.
In fact, the emphasis throughout the book is on the fact that expansionism, at this particular moment, is not wrong but impossible.
Bacevich is, after all, a realist when it comes to international relations theory, and though he happens to agree with liberal anti-imperials
on many issues, it is often for different reasons.
However, debates over theory can wait for when the republic is in less immediate peril. This is the second work Bacevich has published
under the auspices of the American Empire Project, a book series documenting America’s imperial adventures and their disastrous consequences.
The contribution of conservative authors to this task is vital. They remind us that opposition to imperialism is hardly just a liberal
cause, and in fact for much of American history was actually a rallying point for conservatives across the country.
Washington Rules is valuable for putting in print what those inside the military establishment don’t dare admit: that,
even aside from moral concerns, U.S. international strategy is neither successful nor sustainable and maintained more by lies than
by actual results. Bacevich can truly be said to be a realist in that he understand that leaders, when faced with the choice of admitting
failure or lying, will almost always choose the latter.
Andrew Feldman is an intern with Foreign Policy In Focus.
This is the bluntest, toughest, most scathing critique of American imperialism as it has become totally unmoored after the demise
of the Soviet Communist empire and taken to a new level by the Bush administration. Even the brevity of this book - 182 pages - gives
it a particular wallop since every page "concentrates the mind".
In the event a reader knows of the prophetic work of the American theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr, you will further appreciate this
book. Bacevich is a Niebuhr scholar and this book essentially channels Niebuhr's prophetic warnings from his 1952 book, "The Irony
of American History". The latter has just been reissued by University of Chicago Press thanks to Andrew Bacevich who also contributed
an introduction.
In essence, American idealism as particularly reflected in Bush's illusory goal to "rid the world of evil" and to bring freedom
and democracy to the Middle East or wherever people are being tyrannized, is doomed to failure by the tides of history. Niebuhr warned
against this and Bacevich updates the history from the Cold War to the present. Now our problems have reached crisis proportions
and Bacevich focuses on the three essential elements of the crisis: American profligacy; the political debasing of government; and
the crisis in the military.
What renders Bacevich's critique particularly stinging, aside from the historical context he gives it (Bush has simply taken an
enduring American exceptionalism to a new level), is that he lays these problems on the doorstep of American citizens. It is we who
have elected the governments that have driven us toward near collapse. It is we who have participated willingly in the consumption
frenzy in which both individual citizens and the government live beyond their means. Credit card debt is undermining both government
and citizenry.
This pathway is unsustainable and this book serves up a direct and meaningful warning to this effect. Niebuhrian "realism" sees
through the illusions that fuel our own individual behavior and that of our government. There are limits to American power and limits
to our own individual living standards and, of course, there are limits to what the globe can sustain as is becoming evident from
climate changes.
American exceptionalism is coming to an end and it will be painful for both individual citizens and our democracy and government
to get beyond it. But we have no choice. Things will get worse before they get better. Bacevich suggests some of the basic ways that
we need to go to reverse the path to folly. He holds out no illusions that one political party or the other, one presidential candidate
or the other, has the will or the leadership qualities to change directions. It is up to American citizens to demand different policies
as well as to govern our own appetites.
While this is a sobering book, it is not warning of doomsday. Our worst problems are essentially of our own making and we can
begin to unmake them. But we first have to come to terms with our own exceptionalism. We cannot manage history and there are no real
global problems that can be solved by military means, or certainly not by military means alone.
Without Exception
By Edwin C. Pauzer VINE VOICE on September 24, 2008
This is one of those books you might find yourself sitting down to read chapter and verse over and over again, only because the
writing is so intelligent and so profound. "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism," by Andrew Bacevich, is one
of those works that will enthrall the reader with its insight and analysis.
According to the author, the US has reached its limit to project its power in the world. His rationale for this conclusion are
three central crises we now face: economic and cultural, political, and military, all of which are our own making.
The first crisis is one of profligacy. Americans want more, whether it is wealth, credit, markets, or oil, without consideration
for cost or how these things are acquired. There is complete apathy in what policies are being produced as long as they provide plenty.
The political crisis was born of our mobilization in World War II to meet the threat of tyranny, and from the Cold War to meet
the challenge of the Soviet Union. Both gave rise to unprecedented presidential power, an ineffectual Congress, and a disastrous
foreign policy. Bacevich contends that our legislature no longer serves their constituents or the common good "but themselves
through gerrymandering, doling out prodigious amounts of political pork, seeing to the protection of certain vested interests" with
the paramount concern of being re-elected. Our presidents have been willing accomplices in keeping the American dream or greed alive
by using our military as part of a coercive diplomatic tool to feed and fuel the first crisis.
Bacevich traces the end of the republic to the start of both wars, which gave rise to the "ideology of national security." The
mission of the new Department of Defense is not defense, but to project power globally where we will view any nation as a threat
that tries to match us in military might. At the same time, the largest intelligence agencies in the world are created to afford
us more security, but after seventy years are unable to defend our cities and buildings in the US while it worries about intrigues
worldwide. Competition and rivalry lead to a lack of cooperation, intelligence, and security when it was needed most.
The third crisis is our military which has been employed to satisfy the neuroses of the first and second crises. The author puts
much of the blame squarely at the feet of inept military leadership, which he believes has confused strategy with operations. Content
with the resilience of the American fighting man or woman, he is scathing in his critique of their leadership finding them "guilty
of flagrant professional malpractice, if not outright fraud." He illustrates how improvised explosive devices that cost no more than
a pizza have checked a military that is designed for speed and maneuver--that was considered invincible.
Andrew Bacevich contends that nothing will change as long as Americans are told to go to Disney World instead of making sacrifices,
as long as the same one half percent of our population continue to populate the military that the president sees as his personal
army, as long as an apathetic public and an ineffectual Congress continue to make periodic, grand gestures of curbing presidential
power, the United States will have reached the limits of its power and exceptionalism.
This book profoundly moved me, and I was impressed by the insight that Professor Bacevich could bring in such few pages. Passages
of this book should be plastered in the halls and offices of Congress, as well as the West Wing.
This book really stands out as a jewel in a sea of mediocre publications by radio and TV personalities who think they know what
they are talking about when it comes to economics or geopolitics. The difference is that Andrew Bacevich does
--without exception.
Also Recommended:
Mayer, Jane, "The Dark Side, The Inside Story How The War on Terror Turned into a War on America's Ideals."
Schlesinger, Arthur, "War and the American Presidency."
Mann, Thomas & Ornstein, Norman, "The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track."
Zinni, Tony (Gen. Ret.), "The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of America's Power and Purpose."
Niebuhr, Reinhold, "The Irony of American History."
For your convenience some of them which I judge to be the most insightful are reproduced below:
Andrew J. Bacevich's The New American Militarism: How Americans Are seduced By War, Oxford University Press, New
York, 2005, ISBN 0-19-517338-4, is the most coherent analysis of how America has come to its present situation in the world that
I have ever read. Bacevich, Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center for International Relations at Boston
University, is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and holds a Ph.D. in history from Princeton. And he is retired
military officer. This background makes him almost uniquely qualified to comment on the subject.
Bacevich admits to an outlook of moderate conservatism. But in ascribing fault for our plight to virtually every administration
since W.W. II, he is even handed and clear eyed. Since he served in the military, he understands the natural bureaucratic instincts
of the best of the officer corps and is not blinded by the almost messianic status that they have achieved in the recent past.
His broad brush includes the classic period, the American Revolution - especially the impact of George Washington, but he moves
quickly to the influence of Woodrow Wilson and his direct descendants of our time, the Neoconservatives. The narrative accelerates
and becomes relevant for us in the depths of the despair of Vietnam. At that juncture, neocon intellectuals awakened to the horror
that without a new day for our military and foreign policy, the future of America would be at stake. At almost the same time, Evangelical
Christians abandoned their traditional role in society and came to views not dissimilar to the neocons. America had to get back on
track to both power and goodness. The results of Vietnam on American culture, society, and - especially - values were abhorrent to
both these groups.
The perfect man to idealize and mythologize America's road back was Ronald Reagan. Again, Bacevich does not shrink from seeing
through the surreal qualities brought to the Oval Office by Reagan to the realities beneath them. The Great Communicator transformed
the Vietnam experience into an abandonment of American ideals and reacquainted America with those who fought that horrible war. Pop
culture of the period, including motion pictures such as Top Gun and best selling novels by many, including Tom Clancy completely
rehabilitated the image of the military.
The author describes how Evangelical leaders came to find common cause with the neocons and provided the political muscle for
Reagan and his successors of both parties to discover that the projection of military might become a reason for being for America
as the last century closed.
One of his major points is that the all volunteer force that resulted from the Vietnam experience has been divorced from American
life and that sending this force of ghosts into battle has little impact on our collective psyche. This, too, fit in with the intellectual
throw weight of the neocons and the political power of the Evangelicals.
Separate from but related to the neocons, Bacevich describes the loss of strategic input by the military in favor of a new priesthood
of intellectual elites from institutions such as the RAND Corporation, The University of Chicago and many others. It was these high
priests who saw the potential that technology provided for changing the nature of war itself and how American power might be projected
with `smart weapons' that could be the equivalent of the nuclear force that could never be used.
So it was that when the war we are now embroiled in across the globe - which has its antecedents back more than twenty years -
all of these forces weighed heavily on the military leaders to start using the force we'd bought them. The famed question by Secretary
of State Madeline Albright to General Colin Powell: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about
if we can't use it?" had to have an answer and the skirmishes and wars since tended to provide it.
Bacevich clearly links our present predicaments both at home and abroad to the ever greater need for natural resources, especially
oil from the Persian Gulf. He demolishes all of the reasons for our bellicosity based on ideals and links it directly to our insatiable
appetite for oil and economic expansion. Naturally, like thousands of writers before him, he points out the need for a national energy
policy based on more effective use of resources and alternative means of production.
It is in his prescriptions that the book tends to drift. The Congress must do its constitutionally mandated jobs or be thrown
out by the people. Some of his ideas on military education are creative and might well close the gap between the officer corps and
civilians that he points to as a great problem.
But it is the clearly written analysis that makes this book shine. It should be a must read for those who wonder how we got to
Iraq and where we might be heading as a society. The nation is in grave danger, and this is a book that that shows how we got to
this juncture. Where we go from here is up to us. If we continue as we are, our options may narrow and be provided by others.
READ THIS BOOK
===This review is from: The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (Hardcover)
In his book The New American Militarism (2005), Andrew Bacevich desacralizes our idolatrous infatuation with military might, but
in a way that avoids the partisan cant of both the left and the right that belies so much discourse today. Bacevich's personal experiences
and professional expertise lend his book an air of authenticity that I found compelling. A veteran of Vietnam and subsequently a
career officer, a graduate of West Point and later Princeton where he earned a PhD in history, director of Boston University's Center
for International Relations, he describes himself as a cultural conservative who views mainstream liberalism with skepticism, but
who also is a person whose "disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the present Bush administration
and its groupies, is just about absolute." Finally, he identifies himself as a "conservative Catholic." Idolizing militarism,
Bacevich insists, is far more complex, broader and deeper than scape-goating either political party, accusing people of malicious
intent or dishonorable motives, demonizing ideological fanatics as conspirators, or replacing a given administration. Not merely
the state or the government, but society at large, is enthralled with all things military.
Our military idolatry, Bacevich believes, is now so comprehensive and beguiling that it "pervades our national consciousness
and perverts our national policies." We have normalized war, romanticized military life that formally was deemed degrading and
inhuman, measured our national greatness in terms of military superiority, and harbor naive, unlimited expectations about how waging
war, long considered a tragic last resort that signaled failure, can further our national self-interests. Utilizing a "military metaphysic"
to justify our misguided ambitions to recreate the world in our own image, with ideals that we imagine are universal, has taken about
thirty years to emerge in its present form. It is this marriage between utopians ends and military means that Bacevich wants to annul.
How have we come to idolize military might with such uncritical devotion? He likens it to pollution: "the perhaps unintended,
but foreseeable by-product of prior choices and decisions made without taking fully into account the full range of costs likely to
be incurred" (p. 206). In successive chapters he analyzes six elements of this toxic condition that combined in an incremental and
cumulative fashion.
After the humiliation of Vietnam, an "unmitigated disaster" in his view, the military set about to rehabilitate and reinvent
itself, both in image and substance. With the All Volunteer Force, we moved from a military comprised of citizen-soldiers
that were broadly representative of all society to a professional warrior caste that by design isolated itself from broader society
and that by default employed a disproportionate percentage of enlistees from the lowest socio-economic class. War-making
was thus done for us, by a few of us, not by all of us.
Second, the rise of the neo-conservative movement embraced American Exceptionalism as our national end and superior coercive
force as the means to franchise it around the world.
Myth-making about warfare sentimentalized, sanitized and fictionalized war. The film Top Gun is only one example of "a glittering
new image of warfare."
Fourth, without the wholehearted complicity of conservative evangelicalism, militarism would have been "inconceivable," a
tragic irony when you consider that the most "Christian" nation on earth did far less to question this trend than many ostensibly
"secular" nations.
Fifth, during the years of nuclear proliferation and the fears of mutually assured destruction, a "priesthood" of elite defense
analysts pushed for what became known as the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). RMA pushed the idea of "limited" and more humane
war using game theory models and technological advances with euphemisms like "clean" and "smart" bombs. But here too our "exuberance
created expectations that became increasingly uncoupled from reality," as the current Iraq debacle demonstrates.
Finally, despite knowing full well that dependence upon Arab oil made us vulnerable to the geo-political maelstroms of that
region, we have continued to treat the Persian Gulf as a cheap gas station. How to insure our Arab oil supply, protect Saudi Arabia,
and serve as Israel's most important protector has always constituted a squaring of the circle. Sordid and expedient self interest,
our "pursuit of happiness ever more expansively defined," was only later joined by more lofty rhetoric about exporting universal
ideals like democracy and free markets, or, rather, the latter have only been a (misguided) means to secure the former.
Bacevich opens and closes with quotes from our Founding Fathers. In 1795, James Madison warned that "of all the enemies of public
liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other." Similarly, late in his
life George Washington warned the country of "those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious
to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hotile to republican liberty."
K. Johnson:
Relevant and Objective, January 3, 2007
Author Andrew Bacevich has superb credentials on military, diplomatic, and historical issues. A Vietnam Veteran, 25+ year career
in the Army and now professor of International Relations, Bacevich is one of the few that has the experience *and* knowledge to
dissect what has been occurring in American socio-political culture and society for the last several decades. Bacevich notes the
current focus on the military to solve the world's problems and to promote America's interests is not the sole work of a President
and Congress, but the combination of culture, mentality, political, and now primarily economic, interests. This book has tons
of footnoting, which allows you to delve further into these issues on your own.
The author astutely reinforces the fact that the Militarist Mentality won't change, regardless of which political party is
in control of the Executive and Houses of Congress in the United States. Here only some examples out of many:
Entry of the U.S. military into the Middle East:
THE CARTER DOCTRINE:
The Carter Doctrine was prescribed at the State of the Union Address in 1980. Another civilian prescription utilizing
the military as medicine to alleviate and even cure, political symptoms. This Doctrine began a new era of U.S. involvement in
the Middle East, specifically using the American military to enforce its economic interests and lifestyle dependence on oil.
The Carter Doctrine was a major shift in American foreign policy in the Middle East. It specifically stated that use of
the military can and will be used to enforce U.S. economic interests.
At his State of the Union Address, Carter stated:
"Any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be declared as an assault on the vital
interest of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force"
(p. 181).
Worth noting is that the Carter Doctrine was declared during the Cold War, when there was a adversary to check U.S interests.
Today, that rival is gone.
Some argue the so-called 'War on Terror' is merely a historical continuation of American foreign policy interests in
using its military to promote its geo-political and economic interests.
WAR AS SPECTATOR SPORT:
War has been, and now is presented as a spectacle. No different than a spectator sport. Live reports, video display, and
laymen presentations of new technology, usually via video, to the civilian public at press conferences.
One example of many are current U.S. newspaper reports: they don't use the term "wounded" when reporting about American soldiers
in Iraq. They use the euphemistic term, "injured." "17 Iraqis 'wounded' and 3 American soldiers 'injured.'" Similar to a football
game. Slogans such as "Shock and Awe, Support the Troops," and deck of cards identifying the most wanted Baath party members.
"Freedom is not Free." Many American military personel (and civilians) have internalized this propaganda.
Using Hollywood To Enhance "Honor" and perpetuate myths:
Bacevich carefully details the planned and choreographed footage of George W. Bush dressed as a fighter pilot on the USS Abraham
Lincoln. This was intentionally and specifically lifted from the movie "Top Gun." Immediately after this planned footage, an action
figure doll was created and sold for $39.99. It was called the "Elite Force Aviator: George W. Bush: U.S. President and Naval
Aviator" (p. 31).
Well-dressed, handsome, and beautiful anchors report about the war in such series as "The Week in War." More simulation of
the spectator sport of war in our pop culture. One segment in the "Week in War program" is called "The Fallen," where the photo
of a soldier, his name, age, and hometown are presented, and the date of his death. Then the cameramen go to his family's home.
Often a family picture of the "fallen soldier" is shown. Then, an interview with the somber, and at times tearful family in their
living room, sitting on their couch: "He was a good kid. He always wanted to help people."
The "Fallen" is related to a concept that the Germans began about 300 years ago. This concept is called the "Cult of the Fallen
Soldier." When a soldier is killed in war he is elevated to a higher status because of his death. He is placed on a pedestal,
because somehow, and in some enigmatic way, he "sacrificed" for a noble cause that is often abstract or confusing to the public.
To further simplify the confusion and sullenness resulting from the soldier's death, religion is often injected into the deceased
soldiers elevation on a pedestal. You can see this Cult of the Fallen Soldier in Arlington, Virgina today, and in many military
cemeteries around the world.
GLORIFICATION OF THE MILITARY THROUGH MOVIES:
Bacevich notes moves and their role. "Top Gun" had a tremendous impact in many ways. Pop culture, and Navy recruiting sky-rocketing.
As for the flurry of "Vietnam war movies," again the noble concepts of "courage, honor, fear, triumph" are latently and explicitly
reinforced to the public of all ages and socio-economic levels.
It took me a chapter or two to get used to Bacevich's writing style, but I grew to like it.
Chapters: 1) Wilsonians Under Arms 2) The Military Professions at Bay 3) Left, Right, Center 4) California Dreaming 5) Onward
6) War Club 7) Blood for Oil 8) Common Defense
"Support" for the military is often incorrectly linked with one's "patriotism." This faulty thinking is perpetuated by the
electronic and print media in often subtle forms but extremely effective forms, and at times very explicit and in aggressive manners.
The government intentionally steers the publics' focus to the 'Military aspects of war' to avoid attention to the more realistic
and vital 'political aspects.' The latter being at the real heart of the motivation, manner, and outcome of most *political* conflicts.
Bacevich notes journalists: journalist Thomas Friedman complained that a Super Bowl half-time show did not honor the "troops."
He then drove to the Command Center to visit and speak with the "troops." Soon after, he carried on with his own self-centered
interests, like everyone else.
The military in and of itself is not dangerous nor pernicious. The military doesn't formulate foreign policy. The military
just implements it, carrying out the orders and instructions of elitist civilians who have never served in the armed forces. It's
not the military nor the men and women serving in it, we must be wary of. It's the civilians masters with vested interests in
the governmental and corporate world who must be held accountable.
General Creighton Abrams wanted to diminish the influence of civilian control over the military after Vietnam. Civilians and
politicians were making military decisions. It seems the situation is similar in 2007. Chairman of the JCS Peter Pace sounds political.
History will be the judge.
This is a very insightful book for those interested in recent history as well as the current situation the United States is
in. The troops should be supported for what they do. Because unfortunately they are the ones that pay the price for elitist decisions
made by upper-class civilians from the Ivy League cliques that run the U.S. politically and economically.
Highly recommended and relevant to our contemporary times and our future.
Andrew Bacevich did excellent research and writing in this book. I'll think we'll be hearing a lot more of him. Hopefully He'll
get more access to the public. If - the mainstream media allows it.
Robert S. Frey
An Informed, Insightful, and Highly Readable Account of American Foreign Policy Today, December 23, 2006
Andrew J. Bacevich's "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," should be read and considered carefully
by every member of the national political leadership in the United States as well as by adult Americans in general. Bacevich brings
impeccable credentials to his work in this book--professor of history and international relations at Boston University, West Point
graduate, and veteran of the Vietnam conflict. His writing is engaging, insightful, and historically well anchored. Importantly,
this work is highly accessible and eminently readable. The level of documentation is very valuable as well. Finally, the book
is not about fault-finding and finger-pointing toward any one national figure or group.
What I found most beneficial was that the book presented well-argued alternative historical "meta-narratives" that are much
more closely aligned with post-World War II historical events and processes than the ones currently accepted as "conventional
wisdom." A case in point is the periodization of World War IV beginning with President Carter's pronouncements regarding the Persian
Gulf area in 1980 rather than with the terrorist attacks on America on 9/11. "The New American Militarism" carefully and credibly
brings together the many seemingly disparate actions, decisions, and events of the past 60+ years (e.g., the atomic bombing of
Japan, Vietnam, oil shortages of the 1970s and 80s, the end of the Cold War, the First Gulf War, etc.) and illustrates important
patterns and trends that help to explain why United States' foreign policy is what it is today. Dr. Bacevich's book helps us understand
and appreciate that the global projection of American military power today has deep roots in the national decisions and behaviors
of the second half of the twentieth century.
Robert S. Frey, M.A., MBA, MSM
Adjunct Professor, History
Brenau University
Dr. Lee D. Carlson
Interesting, insightful, and motivating, October 21, 2006
Why is it that some people, including this reviewer, are reluctant to criticize the writings or verbalizations of those Americans
that have been or are currently in the military? This is particularly true for those officers and soldiers who have served in
combat. To be critical of someone is who has faced such horror would be a sacrilege. Their opinions on subjects, especially those
related to war and the military, are given much higher weight than those that have never been in the military. What is the origin
of this extreme bias and does it not thwart attempts to get at the truth in matters of war and politics? If a war is illegal or
immoral, are not the soldiers who participate in it themselves war criminals, deserving the severest condemnation?
The author of this book sheds light on these questions and gives many more interesting opinions on what he has called the 'new
American militarism.' If one examines carefully American history, it is fair to say that Americans have been reluctant to go to
war, preferring instead to settle conflicts via negotiation and trade agreements. Americans have been led to the horrors of war
kicking and screaming, and breath a sigh of relief when they are over. Historically, Americans have applied extreme skepticism
to those politicians, like Woodrow Wilson, who wanted to participate in World War I to make the world "safe for democracy." So
if Americans are "seduced by war", as the author contends they have been in recent decades, an explanation must be found. It is tempting to say that they have been merely "brainwashed", and contemporary neuroscience lends some credence to this claim,
but one must still be open to alternative explanations, and let the evidence determine the proper interpretation. Once
the causes have been identified, it becomes necessary to find methodologies and strategies to counter these causes, lest we find
ourselves in another unnecessary and brutal conflict, initiated by some who do not directly participate in it, and have no intention
ever to do so.
This book is not a scientific study, but instead is a collection of opinions, mostly supported by anecdotal evidence, to support
the author's thesis. On the surface his opinions do seem plausible, but one must still apply to his writings the same level of
skepticism applied to other studies of the same kind. It does seem reasonable to believe for example that current attitudes about
war are governed by the American failure in Vietnam, Carter's supposed ineptitude in dealing with the resulting loss in "self-esteem"
of the American populace, and Reagan's exploitation or correction of this loss. But more evidence is needed to set such a conclusion
in stone.
The author though is intellectually honest enough to admit that he has not obtained the "definitive version of the truth" on
the new American militarism within the pages of his book. His words are more "suggestive than conclusive" he writes, and he welcomes
criticism and alternative interpretations. Vietnam, oil and energy considerations, 9-11, and the media all have a role to play
in the current American attitudes about war he argues. Further analysis though is needed, and cognizance must be made that all
readers, including this reviewer, are embedded in the same culture as the author, and subjected to the same ideological, historical,
and media pressures. We must be extremely cautious in our acceptance of what we find in print and indeed in all information outlets.
And we must learn that soldiers, active duty or otherwise, are not infallible and must be subjected to the same criticism as any
other citizen. This is again, very difficult to do, and this difficulty is perhaps the best evidence for the author's thesis.
R. Albin:
Exceptional Polemic; 4.5 Stars, October 19, 2006
This concise and well written book is the best kind of polemic; clear, well argued, and designed to provoke debate.
Bacevich is definitely interested in persuading readers of the truth of his views but his calm and invective free prose, insistence
on careful documentation, and logical presentation indicate that his primary concern is promote a high level of discussion of
this important issue. Bacevich argues well that a form of militarism based on an exaggerated sense of both American mission and
American power, specifically military power, has infected public life. He views this militarism as both leading to unecessary
and dangerous adventures abroad, epitomized by the Iraq fiasco, and corrupting the quality of domestic debate and policy making.
Beyond documenting the existence of this phenomenon, Bacevich is concerned with explicating how this form of militarism, which
he views as contrary to American traditions, came to be so popular.
Bacevich argues well that the new militarism came about because of a convergence of actions by a number of different
actors including our professional military, neoconservative intellectuals and publicists, evangelical Christians, resurgent Republican
party activists, and so-called defense intellectuals. For a variety of reasons, these sometimes overlapping groups converged
on ideas of the primacy of American military power and the need to use it aggressively abroad. Bacevich devotes a series of chapters
to examining each of these actors, discussing their motivations and actions, often exposing shabby and inconsistent thinking.
Some of these, like the role of neoconservative intellectuals and the Religous Right, are fairly well known.
Others, like the behavior of professional military over the last generation, will be novel to many readers. Bacevich's chapters
have underlying themes. One is the persisent occurrence of ironic events as the actions of many of these groups produced events
counter to their goals. The post-Vietnam professional military attempted to produce a large, vigorous military poised to
fight conventional, WWII-like, combats. This force was intended to be difficult for politicians to use. But as these often
highly competent professionals succeeded to restoring the quality of the American military, the temptation to use it became stronger
and stronger, and control escaped the professionals back into the hands of politicians as varied as Bush II and Clinton.
Another theme is that politicians seized on use military force as an alternative to more difficult and politically unpalatable
alternatives. Jimmy Carter is described correctly as initiating the American preoccupation with control of the Persian Gulf oil
supplies, which has generated a great deal of conflict over the past generation. Bacevich presents Carter as having to act
this way because his efforts to persuade Americans to pursue sacrifice and a rational energy policy were political losers. Ronald
Reagan is presented as the epitome of this unfortunate trend.
Bacevich is generally convincing though, perhaps because this is a short book, there are some issues which are presented onesidely.
For example, its true that Carter began the military preoccupation with the Persian Gulf. But, its true as well that his administration
established the Dept. of Energy, began a significant program of energy related research, moved towards fuel standards for vehicles
and began the regulatory policies that would successfully improve energy efficiency for many household items. No subsequent administration
had done more to lessen dependence on foreign oil.
Bacevich also omits an important point. As he points out, the different actors that sponsored the new militarism tended to
converge in the Republican Party. But, as has been pointed out by a number of analysts, the Republican Party is a highly disparate
and relatively unstable coalition. The existence of some form of powerful enemy, perceived or real, is necessary to maintain
Republican solidarity. The new militarism is an important component of maintaining the internal integrity of the Republican party
and at unconciously appreciated as such by many important Republicans.
An interesting aspect of this book is that Bacevich, a West point grad, former career Army officer, and self-described cultural
conservative, has reproduced many of the criticisms put forward by Leftist critics.
Bacevich concludes with a series of interesting recommendations that are generally rational but bound to be controversial and
probably politically impossible. Again, this is an effort to change the nature of the discussion about these issues.
Adam Bahner
How Permanent Military Deployment Became Congruent With World Peace, June 29, 2006
In The New American Militarism, Andrew J. Bacevich contends that American culture and policy since the end of the Cold War
has merged a militaristic ethos with a utopian global imaginary. He notes that American militarism is a "bipartisan project" with
"deep roots" that even garner support on the political margins, with some leftist activists seeing a humanitarian mission for
U.S. global military hegemony. He traces these roots to the worldview of Woodrow Wilson, who envisioned a globe "remade in America's
image and therefore permanently at peace." Yet Wilson's view was moderated by a public and policy perception of war as an ugly,
costly, brutal, traumatic and unpredictable last resort. This is corroborated by the massive military demobilizations that followed
U.S. involvement in both world wars. Bacevich also points to works of popular culture, from Erich Maria Remarque's All Quiet On
The Western Front to Oliver Stone's Platoon, that reflect on the inhumanity of war from World War I through Vietnam.
Bacevich sees a massive deviation from these historical trends after the end of the Cold War. While conceding that a permanent
military mobilization was expected during the Cold War (from roughly NSC-68 to the fall of the Berlin Wall)--no significant demobilization
followed. Forces slated for deactivation were quickly mobilized for Operation Desert Storm. No successful popular culture critiques
of that war's brutality would emerge. The author sees the end of the cold war and Desert Storm as framing a period of "new American
militarism" that breaks from historical precedent in several regards. He claims that since the 1988 presidential campaign, the
character of the presidency has emphasized military more than civilian leadership. This contradicts previous presidents of military
stature (e.g. Grant, Eisenhower) who obsessively positioned themselves as civilians. Post-Cold War military budgets have been
dramatically larger despite no global adversary. The public has uncritically accepted a permanent military stance. The perception
of war as ghastly and treacherous has been replaced with war as a clinical and technologically managed spectacle. The link between
the covenant of citizenship and military service has been replaced by a specialized force of volunteers. The numbers of veterans
serving in congress has steadily decreased since World War II. Bacevich correlates this with the shunning of military service
by elites as the military has increasingly drawn from areas of the population that are poor and brown. Because of this, force
is "outsourced" and in turn the stature of soldiers has dramatically increased through an infrastructure of praise by the majority
who are not involved in military operations. Senior military officers have tremendous clout in politics, policy, and spending.
To understand this new militarism, Bacevich notes that it is point-for-point an inversion of Vietnam's military milieu. There,
politicians up through the president framed themselves as civilians, officers felt out of touch with bureaucratic decisions, and
war was perceived as carnal and bumbling. The book traces cultural responses to Vietnam that reformed the American relationship
to militarism. As military leaders like Creighton Abrams sought to mandate broad political investment for military action by creating
interdependence with reserves and to limit the criteria for deployment with the Weinberger doctrine, politicians like Ronald Reagan
rehabilitated an American demoralization that peaked with Carter's failed Operation Eagle Claw by invoking popular culture mythologies
like Rambo.
Bacevich is unabashedly religious. He ultimately couches America's outsourced and technocratic militarism as a departure from
natural Gods in the pursuit of a scientistic idol that more perfectly regulates human affairs. He openly sees in this scientism
the same flaw and outcome as Communism or Fascism. He suggests that affirmation of military service across economic privilege
would raise the stakes of military engagements and help to contradict the cultural illusions that form the basis of American militarism.
(That war is technical, distant, clinical, predictable, outsourced, humane, and everything contrary to what writers like Remarque
tell us.) He meticulously synthesizes a new paradigm that relates the difficult subjects of military policy and popular sanction.
In this regard, The New American Militarism is an exciting contribution to historical scholarship.
M. Ward:
The New American Militarism - A Bipolar Look at Todays State of Affairs, February 4, 2006
Andrew J. Bacevichs', The New American Militarism, gives the reader an important glimpse of his background when he wrote that,
as a Vietnam veteran, the experience baffled him and he wrote this book in an effort to "sift through the wreckage left by the
war." After the Vietnam War, the author stayed in the military because he believed being an American soldier was a "true and honorable"
calling. Bacevich states he is a devoted Catholic and a conservative who became disillusioned with mainstream conservatism. He
also states that he believes the current political system is corrupt and functions in ways inconsistent with genuine democracy.
Bacevich states that he tried to write this book using facts in an unbiased way. However, he cautions the reader that his experiences
have shaped his views and that his views are part of this book. This is a way to tell the reader that although he tried to remain
unbiased, his background and biases find voice in this book. I believe the authors warning are valid; he draws heavily upon his
background and biases to support his thesis.
The book is about American militarism, which Bacevich describes as the "misleading and dangerous conceptions of war, soldiers,
and military institutions" that have become part of the American conscience and have `perverted' US national security policy.
According to Bacevich, American militarism has subordinated the search for the common good to the permanent value of military
effectiveness that will bankrupt the US economically and morally. Bacevich supports this thesis by discussing issues that have
contributed to this state of affairs.
Bacevich believes the current state of American militarism has roots dating back to the Wilson administration. Wilson's vision
was to remake the world in America's image. God Himself willed the universal embrace of liberal democracies and Wilson saw the
US as a `divine agent' to make the world a safe and democratic place. Today, with no serious threat to keep our military forces
in check, we are now, more than ever, free to spread liberal democracy using military force, if necessary.
Considering the military, Bacevich makes the point that the militarism of America is also due, in part, to the officer corps of
the US military trying to rehabilitate the image and profession of the soldier after the Vietnam War. Officers attempted to do
this by reversing the roles of the soldiers and the politicians that was problematic during the Vietnam War. They tried to establish
the primacy of the military over the civilians in decisions as to how to use the military. The Weinberger and Powell doctrines
were the manifestation of this idea by spelling out conditions for the use of the US military in combat.
Neo-conservatives further enhanced the trend of militarism. They see US power as an instrument for good and the time was right
to use the military to achieve the final triumph of Wilson's idea of spreading American liberal democracy around the globe.
Religion also played a role. According to Bacevich, evangelical Protestants see the US as a Christian nation singled out by
God and Americans are His chosen people. These evangelicals believed the Vietnam War was not only a military crisis, but also
a cultural and moral crisis threatening our status. Evangelicals looked to the military to play a pivotal role in saving the US
from internal collapse due to the higher expression of morals and values found in the military. The military would become the
role model to reverse the trend of godlessness and social decay.
Another set of actors that contributed to American militarism were the defense intellectuals whose main contribution was to
bring the military back under civilian control. According to Bacevich, they laid the groundwork of our current policy of `preventative
war' and reinforced American militarism.
Finally, Bacevich accuses politicians of deceiving the American public as to the true nature of American militarism by wrapping
militarism in the comfortable trappings of nationalism. By using labels such as the Global War on Terrorism, politicians are using
a political sleight-of-hand trick to hide our true militaristic nature in patriotic terms. Bacevich concludes his book with a
list of recommendations to mitigate the current trend of American militarism.
Bacevich seems to create a mosaic of conspiracy perpetrated by sinister actors aimed at deceiving an unsuspecting public as
to the true nature of American militarism. Until the last chapter where Bacevich tells the reader that there is no conspiracy,
it is very easy to believe there might be one lurking in the shadows. I was shocked when I reached Bacevich's recommendations.
The contrast between his recommendations and the rest of the book is astounding. I was expecting highly provocative recommendations
that would match the tone of the rest of the book. However, his recommendations were solid and well thought out...delivered in
the calm manner one would expect from a political scientist. Nevertheless, in the end, Bacevich's message leading up to his recommendations
were hard to swallow. I believe he wrote this book not to enlighten but to be provocative in order to sell books and build his
status in academic circles. If Bacevich's aim was to build a convincing argument on a serious subject, he needed to be less provocative
and more clinical.
David Friedman:
What is militarism? What is it, particularly as applied to today's America? West Point educated Andrew Bacevich opens his book
with a concise statement: "Today as never before in their history Amercans are enthralled with military power. The global military
supremacy that the United States presently enjoys . . . has become central to our national identity." This is the basic premise
of The New American Militarism. Anyone who does not accept the accuracy of this statement, or is unconcerned about its implications
should probably not read this book--it will only annoy them. For those, however, who are concerned about how militarism is increasingly
seeping into our core values and sense of national destiny, or who are disturbed by the current glaring disconnect between what
our soldiers endure "over there", and the lack of any sacrifice or inconvenience for the rest of us "over here", this book is
a must-read.
Refreshingly, Bacevich approaches the new American militarism as neither a Democrat nor Republican, from neither the left nor
the right. No doubt, those with a stake in defending the policy of the present Administration no matter how foolish, or in castigating
it as the main source of our current militarism, will see "bias" in this book. The truth though is that Bacevich makes a genuine
effort to approach his subject in a spirit of open and disinterested inquiry. He has earned the right to say, near the end of
his book, that "this account has not sought to assign or impute blame." As a result, he is not stymied by the possibility of embarrassing
one political side or the other by his arguments or conclusions. This leads to a nuanced and highly independent and original treatment
of the subject.
In chronicling the rise of American militarism, Bacevich rightly starts with Wilson's vision of American exceptionalism: an
America leading the world beyond the slaughterhouse of European battlefields to an international order of peaceful democratic
states. But where President Wilson wanted to create such a world for the express purpose of rendering war obsolete, Bacevich notes
that today's "Wilsonians" want to export American democracy through the use of force. He follows this overview with an insider's
thumbnail history of American military thinking from Vietnam to the first Gulf war. He explains how the military in effect re-invented
itself after Vietnam so as to make it far more difficult "to send the Army off to fight while leaving the country behind." Today's
highly professionalized and elite force is largely the result of this thinking. In turn this professional military presented to
the country and its civilian leaders a re-invented model of war: war waged with surgical precision and offering "the prospect
of decision rather than pointing ineluctably toward stalemate and quagmire." Gulf War I was the triumphant culmination of this
model. The unintended and ironic consequence, of course, was that war and the aggressive projection of American military power
throughout the world came to be viewed by some in our nation's leadership as an increasingly attractive policy option.
The body of the book analyzes how the legitimate attempt to recover from the national trauma of Vietnam led ultimately to a
militarism increasingly reflected in crucial aspects of American life. In religion he traces how a "crusade" theory of warfare
has supplanted the more mainstream "just war" theory. In popular culture he discusses the rise of a genre of pop fiction and movies
reflecting a glamorized and uncritical idealization of war (he examines "An Officer and A Gentleman", "Rambo: First Blood Part
II", and "Top Gun" as examples). In politics he identifies the neo-conservative movement as bringing into the mainstream ideas
that "a decade earlier might have seemed reckless or preposterous"; for example the idea that the United States is "the most revolutionary
force on earth" with an "inescapable mission" to spread democracy -- by the sword if necessary. Bacevich calls these ideas "inverted
Trotskyism", and notes that the neo-conservative movement shares with Mao the assumption that revolution springs "from the barrel
of a gun".
Bacevich concludes his book with a pithy ten-point critique offered as a starting point for "a change in consciousness, seeing
war and America's relationship to war in a fundamentally different way." Among his points are greater fidelity to the letter and
the spirit of the Constituional provisions regarding war and the military, and increased strategic self-sufficiency for America.
Perhaps the most important points of his critique are those about ending or at least reducing the current disconnect between er
how we might reduce
Patrick Connor
Careful observers will note the abolute claims that lie under the surface of these criticisms. If you criticize anything about
the United States, you're automatically anti-Bush. If you question the wisdom of viewing the military as a first-option in handling
international problems, you're even worse: a liberal anti-Bush peacenick. History supposedly demonstrates that diplomacy never
works with any "tyrant" (whatever that is), while war allegedly always work. It's just one stark claim after another, with never
any gray area in the middle.
If you read the book, this "you're either with us or with the terrorists, either dream war or hate President Bush" mentality
should remind you of something. It very closely resembles the description Bacevich gives of neoconservatism, which he says engenders
a worldview that is constantly in crisis mode. Things are always so dire for neocons, Bacevich explains, that only two feasible
options present themselves at any given time: doing what the neocons want (usually deploying military force in pursuit of some
lofty but unrealistic goal), or suffering irreversible and potentially fatal setbacks to our national cause.
Is it really surprising that the reviews of this book from a neocon mindset are also the reviews giving one star to a book
that sytematically critiques and upends neoconservatism?
In actuality, as many have pointed out already, Bacevich is "anti-Bush" only insomuch as he is anti-neoconservative. Bacevich
openly states that he throws his full weight behind traditionally conservative issues, like small government and lower taxes.
Indeed, he is a devoutly religious social conservative who himself severed twenty years in the Army officer corps. This is why
his exposee on America's new militarism has so much credibility.
Since he was in the military, he knows that sometimes the military is necessary to handle situations that develop in the world.
However he also understands that the military is often grossly unfit to handle certain situations. This is the main theme of his
book. At its core, the story is about how, in response to Vietnam, military leaders worked frightfully hard to rebuild the military
and to limit the freedom of starry-eyed civilians to use the armed forces inappropriately.
Their most important objective was to ensure that no more Wilsonian misadventures (like Vietnam) would happen. The officer
corps did this by carving out a space of authority for the top brass, from which they could have unprecedented input in policy
decisions, and be able to guide strategy and tactics once the military deployed into action. After ascending to a position of
greater prominence, they implemented the "Weinberger Doctrine," followed by the "Powell Doctrine," both specifically tailored
to avoid Vietnam-style quagmires. The Gulf War, claims Bacevich, saw the fruition of fifteen years of hard work to accomplish
these reforms. And they worked beautifully.
However, the end of the last decade saw the Neo-conservatives challenge the status quo. And with the election of W. Bush, they
were finally in a position where their ideas could again have a disproportionate influence on foreign policy. What we now have
in Iraq is another military quagmire, where the solution must be political, but where military occupation renders political solutions
impossible.
This story is about how the military profession emerged from the post-Vietnam wilderness, dazzled the world during the first
Gulf War, then once again lost its independent ability to craft related policies with the arrival of Rummie and the neocons.
It's a fascinating story, and Bacevich relates it skillfully.
Andrew S. Rogers:
Baedecker on the road to perdition, December 5, 2005
I was sorry to see Andrew J. Bacevich dismiss Chalmers Johnson's 2004
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy,
and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project) quite as quickly as he did (on page 3 of the introduction, in fact),
because I think these two books, taken together, provide probably the best -- and certainly the most historically-informed --
look at the rise and consequences of American empire. I endorse "The New American Militarism" as heartily as I did "The Sorrows
of Empire."
Bacevich's capsule summary of Johnson's work notwithstanding, both these books take the long view of America's international
military presence and are quick to grasp one key point. As Bacevich notes on page 205, "American militarism is not the invention
of a cabal nursing fantasies of global empire and manipulating an unsuspecting people frightened by the events of 9/11. Further,
it is counterproductive to think in these terms -- to assign culpability to a particular president or administration and to imagine
that throwing the bums out will put things right."
In several insightful chapters, Bacevich traces the rise of militarism over the course of several administrations and many
decades. A former Army officer himself, the author is particularly insightful in charting the efforts of the military's officer
corps to recover from the stigma of Vietnam and reshape the *ethos* of the armed services as an elite intentionally separate from,
and morally superior to, the society it exists to defend. But the officers are only one of the strands Bacevich weaves together.
He also looks at the influence of the "defense intellectuals;" the importance of evangelical Christians and how their view of
Biblical prophecy shapes their understanding of politics; the rise of (yes) the neo-conservatives; and even the role of Hollywood
in changing America's understandings of the "lessons of Vietnam" and the re-glamorization of the military in films like "Top Gun."
The author is a sharp-eyed analyst, but also an engaging writer, and he gives the reader a lot to think about. I was intrigued,
for example, by his discussion of how "supporting the troops" has become the *sine qua non* of modern politics and how doing so
has replaced actual military service as an indicator of one's love of country. More fundamentally, his identification and analysis
of "World War III" (already over) and "World War IV" (currently underway, and declared [surprisingly] by Jimmy Carter) struck
me as a remarkably useful lens for interpreting current events.
In tying his threads together, Bacevich is not afraid to make arguments and draw conclusions that may make the reader uncomfortable.
As the passage I quoted above makes clear, for example, someone looking for a straightforward declaration that "It's all Bush's
fault!" will have to go someplace else. As a further implication of the above passage, Bacevich argues that the "defense intellectuals,"
the evangelicals, and even the neocons were and are doing what they believe are most likely to promote peace, freedom, and the
security of the American people. "To the extent that we may find fault with the results of their efforts, that fault is more appropriately
attributable to human fallibility than to malicious intent" (p. 207). Additionally, Bacevich is unashamed of his military service,
holds up several military leaders as heroes, has some choice words for the self-delusions of leftist "peace activists," and even
argues that federal education loans should be made conditional on military service.
This doesn't mean the president and his fellow conservatives get off much easier, though. Bacevich is roundly critical of Bush
and his administration, including Colin Powell; dismisses the Iraq invasion ("this preposterous enterprise" [p. 202]); and in
a move that will probably get him crossed off the Thayer Award nominations list, suggests officer candidates be required to graduate
from civilian universities instead of West Point (his alma mater) or Annapolis -- intellectually-isolated institutions that reinforce
the officer caste's separation from civil society.
So this book isn't one that will blindly reinforce anyone's prejudices. In part for that reason -- but mostly for its trenchant
analysis, readable prose, and broad historical view -- I'm happy to list "The New American Militarism" as one of the best and
most important books I've read in some time. Perhaps even since "The Sorrows of Empire."
Izaak VanGaalen:
Militarism and Public Opinion, August 12, 2005
According to many of the custodians of public opinion, Andrew Bacevich has earned his right to a fair hearing. Not only is
he a graduate of West Point, a Vietnam veteran, and a conservative Catholic, he is a professor of international relations and
a contributor to "The Weekly Standard" and "The National Review." Obviously, if he were a left-leaning anti-war Democrat and a
contributor to, say, "The Nation," he wouldn't be taken seriously as a critic of American militarism - he would be merely another
"blame-America-first" defeatist.
Bacevich sees militarism manifesting itself in some disquieting ways. Traditionally America has always gauged the size of its
military with the magnitude of impending threats. After the Civil War, World War I and II, the military was downsized as threats
receded. Not so after the fall of the Soviet Union. The military budget has continued to grow and the expenditures are greater
- by some measures - than all other countries combined. American military forces are now scaling the globe and the American public
seems quiet comfortable with it. And everyone else is growing uneasy.
The mindset of the current officer corps is dominant control in all areas "whether sea, undersea, land, air, space or cyberspace."
In other words, supremacy in all theaters. Self-restraint has given way to the normalization of using military force as a foreign
policy tool. From 1989 (Operation Just Cause) to 2002 (Operation Iraqi Freedom) there have been nine major military operations
and a number of smaller ones. The end of the Cold War has given the US a preponderance of military strength (the proverbial unipolar
moment) that has enamoured successive administrations with the idea of using military force to solve international problems. In
earlier times, war was always an option of the last resort, now it is a preventative measure.
War, according to Bacevich, has taken on a new aesthetic. During World War I and II, and also Vietnam and Korea the battlefield
was a slaughterhouse of barbarism and brutality. Now, with the advent of the new Wilsonianism in Washington, wars are seen as
moments of national unity to carry out a positive agenda, almost as if it were international social work.
The modern soldier is no longer looked upon as a deadbeat or a grunt, but rather as a skilled professional who is undertaking
socially beneficial work. In fact, in a poll taken in 2003, military personnel consider themselves as being of higher moral standards
than the nation they serve.
In the political classes, the Republicans have traditionallly been staunchly pro-military, but now even Democrats have thrown
off their ant-military inclinations. When Kerry was running for president he did not question Bush's security policies, he was
actually arguing that Bush had not gone far enough. Kerry wanted to invest more in military hardware and training. Even liberal
Michael Ignatieff argues that US military intervention should be used to lessen the plight of the oppressed and that we should
be assisting them in establishing more representative government.
But superpowers are not altruistic; they are only altruistic to the extent that it serves their self-interest. That's probably
why Ignatieff will not get much of a hearing and Bacevich will. This book should give us pause as to why the range of opinion
in the America on the use of military force is so narrow. If there is one voice that stands a chance of being heeded, it is from
this conservative ex-soldier. \
Douglas Doepke:
The US may have been an expansionist and aggressive power as history shows. But unlike European peers, the American public
never really took to the seductions of militarism. That is, until now. This is an important and occasionally brilliant book that
tells a forty-year tale of creeping over-reliance on the military. And a heck-of an important story it is. I like the way Bacevich
refuses to blame the Bush administration, even though they're the ones who've hit the accelerator. Actually the trend has been
in motion for some time, especially since 1980 and Reagan's revival of military glory, contrived though it was.
Each chapter deals with an aspect of this growing militariism movement. How intellectual guru Norman Podhoretz and other elites
got the big engine together, how twenty million evangelical passengers abandoned tradition and got on board, and how a crew of
enthusiastic neo-cons charted a destination -- nothing less than world democracy guaranteed by American military might. All in
all, the ride passes for a brilliant post-cold war move. Who's going to argue with freeing up the Will of the People, except for
maybe a few hundred million Sharia fanatics. Yet, it appears none of the distinguished crew sees any contradiction between dubious
means and noble end, nor do they seem particularly concerned with what anybody else thinks. (Sort of like the old Soviets, eager
to spread the blessings of Scientific Socialism.) However, as Bacevich pounts out, there's a practical problem here the crew is
very alert to. Policing the world means building up the institutions of the military and providing a covering mystique to keep
John Q. Public supportive, especially with tax dollars and blood supply. In short, the mission requires sanitizing the cops on
the beat and all that goes into keeping them there. It also means overcoming a long American tradition of minding-one's-own-business
and letting the virtues of democratic self-governance speak for themselves. But then, that was an older, less "responsible" America.
Bacevich's remedies harken back to those older, quieter traditions -- citizen soldiers, a real Department of Defense, a revived
Department of State, and a much more modest role in international affairs.With this book, Bacevich proves to be one of the few
genuine conservatives around, (a breed disappearing even faster than the ranks of genuine liberals). Much as I like the book,
especially the thoughtful Preface, I wish the author had dealt more with the economic aspects of build-up and conquest. But then
that might require a whole other volume, as globalization and the number of billion-dollar servicing industries expands daily.
At day's end, however, someone needs to inform a CNN- enthralled public that the military express lacks one essential feature.
With all its hypnotizing bells and whistles, history shows the momentum has no brakes. Lessons from the past indicate that, despite
the many seductions, aggressive empires make for some very unexpected and fast-moving train wrecks. Somebody needs to raise the
alarm. Thanks Mr. Bacevich for doing your part.
Still his critique of neocons is a class of its own has value in itself as it comes from professional military officer. Professor
Bacevich argues that the US new militarism which emerged after the dissolution of the USSR is the result of a convergence of actions
by a number of different groups including our professional military, neoconservative intellectuals and publicists, evangelical Christians,
resurgent Republican party activists, and so-called defense intellectuals (see New American
Militarism).
Andrew Bacevich has a wonderful essay, in the form of an open letter to Paul Wolfowitz,
in the current Harper's. You
have to subscribe to read it -- but, hey, you should be
subscribing to any publication whose work
you value. This essay isolates the particular role Wolfowitz had in the cast of characters that led us to war. As a reminder, they
included:
Dick Cheney, who was becoming a comic-book churl by this stage of his public life;
Colin Powell, the loyal soldier, staffer, and diplomat whose "Powell Doctrine" and entire life's work stood in opposition
to the kind of war that he, with misguided loyalty, was to play so central a role in selling;
Tony Blair, the crucial ally who added rhetorical polish and international resolve to the case for war;
Donald Rumsfeld, with his breezy contempt for those who said the effort would be difficult or long;
Paul Bremer, whose sudden, thoughtless dismantling of the Iraqi army proved so disastrous;
Condoleezza Rice, miscast in her role as White House national-security advisor;
George Tenet, the long-time staffer who cooperated with the "slam-dunk!" intelligence assessment despite serious disagreement
within the CIA;
and of course George W. Bush himself, whose combination of limited knowledge and strong desire to be "decisive" made
him so vulnerable to the argument that the "real" response to the 9/11 attacks should be invading a country that had nothing to
do with them.
But Paul Wolfowitz was in a category of his own because he was the one who provided the highest-concept rationale for the
war. As James Galbraith of the University of Texas has put it, "Wolfowitz is the real-life version of Halberstam's caricature of
McNamara" [in The Best and the Brightest].
Bacevich's version of this assessment is to lay out as respectfully as possible the strategic duty that Wolfowitz thought the U.S.
would fulfill by invading Iraq. Back before the war began, I did a much more limited version of this assessment
as an Atlantic article.
As Bacevich puts it now, Wolfowitz was extending precepts from his one-time mentor,
Albert Wohlstetter, toward a model of how the United
States could maximize stability for itself and others.
As with the best argumentative essays, Bacevich takes on Wolfowitz in a strong rather than an oversimplified version of his world-view.
You have to read the whole thing to get the effect, but here is a brief sample (within fair-use limits):
With the passing of the Cold War, global hegemony seemed America's for the taking. What others saw as an option you, Paul, saw
as something much more: an obligation that the nation needed to seize, for its own good as well as for the world's....
Although none of the hijackers were Iraqi, within days of 9/11 you were promoting military action against Iraq. Critics have
chalked this up to your supposed obsession with Saddam. The criticism is misplaced. The scale of your ambitions was vastly greater.
In an instant, you grasped that the attacks provided a fresh opportunity to implement Wohlstetter's Precepts, and Iraq offered
a made-to-order venue....In Iraq the United States would demonstrate the efficacy of preventive war.... The urgency of invading
Iraq stemmed from the need to validate that doctrine before the window of opportunity closed.
Bacevich explains much more about the Wohlstetter / Wolfowitz grand view. And then he poses the challenge that he says Wolfowitz
should now meet:
One of the questions emerging from the Iraq debacle must be this one: Why did liberation at gunpoint yield results that differed
so radically from what the war's advocates had expected? Or, to sharpen the point, How did preventive war undertaken by ostensibly
the strongest military in history produce a cataclysm?
Not one of your colleagues from the Bush Administration possesses the necessary combination of honesty, courage, and wit to
answer these questions. If you don't believe me, please sample the tediously self-exculpatory memoirs penned by (or on behalf
of) Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Bremer, Feith, and a small squad of eminently forgettable generals...
What would Albert [Wohlstetter] do? I never met the man (he died in 1997), but my guess is that he wouldn't flinch from taking
on these questions, even if the answers threatened to contradict his own long-held beliefs. Neither should you, Paul. To be sure,
whatever you might choose to say, you'll be vilified, as Robert McNamara was vilified when he broke his long silence and admitted
that he'd been "wrong, terribly wrong" about Vietnam. But help us learn the lessons of Iraq so that we might extract from it something
of value in return for all the sacrifices made there. Forgive me for saying so, but you owe it to your country.
Anyone who knows Andrew Bacevich's story will understand the edge behind his final sentence. But you don't have to know that to
respect the challenge he lays down. I hope Paul Wolfowitz will at some point rise to it.
For another very valuable assessment of who was right and wrong, when, please see
John
Judis's piece in The New Republic.
The statue, dedicated in 1984, is the latest monument to be destroyed in what President
Trump dubbed the "left-wing cultural revolution" by "angry mobs."
According to the
Baltimore Sun , the Columbus statue has been the site of a wreath-laying ceremony right
before the annual Columbus Day parade, which, in 2019 was replaced with the Italian Heritage
Festival.
Republican state delegates and Italian-American activists held a press conference at the
statue last month to ask Gov. Larry Hogan and Baltimore Mayor Bernard C. "Jack" Young to
preserve and protect the memorials , following activists' comments about pulling down the
monuments themselves and the introduction of a City Council bill this week to rename one of
them in honor of victims of police violence.
The downed statue is one of three monuments to Columbus in Baltimore. -
Baltimore Sun
BLM thugs have already started going after patriots. They ambushed our governor at the
small town of Ackley Iowa. They were stalking her as she visited companies providing
essential services during the pandemic. Her driver refused to stop, likely saving her life.
One BLM thug was hit but not seriously injured. They are not waiting to run out of statues.
We ordinary Americans must be heavily armed at all times now. Midwest states are full of
illegals, who serve the left as an army. Open civil war is upon us whether we would have it
or not.
warsev , 3 minutes ago
What these malicious rioters don't realize is that they are handing the November election
to DJT and Republicans for senate and house. Average Americans look on the footage that
accompanies this article with revulsion; for the ideas and the people behind them. Trump will
walk away with 2020. Just keep it up, loony lefties.
vic and blood , 4 minutes ago
We have been in a race and culture war with multiple factions for some time. The presumed
winner is not overtly participating.
Most white people are oblivious, though that is changing. Too bad we are demographically
doomed.
SolidGold , 1 minute ago
Divide and conquer. Who creates that genius?
NumberNone , 12 minutes ago
Was in downtown Baltimore less than 2 years ago, it felt like you were one person away
from someone that wanted to rob you. The downtown had all the usual suspects of faux high end
shopping but the vibe was one of John Wayne Gacy in his clown suit...it had all the look and
feel that was supposed to make you happy but it was rotten to the core.
Whoa Dammit , 13 minutes ago
We can't keep coddling these stupid brats. It's time to start making their parents pay for
the mess and destruction that their ill raised offspring cause.
GoldRulesPaperDrools , 17 minutes ago
Protesters == pavement apes
House of Cards , 17 minutes ago
Terrorists you mean
Watt Supremacissss , 16 minutes ago
Crybullies.
GoldRulesPaperDrools , 15 minutes ago
Redundant but accurate ... +100_000
Silver Savior , 17 minutes ago
Columbus was a dickhead anyway.
NumberNone , 9 minutes ago
So we tear apart the country for a guy that held a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach...if
you're gonna pass judgement and replace other people's icons you might want to make better
choices.
Blackdawg7 , 43 minutes ago
I've never been a fan of Christopher Columbus but witnessing these know-nothing
sanctimonious twits destroy public property while virtue signalling makes my blood boil.
Workdove , 44 minutes ago
Not worth the 10 years in jail...
vic and blood , 50 minutes ago
History's losers are terrorizing, and soon to be tyrannizing us because Caucasians are too
civilized and docile.
Every race and tribe is programmed by God to attempt to dominate.
As an adherent of the non-aggression principle, I don't care for the binary choice, but
accept it.
Either dominate or be dominated. Only cucks believe in co-existence. I assure you our
rivals do not believe in peaceful co-existence.
unionbroker , 1 hour ago
Christopher Columbus sails out into the unknown where no man has gone before. What the
**** has BLM done. Put the statues back up and throw BLM in the water
Looks like Liz Cheney words for Russians. Her action suggest growing alliance between Bush
repoblicans and neolibral interventionaistsof the Democratic Party. The alliance directed against
Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Boland explains, the amendment passed by the committee yesterday sets so many conditions on withdrawal that it makes it all but impossible to satisfy them: ..."
"... The longer that the U.S. stays at war in Afghanistan, the more incentives other states will have to make that continued presence more costly for the U.S. When the knee-jerk reaction in Washington to news of these bounties is to throw up obstacles to withdrawal, that gives other states another incentive to do more of this. ..."
"... Prolonging our involvement in the war amounts to playing into Moscow's hands. For all of their posturing about security and strength, hard-liners routinely support destructive and irrational policies that redound to the advantage of other states. This is still happening with the war in Afghanistan, and if these hard-liners get their way it will continue happening for many years to come. ..."
The immediate response to a story that U.S. forces were being targeted is to keep fighting a
losing conflict.
Barbara Boland
reported yesterday on the House Armed Services Committee's vote to impede withdrawal of
U.S. from Afghanistan:
The House Armed Services Committee voted Wednesday night to put roadblocks on President
Donald Trump's vow to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan, apparently in response to
bombshell report published by The New York Times Friday that alleges Russia paid dollar
bounties to the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill U.S troops.
It speaks volumes about Congress' abdication of its responsibilities that one of the few
times that most members want to challenge the president over a war is when they think he might
bring it to an end. Many of the members that want to block withdrawals from other countries
have no problem when the president wants to use U.S. forces illegally and to keep them in other
countries without authorization for years at a time. The role of hard-liner Liz Cheney in
pushing the measure passed yesterday is a good example of what I mean. The hawkish outrage in
Congress is only triggered when the president entertains the possibility of taking troops out
of harm's way. When he takes reckless and illegal action that puts them at risk, as he did when
he ordered the illegal assassination of Soleimani, the same members that are crying foul today
applauded the action. As Boland explains, the amendment passed by the committee yesterday
sets so many conditions on withdrawal that it makes it all but impossible to satisfy
them:
Crow's amendment adds several layers of policy goals to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan,
which has already stretched on for 19 years and cost over a trillion dollars. As made clear
in the Afghanistan Papers, most of these policy goals were never the original intention of
the mission in Afghanistan, and were haphazardly added after the defeat of al Qaeda. With no
clear vision for what achieving these fuzzy goals would look like, the mission stretches on
indefinitely, an unarticulated victory unachievable.
The immediate Congressional response to a story that U.S. forces were being targeted is to
make it much more difficult to pull them out of a war that cannot be won. Congressional hawks
bemoan "micromanaging" presidential decisions and mock the idea of having "535
commanders-in-chief," but when it comes to prolonging pointless wars they are only too happy to
meddle and tie the president's hands. When it comes to defending Congress' proper role in
matters of war, these members are typically on the other side of the argument. They are content
to let the president get us into as many wars as he might want, but they are horrified at the
thought that any of those wars might one day be concluded. Yesterday's vote confirmed that
there is an endless war caucus in the House, and it is bipartisan.
The original reporting of the bounty story is questionable for the reasons that Boland has
pointed out before, but for the sake of argument let's assume that Russia has been offering
bounties on U.S. troops in Afghanistan. When the U.S. keeps its troops at war in a country for
almost twenty years, it is setting them up as targets for other governments. Just as the U.S.
has armed and supported forces hostile to Russia and its clients in Syria, it should not come
as a shock when they do to the same elsewhere. If Russia has been doing this, refusing to
withdraw U.S. forces ensures that they will continue to have someone that they can target.
The longer that the U.S. stays at war in Afghanistan, the more incentives other states
will have to make that continued presence more costly for the U.S. When the knee-jerk reaction
in Washington to news of these bounties is to throw up obstacles to withdrawal, that gives
other states another incentive to do more of this.
Because the current state of debate about Russia is so toxic and irrational, our political
leaders seem incapable of responding carefully to Russian actions. It doesn't seem to occur to
the war hawks that Russia might prefer that the U.S. remains preoccupied and tied down in
Afghanistan indefinitely.
Prolonging our involvement in the war amounts to playing into Moscow's hands. For all of
their posturing about security and strength, hard-liners routinely support destructive and
irrational policies that redound to the advantage of other states. This is still happening with
the war in Afghanistan, and if these hard-liners get their way it will continue happening for
many years to come.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in
the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico
Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a
columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides
in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
One needs to mention the democratic deficit in the US. All the members voting yes are
representatives, they represent the people in their constituencies, and presumably vote for
what the majority in those constituencies would want, or past promises.
Any poll shows that Americans would rather have the troops brought back home, thank you very
much. But this is not what their representatives are voting for. Talk about democracy!
And what's the logic, if you make an accusation against someone you don't like it must be
true. Okay well then let's drone strike Putin. If you are going to be Exceptional and
consistent, Putin did everything Soleimani did so how can Liz Cotton argue for a different
punishment?
1. Killed U.S. troops in a war zone, 2. planning attacks on U.S. troops.
The entire Russian military plans for attacks all the time just like ours does but the
Neocons have declared that we are the only ones allowed to do that. Verdict, death penalty for
Putin.
Interesting, well reasoned article as usual from Mr. Larison. However, I have to say that I
don't see why Russia would want the US in Afghanistan indefinitely. In primis, they have a
strategic partnership with China (even though we've got to see how Russia will behave now when
there is the India-China rift), and China has been championing the idea of rebuilding the Silk
Road (brilliant idea if you ask me) so in this sense it's more reasonable to assume that they
might be aiming to get stability in the region rather than keep it in a state of unrest (as to
be strategic partners you need to have some kind of common strategy, or at least not a
completely different strategy). In 2018 they (Russia) actually were trying to organise a
mediation process which would have the Afghan Gvt. and the Talibans discuss before the US would
retire the troops, and it was very significative as they managed to get all the parties sitting
around a table for the very first time (even the US participated as an observer).
Secondly, Russia also has pretty decent relations with Iran (at least according to Iranian
press, which seems to be realistic as Russia is compliant to the JCPOA, is not aggressive
towards them, and they're cooperating in the Astana process for a political solution for Syria,
for example), and it wouldn't be so if Russia would pursue a policy which would aim to keep the
US in the Middle East indefinitely, as Iran's WHOLE point is that they want the US out of the
region, so if Russia would be trying to keep the US in the Middle East indefinitely, that would
seriously upset Iran.
Thirdly, Russia is one of the founders of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which now
includes most of the states in Central Asia, China, India and Pakistan. The association never
made overt statements about their stance on the US's presence in the region; yet they've been
hinting that they don't approve of it, which is reasonable, as it is very likely that those
countries would all have different plans for the region, which might include some consideration
for human and economic development rather than constant and never-ending militarisation (of
course Pakistan would be problematic here, as the funds for the Afghan warlords get channeled
through Pakistan, which receives a lot of US money, so I don't know how they're managing this
issue).
Last but not least, I cannot logically believe that the Talibans, who've been coherent in
their message since the late 70's ("we will fight to the death until the invaders are defeated
and out of our national soil") would now need to be "convinced" by the Russians to defeat and
chase out the invader. This is just NOT believable at all. Afghanistan is called the Graveyard
of Empires for a reason, I would argue.
In any case I am pleased to see that at TAC you have been starting debunking the
Russia-narrative, as it is very problematic - most media just systematically misrepresents
Russia in order to justify aggressive military action (Europe, specifically Northern Europe, is
doing this literally CONSTANTLY, I'm so over it, really). The misrepresentation of Russia as an
aggressive wannabe-empire is a cornerstone of the pro-war narrative, so it is imperative to get
some actual realism into that.
As if the Afghan freedom fighters need additional incentive to eliminate the invaders? In
case Amerikans don't know, Afghans, except those on the US payroll, intensely despise Amerika
and its 'godless' ways. Amerikans forces have been sadistic, bombing Afghan weddings, funerals,
etc.
Even if the Russians are providing bounties to the Afghans, to take out the invaders, don't
the Amerikans remember the 80s when Washington (rightfully) supported the mujahedin with funds,
arms, Stinger missiles, etc.? Again, the US is on shaky ground because of the neocons.
Afghanistan is known through the ages to be the graveyard of empires. They have done it on
their own shedding blood, sweat, and tears. Also, the Afghan resistance have been principled
about Amerikans getting out before making deals.
We can't keep coddling these stupid brats. It's time to start making their parents pay for
the mess and destruction that their ill raised offspring cause.
T he perpetual occupation of Afghanistan has become so normalized that it mostly serves as
background noise to most Americans. It's even jokingly referred to as the "Forever War,"
accepted as just another constant reality. A soldier dies now and again, a couple of dozen
civilians get killed in another bombing. It's never enough to stir the population to pressure
Washington enough to stop it. And the endless war drags on.
From George W. Bush to Barack Obama, to Donald Trump, every U.S. president has promised to
end the war. But their plans to bring the troops home inevitably require first sending more
troops to the country. You can't look at all this rhetoric and reality and not conclude that
the United States wants to stay in Afghanistan forever. And there is a reason, despite an
unresolvable military quagmire, that the Empire won't let go of Afghanistan.
In this latest "Empire Files" documentary, journalist Abby Martin covers reveals the reality
of America's Wars in Afghanistan, from the CIA construct of the 1980s through today's senseless
stalemate. MintPress brings you documentary in its entirety, published with permission
from filmmaker Abby Martin.
The BLM-Antifa Marxist revolution under the cover of ending "systemic racism" is controlled
by the ruling elite through foundations, progressive think tanks, wealthy liberals - and
corporate CEOs you'd think know better.
Success depends on the help of opportunistic Democrat politicians who believe raising a
clenched fist and parroting BLM will get them elected or re-elected, thus perpetuating a system
of crony capitalism and endless war behind a kinder and gentler Democrat facade that is now
falling away.
If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a
method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men
promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the
perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not
a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.
The ruling elite, the financial class that has profited so mightily from riots and violence,
will not allow Marxists and black hoodie nihilists to spawn a violent revolution.
Chocura750 , 4 minutes ago
I doubt very much that there is any significant ideological thinking in 99% of the BLM
protestors. Imagine for a minute that George Floyd wasn't murdered, do you think that the BLM
organizers could get 100 people to protest capitalism and rally for socialism.
ProsperD9 , 9 minutes ago
Looks like BLM is about to get canceled. They committed the biggest cardinal sin that can
ever be committed on this earth. They can shoot all white babies, they can take over a
nursing home and strangle all the old white people, they can paint the white house
black...but one thing they CANNOT do... .drum roll please ...criticize IsraHell. Looks like
they've done the deed and about to be canceled. Read about it
BLACK LIVES MATTER 'CANCELED' AFTER CRITICIZING ISRAHELL.
HenryJonesJr , 20 minutes ago
More doom **** .... This kind of hyper-ventilating nonsense might sell well in highly
urbanized, totally dependent regions of America, meaning cities. But the majority of
Americans - white, black and brown - despise the idiotic Left and all their violence and
insanity.
"... This is a thread about Marc Collins-Rector and the powerful child rape ring which extends from the BBS era to the cryptocurrency era with ties throughout entertainment and silicon valley, from Disney executives to crypto circles and social media. #opDeathEaters ..."
"... Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were were players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about. ..."
"... The Maxwell trial will be a carefully choreographed nothing burger ! The delay in bringing her to justice, was so as to plan and negotiate the details. To the satisfaction of all concerned. ..."
"... Letting the likes of prince Andrew and Clinton's and Trump off the hook regarding any incriminating evedence. So who is running the show (answer) Israel and their lobby groups. ..."
"... Ghislaine Maxwell and Les Wexner are the boss and Epstein was the CEO at their bidding. Wexner GAVE Epstein the Manhatten apartment. That is a five story large building and it was already fully fitted out with recording gear from the handover day. They don't come cheap. This was one of the biggest, deliberate global entrapment rackets the world has seen. Ghislaine was the handler and Wexner the financier and front man. ..."
"... Note how the operatives avoid my inquiry as to who owned the safe house and/or how Maxwell came to own it and who aided her in that endeavor? ..."
"... More on the Nutter Butter law firm that helped Maxwell purchase the New Hampshire safe house. It has strong ties to Harvard. Epstein was in deep with the Harvard folks and the Harvard folks, all Ivy League in fact, are in deep with the intelligence services. It's important in the clandestine services to keep changing your name. Chinese Princelings, fyi, prize a Harvard education. Gee, imagine that. ..."
Another example of what hackers *might* able to do... (PSA: I have *no* idea whether *any*
of this information is correct - but wouldn't it be great if it was?)
This is a thread about
Marc Collins-Rector and the powerful child rape ring which extends from the BBS era to the
cryptocurrency era with ties throughout entertainment and silicon valley, from Disney
executives to crypto circles and social media. #opDeathEaters
Featuring: Bryan Singer, Gary Goddard, Jeffrey Sachs, Mitchell Blutt, David Neuman, David
Geffen, Sandy Gallin, Terry Semel, Michael Huffington, Garth Ancier, Gary Gersh, John
Silva, Marc Nathanson, Steve Bannon, Jeffrey Epstein, Al Seckel and more.
Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were
were players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about.
The question now is: How do they stop Ghislaine from testifying? Having her "commit
suicide" in her cell with all the cell block cameras off starts to look a little, I don't
know, "blatant", wouldn't one think?
Well, blatant is not a concept that the oligarch class actually feel any problem with.
The Maxwell trial will be a carefully choreographed nothing burger !
The delay in bringing her to justice, was so as to plan and negotiate the details. To the
satisfaction of all concerned.
Letting the likes of prince Andrew and Clinton's and Trump off the hook regarding any
incriminating evedence.
So who is running the show (answer) Israel and their lobby groups.
Q. What's on the table ? Power, money and territory! As always.
This is harvest time for Israel I'm afraid !
Both Epstein and his spotter were nothing more than consumables that thought they were were
players. I'm not sure what the tabloid interest in this pair of clowns is all about.
Ghislaine Maxwell and Les Wexner are the boss and Epstein was the CEO at their bidding.
Wexner GAVE Epstein the Manhatten apartment. That is a five story large building and it was
already fully fitted out with recording gear from the handover day. They don't come cheap.
This was one of the biggest, deliberate global entrapment rackets the world has seen.
Ghislaine was the handler and Wexner the financier and front man.
But I am just an observer and if you want the gritty stuff then tune in to Whitney Webb
and listen to her take on this. She has been revealing an immense amount of evidence and
links since Epstein was first arrested 3? years ago. I am about to do that myself.
I don't give a flat rock what the MSM thinks or does in this case.
The Maxwell trial for the show and the annexation in the background? With no cash allowed
to flow to the axis of resistance (no banks, no planes, no Gulf expats enabled to bring in
cash without the virus risk?).
The BBC article had an interesting snippet about Andrew, at the very end of the article:
"Asked about the prince on Thursday, acting Attorney Strauss said: "I am not going to comment
on anyone's status in this investigation but I will say that we would welcome Prince Andrew
coming in to talk with us, we would like to have the benefit of his statement."
A source close to Prince Andrew's lawyers told BBC News: "The Duke's team is bewildered by
the DoJ's [Department of Justice's] comments earlier today as we have twice reached out to
them in the last month and have received no reply.""
Note how the operatives avoid my inquiry as to who owned the safe house and/or how
Maxwell came to own it and who aided her in that endeavor? Now why would they avoid that
most important question and change the subject and surround the inquiry with distracting
nonsense? I'll let the few honest ones amongst you answer that question. It's an easy answer,
fyi. Hey Gruff, I see you.
Authorities said Thursday that Maxwell was caught at a 156-acre property in that town,
where land records list just one lot of that size, on East Washington Road.
"The defendant appears to have been hiding on a 156-acre property acquired in an
all-cash purchase in December 2019 (through a carefully anonymized LLC) in Bradford, New
Hampshire, an area to which she has no other known connections," said a court filing by
Manhattan federal prosecutors. An LLC is a limited liability corporation.
Other records show the buyer was Granite Reality LLC, whose listed manager is a Boston
lawyer named Jeffrey Roberts.
Roberts did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The web site of his firm,
Nutter McClennen & Fish, says that Roberts "chairs Nutter's Private Client Department
and serves as a member of the firm's Executive Committee."
"His broad-based practice consists of estate planning for high net worth individuals,"
among other areas, according to the web site. Nutter, whose spokeswoman did not immediately
respond to a request for comment, is located at the same Boston address as the mailing
address of the LLC that bought the property.
More on the Nutter Butter law firm that helped Maxwell purchase the New Hampshire
safe house. It has strong ties to Harvard. Epstein was in deep with the Harvard folks and the
Harvard folks, all Ivy League in fact, are in deep with the intelligence services. It's
important in the clandestine services to keep changing your name. Chinese Princelings, fyi,
prize a Harvard education. Gee, imagine that.
Nutter has deep roots in the Boston community. In 1879, a young Louis D. Brandeis founded
the firm with fellow Harvard alumnus Samuel D. Warren.
Although Brandeis would leave
private practice for the judiciary -- he was appointed to the United States Supreme Court
after 35 years at the firm -- Nutter has maintained its prestigious reputation through
multiple name changes.
There is no reason for US elite act as is being suggested, because the cake they get the
lion's share of is growing and so even though inequality is growing, the economy is too and
the common people are getting slightly better off.
If a country were in the hands of a tiny minority and they were to act in such a way and
try steal all the wealth for themselves, then they would be overthrown by domestic enemies
like Somoza was.
Chagnon theorized that war, far from being the product of capitalist exploitation and
colonization was in fact the true "state of nature." He concluded that 1) "maximizing
political and personal security was the overwhelming driving force in human social and
cultural evolution," and 2) "warfare has been the most important single force shaping the
evolution of political society in our species."
Everything in the last five years is a symptom of the US reacting to being bested by
China.
I happen to think states that are even slightly nation-states have emergent qualities,
like a nest of social insects that react as though there is central direction though none
exists, and no state is closer to being alive than a democracy.
"... Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo where a statue of him was erected in the capital, Pristina. The Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate representation to depict Clinton standing on a pile of corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's 1999 bombing of Serbia was as big a fraud as George W. Bush's conning this nation into attacking Iraq. The fact that Clinton and other top U.S. government officials continued to glorify Hashim Thaci despite accusations of mass murder, torture, and body trafficking is another reminder of the venality of much of America's political elite. Will Americans again be gullible the next time that Washington policymakers and their media allies concoct bullshit pretexts to blow the hell out of some hapless foreign land? ..."
President Bill Clinton's favorite freedom fighter just got indicted for mass murder, torture, kidnapping, and other crimes against
humanity. In 1999, the Clinton administration launched a 78-day bombing campaign that killed up to 1500 civilians in Serbia and Kosovo
in what the American media proudly portrayed as a crusade against ethnic bias. That war, like most of the pretenses of U.S. foreign
policy, was always a sham.
Kosovo President Hashim Thaci was charged with ten counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity by an international tribunal
in The Hague in the Netherlands. It charged Thaci and nine other men with "war crimes, including murder, enforced disappearance of
persons, persecution, and torture." Thaci and the other charged suspects were accused of being "criminally responsible for nearly
100 murders" and the indictment involved "hundreds of known victims of Kosovo Albanian, Serb, Roma, and other ethnicities and include
political opponents."
Hashim Thaci's tawdry career illustrates how anti-terrorism is a flag of convenience for Washington policymakers. Prior to becoming
Kosovo's president, Thaci was the head of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), fighting to force Serbs out of Kosovo. In 1999, the Clinton
administration designated the KLA as "freedom fighters" despite their horrific past and gave them massive aid. The previous year,
the State Department condemned "terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army." The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking
and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden.
But arming the KLA and bombing Serbia helped Clinton portray himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention
after his impeachment trial. Clinton was aided by many shameless members of Congress anxious to sanctify U.S. killing. Sen. Joe Lieberman
(D-CN) whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for
human rights and American values." And since Clinton administration officials publicly compared Serb leader Slobodan Milošević to
Hitler, every decent person was obliged to applaud the bombing campaign.
Both the Serbs and ethnic Albanians committed atrocities in the bitter strife in Kosovo. But to sanctify its bombing campaign,
the Clinton administration waved a magic wand and made the KLA's atrocities disappear. British professor Philip Hammond noted that
the 78-day bombing campaign "was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what it called 'dual-use' targets, such as
factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an attempt to terrorize the country into
surrender."
NATO repeatedly dropped cluster bombs into marketplaces, hospitals, and other civilian areas. Cluster bombs are anti-personnel
devices designed to be scattered across enemy troop formations. NATO dropped more than 1,300 cluster bombs on Serbia and Kosovo and
each bomb contained 208 separate bomblets that floated to earth by parachute. Bomb experts estimated that more than 10,000 unexploded
bomblets were scattered around the landscape when the bombing ended and maimed children long after the ceasefire.
In the final days of the bombing campaign, the Washington Post reported that "some presidential aides and friends are describing
Kosovo in Churchillian tones, as Clinton's 'finest hour.'" The Post also reported that according to one Clinton friend "what Clinton
believes were the unambiguously moral motives for NATO's intervention represented a chance to soothe regrets harbored in Clinton's
own conscience The friend said Clinton has at times lamented that the generation before him was able to serve in a war with a plainly
noble purpose, and he feels 'almost cheated' that 'when it was his turn he didn't have the chance to be part of a moral cause.'"
By Clinton's standard, slaughtering Serbs was "close enough for government work" to a "moral cause."
Shortly after the end of the 1999 bombing campaign, Clinton enunciated what his aides labeled the Clinton doctrine: "Whether within
or beyond the borders of a country, if the world community has the power to stop it, we ought to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing."
In reality, the Clinton doctrine was that presidents are entitled to commence bombing foreign lands based on any brazen lie that
the American media will regurgitate. In reality, the lesson from bombing Serbia is that American politicians merely need to publicly
recite the word "genocide" to get a license to kill.
After the bombing ended, Clinton assured the Serbian people that the United States and NATO agreed to be peacekeepers only "with
the understanding that they would protect Serbs as well as ethnic Albanians and that they would leave when peace took hold." In the
subsequent months and years, American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serb civilians,
bombing Serbian churches and oppressing any non-Muslims. Almost a quarter-million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled
Kosovo after Mr. Clinton promised to protect them. By 2003, almost 70 percent of the Serbs living in Kosovo in 1999 had fled, and
Kosovo was 95 percent ethnic Albanian.
But Thaci remained useful for U.S. policymakers. Even though he was widely condemned for oppression and corruption after taking
power in Kosovo, Vice President Joe Biden hailed Thaci in 2010 as the "George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council
of Europe report accused Thaci and KLA operatives of human organ trafficking. The Guardian noted that the report alleged
that Thaci's inner circle "took captives across the border into Albania after the war, where a number of Serbs are said to have been
murdered for their kidneys, which were sold on the black market." The report stated that when "transplant surgeons" were "ready to
operate, the [Serbian] captives were brought out of the 'safe house' individually, summarily executed by a KLA gunman, and their
corpses transported swiftly to the operating clinic."
Despite the body trafficking charge, Thaci was a star attendee at the annual Global Initiative conference by the Clinton Foundation
in 2011, 2012, and 2013, where he posed for photos with Bill Clinton. Maybe that was a perk from the $50,000 a month lobbying contract
that Thaci's regime signed with The Podesta Group, co-managed by future Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, as the
Daily Caller reported.
Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo where a statue of him was erected in the capital, Pristina. The Guardian newspaper noted that
the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding
documents engraved with the date when NATO started the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate
representation to depict Clinton standing on a pile of corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign.
In 2019, Bill Clinton and his fanatically pro-bombing former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, visited Pristina, where they
were "treated like rock stars" as they posed for photos with Thaci. Clinton declared, "I love this country and it will always be
one of the greatest honors of my life to have stood with you against ethnic cleansing (by Serbian forces) and for freedom." Thaci
awarded Clinton and Albright medals of freedom "for the liberty he brought to us and the peace to entire region." Albright has reinvented
herself as a visionary warning against fascism in the Trump era. Actually, the only honorific that Albright deserves is "Butcher
of Belgrade."
Clinton's war on Serbia was a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and most of the media portrayed
the war against Serbia as a moral triumph, it was easier for the Bush administration to justify attacking Iraq, for the Obama administration
to bomb Libya, and for the Trump administration to repeatedly bomb Syria. All of those interventions sowed chaos that continues cursing
the purported beneficiaries.
Bill Clinton's 1999 bombing of Serbia was as big a fraud as George W. Bush's conning this nation into attacking Iraq. The
fact that Clinton and other top U.S. government officials continued to glorify Hashim Thaci despite accusations of mass murder, torture,
and body trafficking is another reminder of the venality of much of America's political elite. Will Americans again be gullible the
next time that Washington policymakers and their media allies concoct bullshit pretexts to blow the hell out of some hapless foreign
land?
Run by veteran "non-profits careerists" movement is highly suspect
Notable quotes:
"... The black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws -- racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced. ..."
"... much of what passes for popular and progressive, grass-roots activism has been co-opted, taken over and/or created by corporate America, the corporate-funded " nonprofit industrial complex ," and Wall Street's good friend, the Democratic Party , long known to leftists as "the graveyard of social movements." This " corporatization of activism " (University of British Columbia professor Peter Dauvergne's term) is ubiquitous across much of what passes for the left in the U.S. today. ..."
"... What about the racialist group Black Lives Matter, recipient of a mammoth $100 million grant from the Ford Foundation last year? Sparked by the racist security guard and police killings of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown and Eric Garner, BLM has achieved uncritical support across the progressive spectrum, where it is almost reflexively cited as an example of noble and radical grass-roots activism in the streets. That is a mistake. ..."
"... I first started wondering where BLM stood on the AstroTurf versus grass roots scale when I read an essay published three years ago in The Feminist Wire by Alicia Garza, one of BLM's three black, lesbian and veteran public-interest careerist founders. ..."
"... Why the prickly, hyperidentity-politicized and proprietary attachment to the "lives matter" phrase? Garza seemed more interested in brand value and narrow identity than social justice. Did she want a licensing fee? Wouldn't any serious, leftist, people's activist eagerly give the catchy "lives matter" phrase away to all oppressed people and hope for their wide and inclusive use in a viciously capitalist society that has subjected everything and everyone to the soulless logic of commodity rule, profit and exchange value? Who were these "charismatic Black men many are rallying around" in the fall of 2014? ..."
"... I couldn't help but wonder about the left-progressive credentials of anyone who gets upset that others would want to have a "conversation" (as Garza put it) about how their lives matter too. Is there really something wrong with a marginalized Native American laborer or a white and not-so "skin-privileged" former factory worker struggling with sickness and poverty wanting to hear that his or her life matters? For any remotely serious progressive, was there anything mysterious about the fact that many white folks facing foreclosure, job loss, poverty wages and the like might not be doing cartwheels over the phrase "black lives matter" when they experience the harsh daily reality that their lives don't matter under the profits system? ..."
"... My concerns about BLM's potential service to the capitalist elite were reactivated when I heard a talk by Garza's fellow BLM founder, Patrisse Cullors (another veteran nonprofit careerist). Cullors spoke before hundreds of cheering white liberals and progressives in downtown Iowa City in February. "We are witnessing the erosion of U.S. democracy," she said, adding that Donald Trump "is building a police state." Relating that she had gone into a "two-week depression" after Hillary Clinton was defeated by Trump, Cullors said she wondered if BLM had "done enough to educate people about the differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton." She described Trump as a fascist. ..."
The black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is
forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws -- racism, poverty, militarism, and
materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society.
It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of
society itself is the real issue to be faced. -- Martin Luther King Jr., 1968
You don't have to be one of those conspiratorial curmudgeons who reduces every sign of popular
protest to "George Soros money" to acknowledge that much of what passes for popular and
progressive, grass-roots activism has been co-opted, taken over and/or created by corporate
America, the corporate-funded "
nonprofit industrial complex ," and Wall Street's good friend, the Democratic Party , long known to
leftists as "the graveyard of social movements." This "
corporatization of activism " (University of British Columbia professor Peter Dauvergne's
term) is ubiquitous across much of what passes for the left in the U.S. today.
What about the racialist group Black Lives Matter, recipient of a mammoth $100 million
grant from the Ford Foundation last year? Sparked by the racist security guard and police
killings of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown and Eric Garner, BLM has achieved uncritical support
across the progressive spectrum, where it is almost reflexively cited as an example of noble and
radical grass-roots activism in the streets. That is a mistake.
I first started wondering where BLM stood on the AstroTurf versus grass roots scale when I
read an essay published three years ago in The Feminist Wire by Alicia
Garza, one of BLM's three black, lesbian and veteran public-interest careerist founders. In
her "Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement," Garza wrote:
"Black lives. Not just all lives. Black lives. Please do not change the conversation by
talking about how your life matters, too. It does, but we need less watered down unity and a
more active solidarities with us, Black people, unwaveringly, in defense of our humanity. Our
collective futures depend on it."
Denouncing "hetero-patriarchy," Garza described the adaptation of her clever online
catchphrase ("black lives matter") by others -- "brown lives matter, migrant lives matter,
women's lives matter, and on and on" (Garza's dismissive words) -- as "the Theft of Black Queer
Women's Work."
"Perhaps," she added, "if we were the charismatic Black men many are rallying around these
days, it would have been a different story."
From a leftist perspective, this struck me as alarming. Why the prickly,
hyperidentity-politicized and proprietary attachment to the "lives matter" phrase? Garza seemed
more interested in brand value and narrow identity than social justice. Did she want a licensing
fee? Wouldn't any serious, leftist, people's activist eagerly give the catchy "lives matter"
phrase away to all oppressed people and hope for their wide and inclusive use in a viciously
capitalist society that has subjected everything and everyone to the soulless logic of commodity
rule, profit and exchange value? Who were these "charismatic Black men many are rallying around"
in the fall of 2014?
And how representative were Garza's slaps at "hetero-patriarchy" and "charismatic Black men"
of the black community in whose name she spoke? Would it be too hetero-patriarchal of me, I
wondered, to suggest that maybe a black male or two with experience of oppression in the nation's
racist criminal justice system ought to share some space front and center in a movement focused
especially on a police and prison state that targets black boys and men above all?
I defended the phrase "black lives matter" against the absurd charge that it is racist, but
I couldn't help but wonder about the left-progressive credentials of anyone who gets upset
that others would want to have a "conversation" (as Garza put it) about how their lives matter
too. Is there really something wrong with a marginalized Native American laborer or a white and
not-so "skin-privileged" former factory worker struggling with sickness and poverty wanting to
hear that his or her life matters? For any remotely serious progressive, was there anything
mysterious about the fact that many white folks facing foreclosure, job loss, poverty wages and
the like might not be doing cartwheels over the phrase "black lives matter" when they experience
the harsh daily reality that their lives don't matter under the profits system?
My concerns about BLM's potential service to the capitalist elite were reactivated when I
heard a talk by Garza's fellow BLM founder, Patrisse Cullors (another veteran nonprofit
careerist). Cullors spoke before hundreds of cheering white liberals and progressives in downtown
Iowa City in February. "We are witnessing the erosion of U.S. democracy," she said, adding that
Donald Trump "is building a police state." Relating that she had gone into a "two-week
depression" after Hillary Clinton was defeated by Trump, Cullors said she wondered if BLM had
"done enough to educate people about the differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton."
She described Trump as a fascist.
Fox News
5.51M subscribers
SUBSCRIBE
A
look into the domestic terror organization ANTIFA and how it is attempting to take over the current peaceful protests of
the George Floyd death.
#FoxNews
"... In the memo, Barr identified members of the right-wing "Boogaloo" movement and the anti-fascist movement known as Antifa as the top targets of the task force. ..."
"... The task force's mission will be to develop information about "extremist individuals, networks, and movements," share data with local authorities and provide training to local prosecutors on how to wage cases against anti-government extremists. ..."
"... people associated with Antifa. ..."
"... "There are some groups that don't have a particular ideology, other than anarchy. There are some groups that want to bring about a civil war -- the Boogaloo group has been on the margin of this as well," he said earlier this month , adding that the Justice Department would find "constructive solutions." ..."
y Tal Axelrod -
06/26/20 08:13 PM EDT
1289 Comments Attorney General William Barr on Friday directed the Justice
Department to form a task force dedicated to combating "anti-government extremists," according
to a memo obtained by
The Washington Post , raising the stakes in the government's response to nationwide
protests.
Barr argued in the memo that anti-government agitators had infiltrated peaceful
demonstrations against police brutality and systemic racism and "engaged in indefensible acts
of violence designed to undermine public order."
"Among other lawless conduct, these extremists have violently attacked police officers and
other government officials, destroyed public and private property, and threatened innocent
people," Barr wrote. "Although these extremists profess a variety of ideologies, they are
united in their opposition to the core constitutional values of a democratic society governed
by law. ... Some pretend to profess a message of freedom and progress, but they are in fact
forces of anarchy, destruction and coercion."
In the memo, Barr identified members of the right-wing "Boogaloo" movement and the
anti-fascist movement known as Antifa as the top targets of the task force.
Craig Carpenito, the U.S. attorney for New Jersey, and Erin Nealy Cox, the U.S. attorney for
the Northern District of Texas, will head the task force, which will also include
representatives from the FBI and other prosecutors' offices.
The task force's mission will be to develop information about "extremist individuals,
networks, and movements," share data with local authorities and provide training to local
prosecutors on how to wage cases against anti-government extremists.
"The ultimate goal of the task force will be not only to enable prosecutions of extremists
who engage in violence, but to understand these groups well enough that we can stop such
violence before it occurs and ultimately eliminate it as a threat to public safety and the rule
of law," Barr wrote.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill
regarding the memo.
Barr said in
an interview with NPR on Thursday that the Department of Justice has launched
"approximately 300 investigations" nationwide, including into some people associated with
Antifa.
Barr has sought to take a tough posture on anti-government groups since some early protests
over George Floyd's death in Minneapolis turned violent.
"There are some groups that don't have a particular ideology, other than anarchy. There are
some groups that want to bring about a civil war -- the Boogaloo group has been on the margin
of this as well," he
said earlier this month , adding that the Justice Department would find "constructive
solutions."
20 Jun, 2020 Ali Jr., who lives in Florida, also singled out Antifa, the group recently
recognized by Trump as a terrorist organization.
"They're no different from Muslim terrorists. They should all get what they deserve.
They're f**king up businesses, beating up innocent people in the neighborhood, smashing up
police stations and shops. They're terrorists – they're terrorizing the community. I
agree with the peaceful protests, but Antifa, they need to kill everyone in that thing," he
said.
Some comments show that black community might not benefit from those events. but on the
contrary. The same is true for Antifa memvbers and left radicals. Sttments like " Antifa is an
anti-white Marxist revolutionary group" does not promise them anything good.
What is funny in no way financial oligarchy is threatened by those events. And for them
that's all that matter. They will sell all US statures to China for the cost of metal, if that
suit them.
Notable quotes:
"... Assault, battery & attempted robberty commited by antifa/blm on @OANN 's reporter @JackPosobiec in DC earlier this evening. ..."
"... One of Posobiec's assailants has been identified as 25-year-old Jason Robert Charter , an Antifa terrorist who has a history of agitating at political events . ..."
"... Posobiec has filed a report with US Park Police and will be pressing charges ..."
"... Kuhn made headlines in 2017 when Project Veritas busted him in an undercover sting at Comet Ping Pong pizzeria - plotting to attack a DC Trump inauguration party. The sting resulted in the arrest of Kuhn - who once made several pedophilic posts to usenet internet groups. Kuhn was sentenced to probation in exchange for agreeing not to attend future Antifa events - however he was caught on camera in April, 2017 when Posobiec was assaulted by another member of Antifa . ..."
"... @JackPosobiec assaulted by Antifa - and pedo advocate Paul 'Luke' Kuhn caught on cam apparently violating probation! https://t.co/a96zafeIA0 pic.twitter.com/1fWAmAUC5p ..."
"... The man who punched Posobiec, Sydney Alexander Ramsey-Laree, served 60 days in jail. ..."
Post
Millennial reports: " The situation escalated when a black-clad Antifa insurgent wearing a
pair of red ski goggles and bicycle helmet identified Posobiec and accused him of "founding the
alt-lite" and of being a "literal Nazi," drawing a larger group of Antifa to approach and
surround the journalist."
Assault, battery & attempted robberty commited by antifa/blm on @OANN 's reporter @JackPosobiec in DC
earlier this evening.
More video of violent black bloc militants attacking @JackPosobiec in D.C. They dumped
liquid all over him, hit him and tried to steal his phone. pic.twitter.com/DCrOq8ZUtB
-- Cassandra Fairbanks
(@CassandraRules) June 27,
2020
Posobiec has filed a report with US Park Police and will be pressing charges. Meanwhile, noted Antifa agitator Luke Kuhn was reportedly spotted at the protest.
Kuhn made headlines in 2017 when Project Veritas busted him in an undercover sting at Comet
Ping Pong pizzeria - plotting to attack a DC Trump inauguration party. The sting resulted in
the arrest of Kuhn - who once made several
pedophilic posts to usenet internet groups. Kuhn was sentenced to probation in exchange for
agreeing not to attend future Antifa events - however he was caught on camera in April, 2017
when Posobiec was assaulted by another member of Antifa .
The man who punched Posobiec, Sydney Alexander Ramsey-Laree, served 60 days in jail.
Md4 , 1 hour ago
"The man who punched Posobiec, Sydney Alexander Ramsey-Laree, served 60 days in jail."
Well...you now know who they are...
Freespeaker , 3 hours ago
Militant wing of the Democrat Party.
Freespeaker , 4 hours ago
BLM/Antifa endorsement via Washington state healthcare letter is indicative. Medical
professionals in Houston were out marching for Social Justice a week ago.
BrutusTheBomber , 5 hours ago
Everyone remember.
The police are allowing this to happen. In my opinion, if you are not doing anything to
stop it, it's because you are in on it.
Thats the only explanation i can come up with.
@therealOrangeBuffoon , 5 hours ago
I repeat myself but: Oligarchy is the problem and BLM is the only real opposition to them.
They are taking the lead.
Either get behind them or start an effective movement, and I don't mean jabbering about
your stupid guns.
Perry Colace , 5 hours ago
So will I:
It's an anti-white agenda, backed by avowed Marxists intent on overthrowing this
government, and I will meet them in the street armed and ready to speak to them in the only
language they respect: Extreme violence.
VWAndy , 6 hours ago
Stupid on this scale dont happen by chance. At this scale its always well funded. These
kids cant even wipe their own asses without some else buying the tp.
Rest Easy , 6 hours ago
In general black people have amply demonstrated, almost universally, that they are unable
to peacefully co-exist. The collateral damage, if it can be called that, and blind hate do
not inspire future saintly behavior. Nor is it intended to.
But who is to say? They are the only ones fighting presently. Against a system that makes
slaves of us all. Or attempts to.
Perry Colace , 5 hours ago
Antifa is an anti-white Marxist revolutionary group that must be eliminated
physically.
Rest Easy , 6 hours ago
Wow. Completely deleted another post. No swearing. No bad terms. That I can recall. Just
opinion. And some scrip.
This to be precise.
Ephesians 6:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places.
Jesus is the way.
ThomasJefferson69 , 6 hours ago
Always carry. With spare mags. And stay out of **** cities. The collapse has already
started there.
Anonymous IX , 6 hours ago
I can't afford a weapon yet, but I'm getting some pepper spray + tear gas and a stun gun
to carry with me at all times until I can get out of this city.
Lonesome Cowboy Burt , 6 hours ago
Can get a subcompact for $250.
Jeff-Durden , 4 hours ago
Ruger Security 9 with a box of 50 shells is 325
numapepi , 7 hours ago
This from the article above...
"Kuhn made headlines in 2017 when Project Veritas busted him in an undercover sting at
Comet Ping Pong pizzeria - plotting to attack a DC Trump inauguration party. The sting
resulted in the arrest of Kuhn - who once made several
pedophilic posts to usenet internet groups."
Isn't it odd, the supposedly "debunked conspiracy theory" based on the Podesta emails, that
was debunked without having to go to the the tedious work of actually investigating it...
democrats orbit pedophilia and pedophiles?
fersur , 7 hours ago
Just wait until the already released unreleased still pictures captured ( all on a single
page ) of children in Orgy Island dungeon, identify the Lady and identify what the Children
were forced to do, Childrens Lives Matter will then be the Worlds Outcry !
numapepi , 7 hours ago
If that is true... I pray it all comes out in the open before November.
(Although, I also pray it isn't true, but fear it is).
Rest Easy , 7 hours ago
The 1st is only applicable if you are not an enemy of them. Otherwise, if your identity
and that of your family is known. You, and they will suffer. They will punish you. Severely
for not conforming. At all times. To what they determine is acceptable.
Punish them in return. Severely.
This movement has sponsors. Deny them your support financially. Bad mouth them at every
opportunity. Universities are not immune to finances. They do not wish to uphold 1st
Ammendment rights. Of students doxxing other students for a tweet. Calling for expulsion. For
a tweet, For 1/2 poor taste, 1/2 truth very likely. Sue them.
This behavior is so rampant. So pervasive. So unAmerican. So thoroughly one sided. It
should terrify any real Americans.
Soros's 'Act Blue' funds Antifa and funds Black Lives Matter while being in existance to
be the Arm of Democrat Political Campaign Fundraising Organization, everything is all out in
the open, even early releasing convicted Criminals to advance Democrat Death and Distruction
Mandate !
ToSoft4Truth , 7 hours ago
Republicans are going to get a Final Stand.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said there should be a "review" of historical statues for
possible removal, perhaps even those of the Founding Fathers.
Looks like antifa members is recruited and trained using the same methods as members of opposition in countries where the USA
plans to stage a color revolution. One important constituency are students. What is important all of them are paid. Adapting Maoism
with its cult of violence for those purposes is not a big deal.
I think that like is the case with the Red Brigades the level of infiltration by intelligence agencies is iether considerable or
total.
Notable quotes:
"... "By 1969, the Panthers began to use fascism as a theoretical framework to critique the U.S. political economy. They defined fascism as 'the power of finance capital' which 'manifests itself not only as banks, trusts and monopolies but also as the human property of FINANCE CAPITAL -- the avaricious businessman, the demagogic politician, and the racist pig cop.'" ..."
"... Other ideological anchors of the modern Antifa movement in the United States include a left-wing terrorist group known as the Weather Underground Organization, the American equivalent to Germany's Red Army Faction. The Weather Underground, responsible for bombings and riots throughout the 1970s, sought to achieve "the destruction of U.S. imperialism and form a classless communist world." ..."
"... In June 2018, Republican Representative Dan Donovan of New York introduced Bill HR 6054 -- "Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018" -- that calls for prison sentences of up to 15 years for anyone who, while wearing a mask or disguise, "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates" someone else who is exercising any right or privilege guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The bill remains stalled in the House of Representatives. ..."
"... "Antifa are terrorists, violent masked bullies who 'fight fascism' with actual fascism, protected by Liberal privilege," said Cassidy. "Bullies get their way until someone says no. Elected officials must have courage, not cowardice, to prevent terror." ..."
"... Antifa radicals increasingly are using incendiary events such as the death of George Floyd in Minnesota as springboards to achieve their broader aims, one of which includes removing President Trump from office. ..."
"... "We believe that a significant amount of people who came here from out of the area, who have come here as well as the advance preparation, having advance scouts, the use of encrypted information, having resupply routes for things such as gasoline and accelerants as well as rocks and bottles, the raising of bail, the placing of medics. Taken together, this is a strong indicator that they planned to act with disorder, property damage, violence, and violent encounters with police before the first demonstration and/or before the first arrest." ..."
"... "It's in 40 different states and 60 cities; it would be impossible for somebody outside of Antifa to fund this. It's a radical, leftist, socialist attempt at revolution. ..."
"... "What Antifa is doing is they're basically hijacking the black community as their army. They instigate, they antagonize, they get these young black men and women to go out there and do stupid things, and then they disappear off into the sunset." ..."
"... Across the country, in Bellevue, Washington, which was also hit by looting and violence, Police Chief Steve Mylett confirmed that the people responsible were organized, from out of town, and being paid: ..."
"... AFGJ has received substantial funding from organizations often claiming to be the mainstream of the center-left. The Open Society Foundations, Tides Foundation, Arca Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Public Welfare Foundation, the Ben & Jerry Foundation and the Brightwater Fund have all made contributions to AFGJ, according to Influence Watch. ..."
This is Part II of a series on the history of the
global Antifa movement.
Part
I
described Antifa and explored the ideological origins of the group. Part II examines
the history, tactics and goals of the movement in the United States.
U.S. President Donald Trump recently
announced
that
the American government would designate Antifa -- a militant "anti-fascist" movement -- as a
terrorist organization
due to the violence that erupted at George Floyd
protests
across
the United States.
The Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
defines
terrorism
as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a
government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social
objectives."
American media outlets sympathetic to Antifa have jumped to its defense.
They
argue that the group cannot be classified as a terrorist organization because, they claim, it is a
vaguely-defined protest movement that lacks a centralized structure.
As the following report shows, Antifa is, in fact, highly networked, well-funded and has a clear
ideological agenda: to subvert, often with extreme violence, the American political system, with
the ultimate aim of replacing capitalism with communism. In the United States, Antifa's immediate
aim
is
to remove President Trump from office.
Gatestone Institute has identified Antifa groups in all 50 U.S. states, with the possible
exception of West Virginia. Some states, including California, Texas and Washington, appear to have
dozens of sub-regional Antifa organizations.
It is difficult precisely to determine the size of the Antifa movement in the United States. The
so-called "
Anti-Fascists of Reddit
,"
the "premier anti-fascist community" on the social media platform Reddit, has approximately 60,000
members. The oldest Antifa group in America, the Portland, Oregon-based "
Rose
City Antifa
," has more than 30,000 Twitter followers and 20,000 Facebook followers, not all of
whom are necessarily supporters. "
It's Going Down
," a media
platform for anarchists, anti-fascists and autonomous anti-capitalists, has 85,000 Twitter
followers and 30,000 Facebook followers.
Germany, which has roughly one-quarter of the population of the United States, is home to 33,000
extreme leftists, of whom 9,000 are believed to be extremely dangerous,
according
to
the domestic intelligence agency (
Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, BfV
). Violent left-wing
agitators are predominantly male, between 21 and 24 years of age, usually unemployed, and,
according
to
BfV, 92% still live with their parents. Anecdotal evidence suggests that most Antifa members in the
United States have a similar socio-economic profile.
In America, national Antifa groups, including "Torch Antifa Network," "Refuse Fascism"
and "World Can't Wait" are being financed -- often generously, as shown below -- by individual donors
as well as by large philanthropic organizations,
including
the
Open Society Foundations founded by George Soros.
To evade detection by law enforcement, Antifa groups in the United States often use encrypted
social media platforms, such as
Signal
and
Telegram Messenger, to communicate and coordinate their activities, sometimes across state lines.
Not surprisingly, the U.S. Department of Justice is currently
investigating
individuals
linked to Antifa as a step to unmasking the broader organization.
Historical Origins of American Antifa
In the United States, Antifa's ideology, tactics and goals, far from being novel, are
borrowed
almost
entirely from Antifa groups in Europe, where so-called anti-fascist groups, in one form or another,
have been active, almost without interruption, for a century.
As in Europe, the aims and objectives of the American Antifa movement can be traced back to a
single, overarching century-long ideological war against the "fascist ideals" of capitalism and
Christianity, which the Antifa movement wants to
replace
with
a "revolutionary socialist alternative."
The first so-called anti-fascist group in the United States was the American League
Against War and Fascism, established in 1933 by the Communist Party USA.
The League, which
claimed to oppose fascism in Europe, was actually
dedicated
to
subverting and overthrowing the U.S. government.
In testimony to the U.S. Congress in 1953, CPUSA leader Manning Johnson
revealed
that
the American party had been instructed by the Communist International in the 1930s to set up the
American League Against War and Fascism:
"as a cover to attack our government, our social system, our leaders... used as a cover to
attack our law-enforcement agencies and to build up mass hate against them... used as a cover to
undermine national security... used as a cover to defend Communists, the sworn enemies of our
great heritage... used as a cover for preparing millions of people ideologically and
organizationally for the overthrow of the United States Government."
A precursor to the modern Antifa movement was the Black Panthers, a revolutionary political
organization established in October 1966 by Marxist college students in Oakland, California. The
group
advocated
the use of violence and
guerilla tactics to overthrow the U.S. government.
Historian Robyn C. Spencer
noted
that
Black Panther leaders were deeply influenced by "The United Front of the Working Class Against
Fascism," a
report
by
Georgi Dimitroff delivered at the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International in July and
August 1935:
"By 1969, the Panthers began to use fascism as a theoretical framework to critique the U.S.
political economy. They defined fascism as 'the power of finance capital' which 'manifests
itself not only as banks, trusts and monopolies but also as the human property of FINANCE
CAPITAL -- the avaricious businessman, the demagogic politician, and the racist pig cop.'"
In July 1969, the Black Panthers organized an "anti-fascist" conference called "United Front
Against Fascism,"
attended
by
nearly 5,000 activists:
"The Panthers hoped to create a 'national force' with a 'common revolutionary ideology and
political program which answers the basic desires and needs of all people in fascist,
capitalist, racist America.'"
The last day of the conference was devoted to a detailed plan by the Black Panthers to
decentralize police forces nationwide. Spencer
wrote
:
"They proposed amending city charters to establish autonomous community-based police
departments for every city which would be accountable to local neighborhood police control
councils comprised of 15 elected community members. They launched the National Committees to
Combat Fascism (NCCF), a multiracial nationwide network, to organize for community control of
the police."
In 1970, members of the Black Panthers created a terrorist group called the Black
Liberation Army, whose
stated
goal
was to "weaken the enemy capitalist state."
BLA member Assata Shakur
described
the
group's organizational structure, which is similar to the one used by today's Antifa movement:
"The Black Liberation Army was not a centralized, organized group with a common leadership
and chain of command. Instead there were various organizations and collectives working together
out of various cities, and in some larger cities there were often several groups working
independently of each other."
Other ideological anchors of the modern Antifa movement in the United States include a left-wing
terrorist group known as the Weather Underground Organization, the American equivalent to Germany's
Red Army Faction. The Weather Underground,
responsible
for
bombings
and
riots throughout the 1970s, sought to
achieve
"the
destruction of U.S. imperialism and form a classless communist world."
Former FBI Counterterrorism Director Terry Turchie has
noted
the
similarities between Black Lives Matter today and the Black Panther Party and Weather Underground
groups of the 1960s and 1970s:
"The Black Panther Party was a Marxist Maoist Leninist organization and that came from Huey
Newton, one of the co-founders, who said we're standing for nothing more than the total
transformation of the United States government.
"He went on to explain that they wanted to take the tension that already existed in black
communities and exacerbate it where they can. To take those situations where there is a
tinderbox and light the country on fire.
"Today we're seeing the third revolution and they think they can make this happen. The only
thing that is different are the names of the groups."
American Antifa
The roots of the modern Antifa movement in the United States can be traced back to the
1980s,
with the establishment of Anti-Racist Action, a network of anarchist punk rock
aficionados dedicated to fist-fighting neo-Nazi skinheads.
Mark Bray, author of "
The Antifa Handbook
,"
explained
:
"In many cases, the North American modern Antifa movement grew up as a way to defend the punk
scene from the neo-Nazi skinhead movement, and the founders of the original Anti-Racist Action
network in North America were anti-racist skinheads. The fascist/anti-fascist struggle was
essentially a fight for control of the punk scene during the 1980s, and that was true across of
much of north America and in parts of Europe in this era.
"There's a huge overlap between radical left politics and the punk scene, and there's a
stereotype about dirty anarchists and punks, which is an oversimplification but grounded in a
certain amount of truth."
Anti-Racist Action was
inspired
by
Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), a militant anti-fascist group founded in Britain in the late 1970s. The
American group shared the British group's penchant for
violently
attacking
political opponents. ARA was eventually renamed the
Torch
Network
, which currently brings together nine militant Antifa groups.
In November 1999, mobs of masked anarchists, predecessors to today's Antifa movement,
laid
waste
to downtown Seattle, Washington, during violent demonstrations that disrupted a
ministerial conference of the World Trade Organization.
The Seattle WTO protests
birthed
the
anti-globalization movement.
In April 2001, an estimated 50,000 anti-capitalists
gathered
in
Quebec to oppose the Third Summit of the Americas, a meeting of North and South American leaders
who were negotiating a deal to create a free trade area that would encompass the Western
Hemisphere.
In February 2003, hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters
demonstrated
against
the Iraq War. After the war went ahead anyway, some parts of the so-called progressive movement
became more radicalized and birthed the current Antifa movement.
The Rose City Antifa (RCA), founded in Portland, Oregon, in 2007, is the oldest American group
to use "Antifa" in its name. Antifa is
derived
from
a group called
Antifaschistische Aktion
, founded in May 1932 by Stalinist leaders of the
Communist Party of Germany. Antifa's logo, with two flags representing anarchism (black flag) and
communism (red flag), are derived from the German Antifa movement.
The American Antifa movement gained momentum in 2016, after Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a
self-described Socialist, lost the Democratic Party's nomination to Hillary Clinton. Grassroots
supporters of Sanders
vowed
to
continue his "political revolution" to establish socialism in America.
Meanwhile, immigration became a new flashpoint in American politics after Donald Trump
campaigned on a pledge to reduce illegal migration. In June 2016, protestors
violently
attacked
supporters of Donald Trump outside a rally in San Jose, California. In January 2017,
hundreds of Antifa rioters tried to
disrupt
President
Trump's inauguration ceremony in Washington, DC.
In February 2017, Antifa rioters employing so-called
black
bloc
tactics -- they wear black clothing, masks or other face-concealing items so that they
cannot be identified by police --
shut
down
a speech by Milos Yiannopoulos, a far-right activist who was slated to speak at the
University of California at Berkeley, the birthplace of the 1964 Free Speech Movement.
Antifa radicals
claimed
that
Yiannopoulos was planning to "out" undocumented students at Berkeley for the purpose of having them
arrested. Masked Antifa vandals armed with Molotov cocktails, bricks and a host of other makeshift
weapons
fought
police
and
caused
more
than $100,000 in property damage.
In June 2018, Republican Representative Dan Donovan of New York
introduced
Bill
HR 6054 -- "Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018" -- that calls for prison sentences of up to 15 years for
anyone who, while wearing a mask or disguise, "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates"
someone else who is exercising any right or privilege guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The
bill remains
stalled
in
the House of Representatives.
In July 2019, Antifa radical Willem Van Spronsen
attempted
to
firebomb the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Tacoma, Washington. He
was killed in a confrontation with police.
That same month, U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy
introduced
a
resolution that would label Antifa a "domestic terrorist organization." The resolution
stated
:
"Whereas members of Antifa, because they believe that free speech is equivalent to violence,
have used threats of violence in the pursuit of suppressing opposing political ideologies;
Whereas Antifa represents opposition to the democratic ideals of peaceful assembly and free
speech for all; Whereas members of Antifa have physically assaulted journalists and other
individuals during protests and riots in Berkeley, California;
"Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Senate ... calls for the groups and organizations
across the country who act under the banner of Antifa to be designated as domestic terrorist
organizations."
"Antifa are terrorists, violent masked bullies who 'fight fascism' with actual fascism,
protected by Liberal privilege,"
said
Cassidy.
"Bullies get their way until someone says no. Elected officials must have courage, not cowardice,
to prevent terror."
Antifa Exploits Death of George Floyd
Antifa radicals increasingly are using incendiary events such as the death of George Floyd in
Minnesota as springboards to achieve their broader aims, one of which
includes
removing
President Trump from office.
Veteran national security correspondent Bill Gertz recently
reported
that
the Antifa movement began planning to foment a nationwide anti-government insurgency as early as
November 2019, when the U.S. presidential campaign season kicked off in earnest.
Former
National Security Council staff member Rich Higgins
said
:
"Antifa's actions represent a hard break with the long tradition of a peaceful political
process in the United States. Their Marxist ideology seeks not only to influence elections in
the short term but to destroy the use of elections as the determining factor in political
legitimacy.
"Antifa's goal is nothing less than fomenting revolution, civil war and silencing America's
anti-communists. Their labeling of Trump supporters and patriots as Nazis and racists is
standard fare for left-wing communist groups.
"Antifa is currently functioning as the command and control of the riots, which are
themselves the overt utilization of targeted violence against targets such as stores --
capitalism; monuments -- history; and churches -- God."
Joe Myers, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official and counterinsurgency expert,
added
:
"President Trump's election and revitalization of America are a threat to Antifa's nihilist
goals. They are fomenting this violence to create havoc, despair and to target the Trump
campaign for defeat in 2020. It is employing organized violence for political ends: destruction
of the constitutional order."
New York's top terrorism officer, Deputy Commissioner for Intelligence and Counterterrorism John
Miller,
explained
why
the George Floyd protests in New York City became so violent and destructive:
"No. 1, before the protests began, organizers of certain anarchist groups set out to raise
bail money and people who would be responsible to be raising bail money, they set out to recruit
medics and medical teams with gear to deploy in anticipation of violent interactions with
police.
"They prepared to commit property damage and directed people who were following them that
this should be done selectively and only in wealthier areas or at high-end stores run by
corporate entities.
"And they developed a complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in
different directions of where police were and where police were not for purposes of being able
to direct groups from the larger group to places where they could commit acts of vandalism
including the torching of police vehicles and Molotov cocktails where they thought officers
would not be.
"We believe that a significant amount of people who came here from out of the area, who have
come here as well as the advance preparation, having advance scouts, the use of encrypted
information, having resupply routes for things such as gasoline and accelerants as well as rocks
and bottles, the raising of bail, the placing of medics. Taken together, this is a strong
indicator that they planned to act with disorder, property damage, violence, and violent
encounters with police before the first demonstration and/or before the first arrest."
In an interview with
The Epoch Times
, Bernard B. Kerik, former police commissioner of
the New York City Police Department,
said
that
Antifa "100 percent exploited" the George Floyd protests:
"It's in 40 different states and 60 cities; it would be impossible for somebody outside of
Antifa to fund this. It's a radical, leftist, socialist attempt at revolution.
"They're coming from other cities. That cost money. They didn't do this on their own.
Somebody's paying for this.
"What Antifa is doing is they're basically hijacking the black community as their
army.
They instigate, they antagonize, they get these young black men and women to go
out there and do stupid things, and then they disappear off into the sunset."
After photos appeared to show protesters with military-grade communications radios and
earpieces, Kerik
noted
:
"They have to be talking to somebody at a central command center with a repeater. Where do those
radios go to?"
Across the country, in Bellevue, Washington, which was also hit by looting and violence, Police
Chief Steve Mylett
confirmed
that
the people responsible were organized, from out of town, and being paid:
"There are groups paying these looters money to come in and they're getting paid by the
broken window. This is something totally different we are dealing with that we have never seen
as a profession before. We did have officers that were in different areas that were chasing
these groups. When we make contact, they just disperse."
Antifa Financing
The coordinated violence raises questions about how Antifa is financed. The Alliance for Global
Justice (AFGJ) is an organizing group that serves as a fiscal sponsor to numerous radical left-wing
initiatives,
according
to
Influence Watch, a research group that collects data on advocacy organizations, foundations and
donors.
AFGJ, which describes itself as "anti-capitalist" and
opposed
to
the principles of liberal democracy, provides "fiscal sponsorship" to groups advocating numerous
foreign and domestic far-left and extreme-left causes, including
eliminating
the
State of Israel.
The Tucson, Arizona-based AFGJ, and people associated with it, have
advocated
for
socialist and communist authoritarian regimes, including in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. In the
2000s, AFGJ was involved in anti-globalization demonstrations. In the 2010s, AFGJ was a
financial
sponsor
of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
AFGJ has received substantial funding from organizations often claiming to be the mainstream of
the center-left. The Open Society Foundations, Tides Foundation, Arca Foundation, Surdna
Foundation, Public Welfare Foundation, the Ben & Jerry Foundation and the Brightwater Fund have all
made contributions to AFGJ,
according
to
Influence Watch.
One of the groups funded by AFGJ is called
Refuse Fascism
,
a radical left-wing organization devoted to promoting nationwide action to remove from office
President Donald Trump, and all officials associated with his administration, on the grounds that
they constitute a "fascist regime." The group has been present at many Antifa radical-left
demonstrations, also
according
to
Influence Watch. The group is an offshoot of the Radical Communist Party (RCP).
In July 2017, the RCP
bragged
that
it took part in violent riots against the G20 Summit in Hamburg, Germany. The RCP has
argued
that
capitalism is synonymous with fascism and that the election of President Trump would lead the U.S.
government to "bludgeon and eliminate whole groups of people."
In June 2020, Refuse Fascism took advantage of the death of George Floyd to raise money for a
"National Revolution Tour" evidently aimed at subverting the U.S. government. The group's slogan
states
:
"This System Cannot Be Reformed, It Must Be Overthrown!"
Antifa's "Utopia"
Meanwhile, in Seattle, Washington, Antifa radicals, protesters from Black Lives Matter, and
members of the anti-capitalist John Brown Gun Club seized control of the East Precinct neighborhood
and established a six-square-block "autonomous zone" called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone,
"CHAZ," recently
renamed
"CHOP,"
the Capitol Hill Organized (or Occupied) Protest. A cardboard sign at the barricades
declares
:
"You are now leaving the USA." The group
issued
a
list of 30 demands, including the "abolition" of the Seattle Police Department and court system.
"Rapes, robberies and all sorts of violent acts have been occurring in the area and
we're not able to get to them,"
said
Seattle
Police Chief Carmen Best. Several people have been
wounded
or killed
.
Christopher F. Rufo, a contributing editor of
City Journal
,
observed
:
"The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone has set a dangerous precedent: armed left-wing activists
have asserted their dominance of the streets and established an alternative political authority
over a large section of a neighborhood. They have claimed de facto police power over thousands
of residents and dozens of businesses -- completely outside of the democratic process. In a
matter of days, Antifa-affiliated paramilitaries have created a hardened border, established a
rudimentary form of government based on principles of intersectional representation, and
forcibly removed unfriendly media from the territory.
"The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone is an occupation and taking of hostages: none of the
neighborhood's residents voted for Antifa as their representative government. Rather than
enforce the law, Seattle's progressive political class capitulated to the mob and will likely
make massive concessions over the next few months. This will embolden the Antifa coalition -- and
further undermine the rule of law in American cities."
Antifa in its Own Words
The American Antifa movement's long-term objectives are identical to those of the Antifa
movement in Europe: replacing capitalism with a communist utopia. Mark Bray, one of the most vocal
apologists for Antifa in the United States and author of "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,"
explained
:
"The only long-term solution to the fascist menace is to undermine its pillars of strength in
society grounded not only in white supremacy but also in ableism, heteronormativity, patriarchy,
nationalism, transphobia, class rule, and many others. This long-term goal points to the
tensions that exist in defining anti-fascism, because at a certain point destroying fascism is
really about promoting a revolutionary socialist alternative."
Nikkita Oliver, former mayoral candidate of Seattle, Washington,
added
:
"We need to align ourselves with the global struggle that acknowledges that the United States
plays a role in racialized capitalism. Racialized capitalism is built upon patriarchy, white
supremacy, and classism."
Patrisse Cullors, a co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement,
confirmed
that
the immediate goal is to remove President Trump from office:
"Trump not only needs to not be in office in November, but he should resign now. Trump needs
to be out of office. He is not fit for office. And so, what we are going to push for is a move
to get Trump out. While we're also going to continue to push and pressure Joe Biden around his
policies and relationship to policing and criminalization. That's going to be important. But our
goal is to get Trump out."
"As antifascists we know that our fight is not just against organized fascism, but also
against the capitalist state, and the police that protect it. Another world is possible!"
"This is the revolution, this is our time and we will make no excuses for the terror."
A group called PNW Youth Liberation Front, Antifa's youth organization,
tweeted
:
"The only way to win a world without police, prisons, borders, etc. is to destroy the
oppressive systems which we are currently caught in. We must continue the fight against the
state, imperialism, capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and so on if we ever want to be
free."
A pamphlet distributed in the Seattle "Autonomous Zone"
stated
:
"The idea that the working class can control our own lives, without states, governments or
borders, is also called anarchism. But how do we get from our current capitalist society to a
future anarchist-communist one? .... In order to destroy the current order, there will need to
be a revolution, a time of great upheaval."
A poster in the Seattle "Autonomous Zone"
stated
:
"Oh, you thought I just wanted to defund the police? This whole system needs to go."
One of the leaders of the Seattle "Autonomous Zone"
said
:
"Every single day that I show up here I'm not here to peacefully protest. I'm here to disrupt
until my demands are met. You cannot rebuild until you break it all the way down. Respond to the
demands of the people or prepare to be met with any means necessary. By any means necessary.
It's not a slogan or even a warning. I'm letting people know what comes next."
A group called the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement, which has nearly 15,000 Twitter
followers,
called
for
an insurrection:
"Revolutionary greetings from the insurrection sweeping throughout the occupied territories
of the so-called United States of America.
"As the history of this miserable nation repeats itself once again, what has become clearly
evident is that black people have been and will continue to be the only revolutionary force that
is capable of toppling the oppressive status quo.
"Everywhere the pigs [a derogatory
term
for
police] have lost their will to fight. Their eyes, which only yesterday were windows to empty
hatred and contempt, now display stultifying self-doubt and cowardice. For once, their behavior
portrays their weakness as every step they take back is marked by hesitation.
"Together, if we keep pushing, this land of chattel slavery, indigenous genocide, and foreign
imperial aggression can finally be wiped out so that it will only be remembered as one of the
more ugly chapters in human history."
"This isn't protest. This is rebellion. When rebellion gets organized we get revolution. We
are seeing the beginnings of that and it's glorious."
An Antifa agitator from New York
comments
on
the American flag:
"That sh*t is a fucking cloth with colors on it. It doesn't live or breathe and is nothing
but a representation. Any Black, Latinx, or Native person looking at that thing being respected,
should be offended at that flag that represents genocide, rape, slavery, and colonization."
An Antifa media platform, "It's Going Down,"
wrote
:
"Looting is an effective means of wealth redistribution."
An Antifa activist from North Carolina on
free
speech
:
"The idea that freedom of speech is the most important thing that we can protect can only be
held by someone who thinks that life is analogous to a debate hall. In my opinion, 'no
platforming' fascists often infringes (sic) upon their speech, but this infringement is
justified for its role in the political struggle against fascism."
Torch Antifa Network, in
response
to
President Trump's announced plans to designate Antifa as a terrorist group:
"Antifa will be designating the United States of America as a terrorist organization."
@Druid55 That is
the western MSM sugared up version of what happened in Yugoslavia. Western MSM learned their
lesson about being truthful about war when US and friends were in Vietnam.
Lies and lies only come from western MSM these days so wars and regime change games can go
on with anyone noticing or caring.
Western MSM notifies their puppet readers that all the US and friends does is
"humanitarian" stuff these days. Most puppet readers lap up this junk.
March 24, 1999 will go down in history as a day of infamy. US-led NATO raped Yugoslavia.
Doing so was its second major combat operation.
It was lawless aggression. No Security Council resolution authorized it. NATO's
Operation Allied Force lasted 78 days.
Washington called it Operation Noble Anvil. Evil best describes it. On June 10,
operations ended.
From March 1991 through mid-June 1999, Balkan wars raged. Yugoslavia "balkanized" into
seven countries. They include Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia and Slovenia.
Enormous human suffering was inflicted. Washington bears most responsibility.
"So the difference between neocons and liberal interventionists is one of style rather than
substance. And, by either yardstick all-in-all, Trump looks pretty good, but there has
nevertheless been a resurgence of neocon-think in his administration. "
Apr 27, 2017 This Is Already Putting an End to the Age of Globalization and Bankrupting the
United States (2004)
For a major power, prosecution of any war that is not a defense of the homeland usually
requires overseas military bases for strategic reasons. After the war is over, it is tempting
for the victor to retain such bases and easy to find reasons to do so. February 26, 2015 The
Neoconservative Threat To World Order
Scholars from Russia and from around the world, Russian government officials, and the
Russian people seek an answer as to why Washington destroyed during the past year the
friendly relations between America and Russia that President Reagan and President Gorbachev
succeeded in establishing.
by Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/23/2020 - 20:10 As part of an escalating probe into anti-competitive and antitrust
practices by Google, Reuters reports that DOJ officials and some state attorneys general are
set to meet on Friday to discuss next steps. The federal government and nearly all state
attorneys general have opened investigations into allegations that the company which once upon
a time said its motto was "don't be evil" has broken antitrust laws.
The federal probe focuses on search bias, advertising and management of Google's Android
operating system, according to the report.
Separately, in a letter sent Sunday to U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, Tennessee Senator
Marsha Blackburn on Tuesday said that Google and parent company, Alphabet, pose a "threat to a
free and fair press in America."
Addressing the Attorney General, Blackburn urges him "to thoroughly scrutinize how the
company's anticompetitive practices could lead to the crippling of journalistic freedom. I also
ask that your probe examine abuses in both the online advertising and online search markets,
and to take enforcement action swiftly before further economic harm results. "
The rest of the story is well known to everyone on this site:
Google leverages the power of its ad platform GoogleAds to harm consumers and competitors
alike. Last week, Google took actions towards demonetizing two conservative news media
organizations based on the sites' third-party user comments. A NBC article incorrectly
reported that The Federalist and ZeroHedge were being banned from the GoogleAds platform for
publishing racist articles , and a Google representative claimed that the punishment was for
the publication of "derogatory content that promotes hatred, intolerance, violence or
discrimination based on race."1 In reality, the takedown pretext was based on user comments
and not on news content. While The Federalist was allowed to remain on GoogleAds after
suspending the user comment function, ZeroHedge's entire site was blocked. Google knows it
holds clients' livelihoods in the palm of its hands, as publishers have no meaningful choice
to generate ad revenue. Google has no qualms falsely labeling news publishers as racist as a
convenient way to turn off their sites and scare writers from debating controversial
ideas
Blackburn praised the DOJ for issuing a proposal last week to "roll back liability shields"
for Google and other online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
These reforms alone, however, won't stop "Google's encroachment on competitors and grip on
public discourse," Blackburn warned.
Google's behavior could lead to the crippling of our free press.
Today I asked AG Barr @TheJusticeDept to examine
abuses of online advertising & search markets, and to take action before further economic
harm results. pic.twitter.com/TRJy9ZeaNT
-- Sen. Marsha Blackburn
(@MarshaBlackburn) June 22,
2020
"Google must be held accountable for such anticompetitive conduct. Both the American free
market and the openness of our democracy are presently at stake," she concluded her letter. "As
the Department decides which actions to pursue, I urge mounting a full investigation that
examines the company's control over vast sectors of the Internet economy, from online
advertising to online search."
This is mainly alt-rght opinions. But as Oscar Wilde noted "Objective opinion is our opinion
about people we do not like"
"What is the essential quality of an Antifa? What is that attribute which, if you took it
away, would result in the person on the street wearing black clothes and a face mask no longer
being a member of the Antifa?" Can connection of ADL and Israel be such an essential quality?
Both far right and far left usually are infiltrated and sometimes even controlled by intelligence
agencies. So it is impossible for antifa to act as bold as they acted without covert blessing
from intelligence agency that control them
You bring up some great questions. No doubt that the violent protesters in cities across
America were planning this and outmaneuvered police who were still using crowd control
tactics and equipment from 20 years ago. Do you think that ANTIFA and BLM were born out of
the "Occupy Movement" from 2011-2012?
Okay, boring, but let's get back to that stuff Intelligent Dasein brought up a month ago.
What is the essential quality of an Antifa? What is that attribute which, if you took
it away, would result in the person on the street wearing black clothes and a face mask no
longer being a member of the Antifa?
A skateboard? A five dollar latte? A sign bearing a seven-word slogan that encapsulates
their entire life's thought process?
I submit that the essential characteristic of an Antifa is that they blame white people
for every ill which besets everyone of every race worldwide.
Why they do this is a different question, but the answer is "Because "white people" is
what they know." It's who's closest to them. It's who frustrates them. (Not plural because
that would mean they dealt with white people individually, i.e. fairly). So they are peoples
whose experience is severely circumscribed. What's the word I'm looking for? Of limited
breadth. Virtual isolates. Unable to compare dispassionately because they lack exposure to
other civilizations. Prone to blow up their frustrations to world-wide proportions. Delusions
of grandeur.
Anyway. If anyone has a better essential characteristic, hammer it out on the keyboard and
share it.
The fake virus was the cover for another huge theft by the elites like the bailout for the
super rich in 08-09. People were starting see the Corona fraud so they had the media change
scenes back to the race card and do the fake Floyd.
The left and the right are both elements of control from the top. The goal of the Zionists
is to demoralize and destabilize western societies using the techniques from the Jewish
Frankfurt School. Most of the riots are instigated by paid activists. It appears that some
police departments are in on it too.
The Elite's aim to instigate enough problems so that people will demand action from the
federal gov. The plan is to remove local control of the police and to nationalize them.
All totalitarian states have a centrally controlled police to do the bidding of the
bosses at the top. The Zionists have many key positions under their control. The
Presidency has been since Woodrow Wilson, and none in the Senate will defy aIPAC and the
other Jew groups and very few in the House will. It is easy for the CIA or other
intelligence Agencies to stage false flag events like fake murders and Los Vegas type
shootings since The Jews control all of the MSM. Everything the gov. does is a lie and a
fraud. From the contrived world wars and the War on Terror to 911 and WMD's it's the same
Zionist criminal syndicate at work.
@ThreeCranesYes, most of them are useful idiots as Lenin called them. Many are paid
actors in the Soros (Swartz Gyorgy) ANTIFA group. All of this is from the top down,
planned and coordinated by the Zionist criminals. They must have conflict, hatred and war to
achieve progress. A society of contented people does nothing for them. Once the
destabilization process has resulted in chaos then the rabble will be swept from the streets.
Order will be restored. Order of the totalitarian state.
@Corporal Punishment They were born out of the establishment of the NAACP in 1907 by Jew
International Banker Jacob Schiff. This began the process of radicalizing the blacks to
become proxy warriors for the Jews. It was supercharged by the so called civil rights mov. of
the 60's to gain more federal control within the unconstitutional 14th Amedment and open the
door to the antisemitism, and hate speech laws along with the anti white culture promoted by
our Zionist politicians and the Jew controlled MSM.
Gasoline was poured on the fire when the negroes were baited with minority set asides,
affirmative action and the general corrosive effects of the welfare state.
Excellent article. Once again, our glorious (((MSM))) is playing a pivotal role in attempting
to deflect attention away from the actual perpetrators of an organized campaign to produce
culture-wide mayhem and destruction. Entrenched media dishonesty in America is breathtaking.
The BLM endgame is extortion, pure and simple. The agitated perps want boatloads of
justice in the form of a massive wealth transfer. Cash and capital is to be shifted from big
corporations as well as the American taxpayer to underperforming POC.
Look for 'affirmative action' (anti-white hiring practices) to ramp-up as well. The
cops and pols are running scared. Disagree with this 'new normal' and you could be doxxed,
'un-hired', or branded a white supremacist.
Meanwhile, left wing activists posing as observers and journalists want us to believe that
all this George-Floyd-inspired violence is actually another vast right-wing conspiracy to
topple Confederate statues, loot Targets, and take over entire sections of US cities. Oh
sure.
The fact that the Lügenpresse are now trying to deflect blame for the riots onto
'right-wing Boogaloo bois' is probably good news. It means that their internal polling shows
what an unmitigated disaster these riots have been for the image of the Democrats. They were
probably all assuming that Trump would play to type, send in the Marines and go medieval on
the BLM and the Antifa, but he didn't. After making a few provocative tweets, he just decided
to sit back and enjoy the show along with the rest of us. And now it's starting to dawn on
Trump's enemies that they have completely destroyed their own cities for nothing!
I'm starting to think that this time not only will Trump win the election, but he'll
probably win the popular vote, too.
The footprints probably lead to the back door of the DNC. There's various billionaires
involved but they're tied in with politicians. There's lots of people out there willing to
hire on as Antifa thanks to the rotten gig economy where millions of young people are trapped
and see very little future for themselves .
You see them all over working service jobs with no future. They tattoo themselves up,
use drugs and are open to radicalization. What's to lose?Money, excitement and a cause are
being offered by the mysterious paymasters.
@Ann Nonny MouseI am laughing at blaming the DNC. They are hapless puppets who can't
go to the bathroom without asking permission from their wealthy donors. The "hate whitey"
propaganda is in Western Europe, Australia, even Japan. That is far out of DNC land. Who owns
and controls the mass media in all "democracies" around the world? It is _not_ the DNC.
Pelosi: One Thing That Would Remain Is Our Support For Israel Clip from the conference of the Israeli-American Council in Hollywood, Fla., Dec. 2, 2018.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, left, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, center, Haim Saban
@Piglet EyesWideOpen
30 subscribers
Clip from the conference of the Israeli-American Council in Hollywood, Fla., Dec. 2, 2018.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, left, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, center, Haim Saban , right.
QUOTE: "if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain would be
our commitment to our aid, I don't even call it our aid, our cooperation with Israel."
– Nancy Pelosi, Israel-American Council Conference
@Nicholas Stix Sheldon Adelson is the 'go to" man for Republicans in need of campaign
cash, and his equivalent on the Democratic side is Haim Saban. You'll find more on Saban
here:
Excerpt:
Democrats are now largely owned by Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban who calls himself
somewhere to the right of the late Ariel Sharon. Saban, a media mogul, recently gave $5-10
million to the Clinton Library and is Hillary's principal backer.
Exceprt:
In America's corrupt political culture, a monster like Sheldon Adelson can buy both a White
House and Congress on behalf of a foreign government for a paltry $150 million or so. It is a
reasonable investment for him given his views, as through him Israel is able to control a
large slice of American foreign policy while also receiving billions of dollars each year
from the US Treasury. And for those who think it would be different if the Democrats were in
charge, think again. The Democrats have their own Adelson. His name is Haim Saban, an
Israeli-American media magnate who has said he is a "one issue guy and my issue is Israel."
He is also the largest individual contributor to the Democratic Party.
"... It's a commonplace to say the primary job of police is to "protect and serve," but that's not their goal in the way it's commonly understood -- not in the deed, the practice of what they daily do, and not true in the original intention, in why police departments were created in the first place. "Protect and serve" as we understand it is just the cover story. ..."
"... Urban police forces in America were created for one purpose -- to "maintain order" after a waves of immigrants swept into northern U.S. cities, both from abroad and later from the South, immigrants who threatened to disturb that "order." The threat wasn't primarily from crime as we understand it, from violence inflicted by the working poor on the poor or middle class. The threat came from unions, from strikes, and from the suffering, the misery and the anger caused by the rise of rapacious capitalism. ..."
"... What's being protected? The social order that feeds the wealthy at the expense of the working poor. Who's being served? Owners, their property, and the sources of their wealth, the orderly and uninterrupted running of their factories. The goal of police departments, as originally constituted, was to keep the workers in line, in their jobs, and off the streets. ..."
"... In most countries, the police are there solely to protect the Haves from the Have-Nots. In fact, when the average frustrated citizen has trouble, the last people he would consider turning to are the police. ..."
"... Jay Gould, a U.S. robber baron, is supposed to have claimed that he could hire one half of the working class to kill the other half. ..."
"... I spent some time in the Silver Valley of northern Idaho. This area was the hot bed of labor unrest during the 1890's. Federal troops controlled the area 3 separate times,1892, 1894 and 1899. Twice miners hijacked trains loaded them with dynamite and drove them to mining company stamping mills that they then blew up. Dozens of deaths in shoot outs. The entire male population was herded up and placed in concentration camps for weeks. The end result was the assassination of the Governor in 1905. ..."
"... Interestingly this history has been completely expunged. There is a mining museum in the town which doesn't mention a word on these events. Even nationwide there seems to be a complete erasure of what real labor unrest can look like.. ..."
"... Straight-up fact: The police weren't created to preserve and protect. They were created to maintain order, [enforced] over certain subjected classes and races of people, including–for many white people, too–many of our ancestors, too.* ..."
Yves here. Tom mentions in passing the role
of Pinkertons as goons for hire to crush early labor activists. Some employers like Ford went as far as forming private armies for
that purpose. Establishing police forces were a way to socialize this cost.
[In the 1800s] the police increasingly presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization, by which they meant
bourgeois civilization, from the disorder of the working class.
-- Sam Mitrani
here
It's a commonplace to say the primary job of police is to "protect and serve," but that's not their goal in the way it's commonly
understood -- not in the deed, the practice of what they daily do, and not true in the original intention, in why police departments
were created in the first place. "Protect and serve" as we understand it is just the cover story.
To understand the true purpose of police, we have to ask, "What's being protected?" and "Who's being served?"
Urban police forces in America were created for one purpose -- to "maintain order" after a waves of immigrants swept into northern
U.S. cities, both from abroad and later from the South, immigrants who threatened to disturb that "order." The threat wasn't primarily
from crime as we understand it, from violence inflicted by the working poor on the poor or middle class. The threat came from unions,
from strikes, and from the suffering, the misery and the anger caused by the rise of rapacious capitalism.
What's being protected? The social order that feeds the wealthy at the expense of the working poor. Who's being served? Owners,
their property, and the sources of their wealth, the orderly and uninterrupted running of their factories. The goal of police departments,
as originally constituted, was to keep the workers in line, in their jobs, and off the streets.
Looking Behind Us
The following comes from an
essay
published at the blog of the Labor and Working-Class History Association, an academic group for teachers of labor studies, by
Sam Mitrani, Associate Professor of History at the College of DuPage and author of The Rise of the Chicago Police
Department: Class and Conflict, 1850-1894 .
According to Mitrani, "The police were not created to protect and serve the population. They were not created to stop crime, at
least not as most people understand it. And they were certainly not created to promote justice. They were created to protect the
new form of wage-labor capitalism that emerged in the mid to late nineteenth century from the threat posed by that system's offspring,
the working class."
Keep in mind that there were no police departments anywhere in Europe or the U.S. prior to the 19th century -- in fact, "anywhere
in the world" according to Mitrani. In the U.S., the North had constables, many part-time, and elected sheriffs, while the South
had slave patrols. But nascent capitalism soon created a large working class, and a mass of European immigrants, "yearning to be
free," ended up working in capitalism's northern factories and living in its cities.
"[A]s Northern cities grew and filled with mostly immigrant wage workers who were physically and socially separated from the
ruling class, the wealthy elite who ran the various municipal governments hired hundreds and then thousands of armed men to impose
order on the new working class neighborhoods ." [emphasis added]
America of the early and mid 1800s was still a world without organized police departments. What the
Pinkertons were to strikes , these
"thousands of armed men" were to the unruly working poor in those cities.
Imagine this situation from two angles. First, from the standpoint of the workers, picture the oppression these armed men must
have represented, lawless themselves yet tasked with imposing "order" and violence on the poor and miserable, who were frequently
and understandably both angry and drunk. (Pre-Depression drunkenness, under this interpretation, is not just a social phenomenon,
but a political one as well.)
Second, consider this situation from the standpoint of the wealthy who hired these men. Given the rapid growth of capitalism during
this period, "maintaining order" was a costly undertaking, and likely to become costlier. Pinkertons, for example, were hired at
private expense, as were the "thousands of armed men" Mitrani mentions above.
The solution was to offload this burden onto municipal budgets. Thus, between 1840 and 1880, every major northern city
in America had created a substantial police force, tasked with a single job, the one originally performed by the armed men paid by
the business elites -- to keep the workers in line, to "maintain order" as factory owners and the moneyed class understood it.
"Class conflict roiled late nineteenth century American cities like Chicago, which experienced major strikes and riots in 1867,
1877, 1886, and 1894. In each of these upheavals, the police attacked strikers with extreme violence, even if in 1877 and 1894 the
U.S. Army played a bigger role in ultimately repressing the working class. In the aftermath of these movements, the police increasingly
presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization , by which they meant bourgeois civilization, from the disorder
of the working class. This ideology of order that developed in the late nineteenth century echoes down to today – except that today,
poor black and Latino people are the main threat, rather than immigrant workers."
That "thin blue line protecting civilization" is the same blue line we're witnessing today. Yes, big-city police are culturally
racist as a group; but they're not just racist. They dislike all the "unwashed." A
recent study that reviewed "all the data
available on police shootings for the year 2017, and analyze[d] it based on geography, income, and poverty levels, as well as race"
revealed the following remarkable pattern:
" Police violence is focused overwhelmingly on men lowest on the socio-economic ladder : in rural areas outside the
South, predominately white men; in the Southwest, disproportionately Hispanic men; in mid-size and major cities, disproportionately
black men. Significantly, in the rural South, where the population is racially mixed, white men and black men are killed by police
at nearly identical rates."
As they have always been, the police departments in the U.S. are a violent force for maintaining an order that separates and protects
society's predator class from its victims -- a racist order to be sure, but a class-based order as well.
Looking Ahead
We've seen the violence of the police as visited on society's urban poor (and anyone else, poor or not, who happens to be the
same race and color as the poor too often are), and we've witnessed the violent reactions of police to mass protests challenging
the racism of that violence.
But we've also seen the violence of police during the mainly white-led Occupy movement (one instance
here ; note that while the officer involved
was fired, he was also compensated $38,000 for "suffering he experienced after the incident").
So what could we expect from police if there were, say, a national, angry, multiracial rent strike with demonstrations? Or a student
debt s trike? None of these possibilities are off the table, given the
economic damage -- most of it still unrealized -- caused by the current Covid crisis.
Will police "protect and serve" the protesters, victims of the latest massive
transfer of wealth
to the already massively wealthy? Or will they, with violence, "maintain order" by maintaining elite control of the current predatory
system?
If Mitrani is right, the latter is almost certain.
Possible solutions? One, universal public works system for everyone 18-20. [Avoiding armed service because that will never
happen, nor peace corp.] Not allow the rich to buy then or their children an out. Let the billionaires children work along side
those who never had a single family house or car growing up.
Two, eliminate suburban school districts and simply have one per state, broken down into regional areas. No rich [or white]
flight to avoid poor systems. Children of differing means growing up side by side. Of course the upper class would simply send
their children to private schools, much as the elite do now anyway.
Class and privilege is the real underlying issue and has been since capital began to be concentrated and hoarded as the article
points out. It has to begin with the children if the future is to really change in a meaningful way.
I would add items targeted as what is causing inequality. Some of these might be:
1). Abolish the Federal Reserve. It's current action since 2008 are a huge transfer of wealth from us to the wealthy. No more
Quantitative Easing, no Fed buying of stocks or bonds.
2). Make the only retirement and medical program allowed Congress and the President, Social Security and Medicare. That will
cause it to be improved for all of us.
3). No stock ownership allowed for Congress folk while serving terms. Also, rules against joining those leaving Congress acting
as lobbyists.
4). Something that makes it an iron rule that any law passed by Congress and the President, must equally apply to Congress
and the President. For example, no separate retirement or healthcare access, but have this more broadly applied to all aspects
of legislation and all aspects of life.
I think you'd also have to legalize drugs and any other thing that leads creation of "organized ciminal groups." Take away
the sources that lead to the creation of the well-armed gangs that control illegal activities.
Unfortunately, legalising drugs in itself, whatever the abstract merits, wouldn't solve the problem. Organised crime would
still have a major market selling cut-price, tax-free or imitation drugs, as well, of course, as controlled drugs which are not
allowed to be sold to just anybody now. Organised crime doesn't arise as a result of prohibitions, it expands into new areas thanks
to them, and often these areas involve smuggling and evading customs duties. Tobacco products are legal virtually everywhere,
but there's a massive criminal trade in smuggling them from the Balkans into Italy, where taxes are much higher. Any time you
create a border, in effect, you create crime: there is even alcohol smuggling between Sweden and Norway. Even when activities
are completely legal (such as prostitution in many European countries) organised crime is still largely in control through protection
rackets and the provision of "security."
In effect, you'd need to abolish all borders, all import and customs duties and all health and safety and other controls which
create price differentials between states. And OC is not fussy, it moves from one racket to another, as the Mafia did in the 1930s
with the end of prohibition. To really tackle OC you'd need to legalise, oh, child pornography, human trafficking, sex slavery,
the trade in rare wild animals, the trade in stolen gems and conflict diamonds, internet fraud and cyberattacks, and the illicit
trade in rare metals, to name, as they say, but a few. As Monty Python well observed, the only way to reduce the crime rate (and
hence the need for the police) is to reduce the number of criminal offences. Mind you, if you defund the police you effectively
legalise all these things anyway.
I dunno, ending Prohibition sure cut down on the market for bootleg liquor. It's still out there, but the market is nothing
like what it once was.
Most people, even hardcore alcoholics, aren't going to go through the hassle of buying rotgut of dubious origin just to save
a few dimes, when you can go to the corner liquor store and get a known product, no issues with supply 'cause your dealer's supplier
just got arrested.
For that matter, OC is still definitely out there, but it isn't the force that it was during Prohibition, or when gambling
was illegal.
As an aside, years ago, I knew a guy whose father had worked for Meyer Lansky's outfit, until Prohibition put him and others
out of a job. As a token of his loyal service, the outfit gave him a (legal) liquor store to own and run.
Yes, but in Norway, for example, you'd pay perhaps $30 for a six-pack of beer in a supermarket, whereas you'd pay half that
to somebody selling beers out of the back of a car. In general people make too much of the Prohibition case, which was geographically
and politically very special, and a a stage in history when OC was much less sophisticated. The Mob diversified into gambling
and similar industries (higher profits, fewer risks). These days OC as a whole is much more powerful and dangerous, as well as
sophisticated, than it was then, helped by globalisation and the Internet.
I think ending prohibitions on substances, would take quite a bite out of OC's pocketbook. and having someone move trailers
of ciggarettes of bottles of beer big deal. That isn't really paying for the lifestyle.and it doesn't buy political protection.
An old number I saw @ 2000 . the UN figured(guess) that illegal drugs were @ 600 billion dollars/year industry and most of that
was being laundered though banks. Which to the banking industry is 600 billion in cash going into it's house of mirrors. Taking
something like that out of the equation EVERY YEAR is no small thing. And the lobby from the OC who wants drugs kept illegal,
coupled with the bankers who want the cash inputs equals a community of interest against legalization
and if the local police forces and the interstate/internationals were actually looking to use their smaller budgets and non-bill
of rights infringing tactics, on helping the victim side of crimes then they could have a real mission/ Instead of just abusing
otherwise innocent people who victimize no one.
so if we are looking for "low hanging fruit" . ending the war on drugs is a no brainer.
"What's being protected? The social order that feeds the wealthy at the expense of the working poor. " – Neuberger
In the aftermath of these movements, the police increasingly presented themselves as a thin blue line protecting civilization,
by which they meant bourgeois civilization, from the disorder of the working class. – Mitrani
I think this ties in, if only indirectly, with the way so many peaceful recent protests seemed to turn violent after the police
showed up. It's possible I suppose the police want to create disorder to frighten not only the protestors with immediate harm
but also frighten the bourgeois about the threate of a "dangerous mob". Historically violent protests created a political backlash
that usually benefited political conservatives and the wealthy owners. (The current protests may be different in this regard.
The violence seems to have created a political backlash against conservatives and overzealous police departments' violence. )
My 2 cents.
Sorry, but the title sent my mind back to the days of old -- of old Daley, that is, and his immortal quote from 1968: "Gentlemen,
let's get the thing straight, once and for all. The policeman isn't there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve
disorder."
LOL!!! great quote. Talk about saying it the way it is.
It kind of goes along with, "Police violence is focused overwhelmingly on men lowest on the socio-economic ladder: in rural
areas outside the South, predominately white men; in the Southwest, disproportionately Hispanic men; in mid-size and major cities,
disproportionately black men. Significantly, in the rural South, where the population is racially mixed, white men and black men
are killed by police at nearly identical rates."
I bang my head on the table sometimes because poor white men and poor men of color are so often placed at odds when they increasingly
face (mostly) the same problems. God forbid someone tried to unite them, there might really be some pearl clutching then.
yeah, like Martin Luther King's "poor people's campaign". the thought of including the poor ,of all colors .. just too much
for the status quo to stomach.
The "mechanism" that keeps masses in line . is one of those "invisible hands" too.
Great response! I am sure you have more to add to this. A while back, I was researching the issues you state in your last paragraph.
Was about ten pages into it and had to stop as I was drawn out of state and country. From my research.
While not as overt in the 20th century, the distinction of black slave versus poor white man has kept the class system alive
and well in the US in the development of a discriminatory informal caste system. This distraction of a class level lower than
the poorest of the white has kept them from concentrating on the disproportionate, and growing, distribution of wealth and income
in the US. For the lower class, an allowed luxury, a place in the hierarchy and a sure form of self esteem insurance.
Sennett and Cobb (1972) observed that class distinction sets up a contest between upper and lower class with the lower social
class always losing and promulgating a perception amongst themselves the educated and upper classes are in a position to judge
and draw a conclusion of them being less than equal. The hidden injury is in the regard to the person perceiving himself as a
piece of the woodwork or seen as a function such as "George the Porter." It was not the status or material wealth causing the
harsh feelings; but, the feeling of being treated less than equal, having little status, and the resulting shame. The answer for
many was violence.
James Gilligan wrote "Violence; Reflections on A National Epidemic." He worked as a prison psychiatrist and talked with many
of the inmates of the issues of inequality and feeling less than those around them. His finding are in his book which is not a
long read and adds to the discussion.
A little John Adams for you.
" The poor man's conscience is clear . . . he does not feel guilty and has no reason to . . . yet, he is ashamed. Mankind
takes no notice of him. He rambles unheeded.
In the midst of a crowd; at a church; in the market . . . he is in as much obscurity as he would be in a garret or a cellar.
He is not disapproved, censured, or reproached; he is not seen . . . To be wholly overlooked, and to know it, are intolerable
."
likbez, June 19, 2020 at 3:18 pm
That's a very important observation.
Racism, especially directed toward blacks, along with "identity wedge," is a perfect tool for disarming poor white, and suppressing
their struggle for a better standard of living, which considerably dropped under neoliberalism.
In other words, by providing poor whites with a stratum of the population that has even lower social status, neoliberals manage
to co-opt them to support the policies which economically ate detrimental to their standard of living as well as to suppress the
protest against the redistribution of wealth up and dismantling of the New Deal capitalist social protection network.
This is a pretty sophisticated, pretty evil scheme if you ask me. In a way, "Floydgate" can be viewed as a variation on the same
theme. A very dirty game indeed, when the issue of provision of meaningful jobs for working poor, social equality, and social
protection for low-income workers of any color is replaced with a real but of secondary importance issue of police violence against
blacks.
This is another way to explain "What's the matter with Kansas" effect.
John Anthony La Pietra, June 19, 2020 at 6:20 pm
I like that one! - and I have to admit it's not familiar to me, though I've been a fan since before I got to play him in a
neighboring community theater. Now I'm having some difficulty finding it. Where is it from, may I ask?
run75441, June 20, 2020 at 7:56 am
JAL:
Page 239, "The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States."
Read the book "Violence: Reflections of A National Epidemic" . Not a long read and well documented.
MLK Jr. tried, and look what happened to him once he really got some traction. If the Rev. William Barber's Poor People's Campaign
picks up steam, I'm afraid the same thing will happen to him.
I wish it were only pearl-clutching that the money power would resort to, but that's not the way it works.
Yeah – that quote struck me too, never seen it before. At times when they feel so liberated to 'say the quiet part out loud',
then as now, you know the glove is coming off and the vicious mailed fist is free to roam for victims.
Those times are where you know you need to resist or .well, die in many cases.
That's something that really gets me in public response to many of these things. The normal instinct of the populace to wake
from their somnambulant slumber just long enough to ascribe to buffoonery and idiocy ala Keystone Cops the things so much better
understood as fully consciously and purposefully repressive, reactionary, and indicating a desire to take that next step to crush
fully. To obliterate.
Many responses to this – https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1273809160128389120
– are like, 'the police are dumb', 'out of touch', 'a lot of dumb gomer pyles in that room, yuk yuk yuk'. Or, 'cops/FBI are
so dumb to pursue this antifa thing, its just a boogieman' thinking that somehow once the authorities realize 'antifa' is a boogieman,
their attitudes towards other protesters will somehow be different 'now that they realize the silliness of the claims'.
No, not remotely the case – to a terrifyingly large percentage of those in command, and in rank & file they know exactly where
it came from, exactly how the tactics work, and have every intention of classifying all protesters (peaceful or not) into that
worldview. The peaceful protesters *are* antifa in their eyes, to be dealt with in the fully approved manner of violence and repression.
In most countries, the police are there solely to protect the Haves from the Have-Nots. In fact, when the average frustrated
citizen has trouble, the last people he would consider turning to are the police.
This is why in the Third World, the only job of lower social standing than "policeman" is "police informer".
The anti-rascist identity of the recent protests rests on a much larger base of class warfare waged over the past 40 years
against the entire population led by a determined oligarchy and enforced by their political, media and militarized police retainers.
This same oligarchy, with a despicable zeal and revolting media-orchestrated campaign–co-branding the movement with it's usual
corporate perpetrators– distorts escalating carceral and economic violence solely through a lens of racial conflict and their
time-tested toothless reforms. A few unlucky "peace officers" may have to TOFTT until the furor recedes, can't be helped.
Crowding out debt relief, single payer health, living wages, affordable housing and actual justice reform from the debate that
would benefit African Americans more than any other demographic is the goal.
The handful of Emperors far prefer kabuki theater and random ritual Seppuku than facing the rage of millions of staring down
the barrel of zero income, debt, bankruptcy, evictions and dispossession. The Praetorians will follow the money as always.
I suppose we'll get some boulevards re-named and a paid Juneteenth holiday to compensate for the destruction 100+ years of
labor rights struggle, so there's that..
Homestead, Ludlow, Haymarket, Matewan -- the list is long
Working men and women asking for justice gunned down by the cops. There will always be men ready to murder on command as long
as the orders come from the rich and powerful. We are at a moment in history folks were some of us, today mostly people of color,
are willing to put their lives on the line. It's an ongoing struggle.
So how can a tier of society(the police) . be what a society needs ? When as this story and many others show how and why the
police were formed. To break heads. When they have been "the tool" of the elite forever. When so many of them are such dishonest,
immoral, wanna be fascists. And the main direction of the US is towards a police state and fascists running the show . both
republican and democrat. With technology being the boot on the neck of the people and the police are there to take it to the streets.
Can those elusive "good apples" turn the whole rotten barrel into sweet smelling apple pie? That is a big ask.
Or should the structure be liquidated, sell their army toys. fill the ranks with people who are not pathological liars and
abusers and /or racists; of one sort or another. Get rid of the mentality of overcompensation by uber machismo. and make them
watch the andy griffith show. They ought to learn that they can be respected if they are good people, and that they are not respected
because they seek respect through fear and intimidation.
Is that idiot cry of theirs, .. the whole yelling at you; demanding absolute obedience to arbitrary ,assinine orders, really
working to get them respect or is it just something they get off on?
When the police are shown to be bad, they strike by work slowdown, or letting a little chaos loose themselves. So the people
know they need them So any reform of the police will go through the police not doing their jobs . but then something like better
communities may result. less people being busted and harassed , or pulled over for the sake of a quota . may just show we don't
need so much policing anyway. And then if the new social workers brigade starts intervening in peoples with issues when they are
young and in school maybe fewer will be in the system. Couple that with the police not throwing their family in jail for nothing,
and forcing them to pay fines for breaking stupid laws. The system will have less of a load, and the new , better cops without
attitudes will be able to handle their communities in a way that works for everyone. Making them a net positive, as opposed to
now where they are a net negative.
Also,
The drug war is over. The cops have only done the bidding of the organized criminal elements who make their bread and butter
because of prohibition.
Our representatives can legally smoke pot , and grow it in their windowboxes in the capital dc., but people in many places
are still living in fear of police using possession of some substance,as a pretext to take all their stuff,throw them in jail.
But besides the cops, there are the prosecutors . they earn their salaries by stealing it from poor people through fines for things
that ought to be legal. This is one way to drain money from poor communities, causing people to go steal from others in society
to pay their court costs.
And who is gonna come and bust down your door when you can't pay a fine and choose to pay rent and buy your kids food instead
. the cops. just doing their jobs. Evil is the banality of business as usual
The late Kevin R C O'Brien noted that in every case where the Police had been ordered to "Round up the usual suspects" they
have done so, and delivered them where ordered. It did not matter who the "Usual suspects" were, or to what fate they were
to be delivered. They are the King's men and they do the King's bidding.
To have a reasonable discussion, I think that it should be recognized that modern police are but one leg of a triad. The first
of course is the police who appear to seem themselves as not part of a community but as enforcers in that community. To swipe
an idea from Mao, the police should move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea. Not be a patrolling shark that attacks
who they want at will knowing that there will be no repercussions against them. When you get to the point that you have police
arresting children in school for infractions of school discipline – giving them a police record – you know that things have gotten
out of hand.
The next leg is the courts which of course includes prosecutors. It is my understanding that prosecutors are elected to office
in the US and so have incentives to appear to be tough on crime"" . They seem to operate more like 'Let's Make a Deal' from what
I have read. When they tell some kid that he has a choice of 1,000 years in prison on trumped up charges or pleads guilty to a
smaller offence, you know that that is not justice at work. Judges too operate in their own world and will always take the word
of a policeman as a witness.
And the third leg is the prisons which operate as sweatshops for corporate America. It is in the interest of the police and
the courts to fill up the prisons to overflowing. Anybody remember the Pennsylvania "kids for cash" scandal where kids lives were
being ruined with criminal records that were bogus so that some people could make a profit? And what sort of prison system is
it where a private contractor can build a prison without a contract at all , knowing that the government (California in
this case) will nonetheless fill it up for a good profit.
In short, in sorting out police doctrine and methods like is happening now, it should be recognized that they are actually
only the face of a set of problems.
How did ancient states police? Perhaps Wiki is a starting point of this journey. Per Its entry, Police, in ancient Greece,
policing was done by public owned slaves. In Rome, the army, initially. In China, prefects leading to a level of government
called prefectures .
I spent some time in the Silver Valley of northern Idaho. This area was the
hot bed of labor unrest during
the 1890's. Federal troops controlled the area 3 separate times,1892, 1894 and 1899. Twice miners hijacked trains loaded them
with dynamite and drove them to mining company stamping mills that they then blew up. Dozens of deaths in shoot outs. The entire
male population was herded up and placed in concentration camps for weeks. The end result was the assassination of the Governor
in 1905.
Interestingly this history has been completely expunged. There is a mining museum in the town which doesn't mention a word
on these events. Even nationwide there seems to be a complete erasure of what real labor unrest can look like..
Yeah, labor unrest does get swept under the rug. Howard zinn had examples in his works "the peoples history of the United States"
The pictched battles in upstate new york with the Van Rennselear's in the 1840's breaking up rennselearwyk . the million acre
estate of theirs . it was a rent strike.
People remembering , we have been here before doesn't help the case of the establishment so they try to not let it happen.
We get experts telling us . well, this is all new we need experts to tell you what to think. It is like watching the
footage from the past 100 years on film of blacks marching for their rights and being told.. reform is coming.. the more things
change, the more things stay the same. Decade after decade. Century after century. Time to start figuring this out people. So,
the enemy is us. Now what?
Doubtless the facts presented above are correct, but shouldn't one point out that the 21st century is quite different from
the 19th and therefore analogizing the current situation to what went on before is quite facile? For example it's no longer necessary
for the police to put down strikes because strike actions barely still exist. In our current US the working class has diminished
greatly while the middle class has expanded. We are a much richer country overall with a lot more people–not just those one percenters–concerned
about crime. Whatever one thinks of the police, politically an attempt to go back to the 18th century isn't going to fly.
" the 21st century is quite different from the 19th "
From the Guardian: "How Starbucks, Target, Google and Microsoft quietly fund police through private donations"
More than 25 large corporations in the past three years have contributed funding to private police foundations, new report
says.
These foundations receive millions of dollars a year from private and corporate donors, according to the report, and are
able to use the funds to purchase equipment and weapons with little public input. The analysis notes, for example, how the
Los Angeles police department in 2007 used foundation funding to purchase surveillance software from controversial technology
firm Palantir. Buying the technology with private foundation funding rather than its public budget allowed the department to
bypass requirements to hold public meetings and gain approval from the city council.
The Houston police foundation has purchased for the local police department a variety of equipment, including Swat equipment,
sound equipment and dogs for the K-9 unit, according to the report. The Philadelphia police foundation purchased for its police
force long guns, drones and ballistic helmets, and the Atlanta police foundation helped fund a major surveillance network of
over 12,000 cameras.
In addition to weaponry, foundation funding can also go toward specialized training and support programs that complement
the department's policing strategies, according to one police foundation.
"Not a lot of people are aware of this public-private partnership where corporations and wealthy donors are able to siphon
money into police forces with little to no oversight," said Gin Armstrong, a senior research analyst at LittleSis.
Maybe it is just me, but things don't seem to be all that different.
While it is true, this is a new century. Knowing how the present came to be, is entirely necessary to be able to attempt any
move forward.
The likelihood of making the same old mistakes is almost certain, if one doesn't try to use the past as a reference.
And considering the effect of propaganda and revisionism in the formation of peoples opinions, we do need " learning against learning"
to borrow a Jesuit strategy against the reformation, but this time it should embrace reality, rather than sow falsehoods.
But I do agree,
We have never been here before, and now is a great time to reset everything. With all due respect to "getting it right" or at
least "better".
and knowing the false fables of righteousness, is what people need to know, before they go about "burning down the house".
You know it's not as though white people aren't also afraid of the police. Alfred Hitchcock said he was deathly afraid of police
and that paranoia informed many of his movies. Woody Allen has a funny scene in Annie Hall where he is pulled over by a cop and
is comically flustered. White people also get shot and killed by the police as the rightwingers are constantly pointing out.
And thousands of people in the streets tell us that police reform is necessary. But the country is not going to get rid of
them and replace police with social workers so why even talk about it? I'd say the above is interesting .not terribly relevant.
Straight-up fact: The police weren't created to preserve and protect. They were created to maintain order, [enforced] over
certain subjected classes and races of people, including–for many white people, too–many of our ancestors, too.*
And the question that arises from this: Are we willing to the subjects in a police state? Are we willing to continue to let
our Black and brown brothers and sisters be subjected BY such a police state, and to half-wittingly be party TO it?
Or do we want to exercise AGENCY over "our" government(s), and decide–anew–how we go out our vast, vast array of social ills.
Obviously, armed police officers with an average of six months training–almost all from the white underclass–are a pretty f*cking
blunt instrument to bring to bear.
On our own heads. On those who we and history have consigned to second-class citizenship.
Warning: this is a revolutionary situation. We should embrace it.
*Acceding to white supremacy, becoming "white" and often joining that police order, if you were poor, was the road out of such
subjectivity. My grandfather's father, for example, was said to have fled a failed revolution in Bohemia to come here. Look back
through history, you will find plenty of reason to feel solidarity, too. Race alone cannot divide us if we are intent on the lessons
of that history.
"... These mobs of hating, condemning, moralizing, groupthink hypocrites are modern-day Nazis. They don't wear uniforms or have guns, but their weapon of online psychological abuse is proving frighteningly effective. ..."
"... Psychological abuse is one of their classic methods, as they exploit a person's fear of ending up alone against a crowd. Instead of a prison cell or a concentration camp, they put people in social isolation. They can even prevent the victim from being employed – classic state repression of an individual. ..."
"... Without work, the geniuses will fade into obscurity, and the new PC brigade will make them kneel in solidarity. Individually, members of these combat units of political correctness are often smart and sophisticated people, but when they close ranks in the fight for or against something, they turn into an ignorant and aggressive mob. ..."
"... China has been testing a new system in several provinces via which the citizens and their community are encouraged to assess the social behavior of individuals by assigning scores for respecting the rules and values practiced in this society. If you don't achieve a high score, your ranking is low and your prospects are limited. Isn't this just perfect for the new stormtroopers?! It's a modern reincarnation of the Munich gang, when a mediocre, covetous burgher pretends to be a civilized, progressive thinker. ..."
"... They put labels on everyone who disagrees. They love drama and straightforwardness. But they are incapable of engaging in rational argument. It's only natural that they began with declaring lofty values and ended with riots. They have started fires and justified arson. But you can't rein in the freedom to love or hate using a set of rules established by the new ethics committee. Today, being free means being outside this mob of attacking, hating, condemning, moralizing, angry hypocrites. ..."
These mobs of hating, condemning, moralizing, groupthink hypocrites are modern-day Nazis. They don't wear
uniforms or have guns, but their weapon of online psychological abuse is proving frighteningly effective.
Totalitarianism didn't disappear when the Nazis were defeated. It hid, stealthily, only to come back
later. The US and Europe intuitively built a new elaborate type of dictatorship. The state delegated the
functions of surveillance, persecution, isolation and judgment to society. Initially, it looked very
innocent: fighting against intolerance, defending the mistreated and the oppressed. Noble goals.
But
with time, these values turned into idols, while intolerance of evil transformed into intolerance of a
different opinion. And social media is making things worse. Public opinion is now a repressive machine
that gangs up on people, booing and destroying anyone who dares to challenge its value system and moral
compass.
The staff members of this repressive machine do not wear uniforms, they don't carry batons or tasers,
but they have other weapons, such as herd instinct and groupthink, as well as deep insecurities and a
desire to dominate – at least intellectually.
Psychological abuse is one of their classic methods, as they exploit a person's fear of ending up
alone against a crowd. Instead of a prison cell or a concentration camp, they put people in social
isolation. They can even prevent the victim from being employed – classic state repression of an
individual.
In a Nazi state, a creative type such as Lars von Trier could lose his job and life over his
"degenerate art." In the beautiful modern state that people with beautiful faces are building, a Lars von
Trier could lose his job, because he can be a politically incorrect troll who sometimes supports the
wrong value system. And a Robert Lepage won't get funding for his new theatrical production, because all
the parts in the previous one were played by white actors.
You no longer need to take their lives.
Without work, the geniuses will fade into obscurity, and the
new PC brigade will make them kneel in solidarity. Individually, members of these combat units of
political correctness are often smart and sophisticated people, but when they close ranks in the fight
for or against something, they turn into an ignorant and aggressive mob.
And there's no point arguing with them. They have only one criterion: are you with us or not? That's
an ideal tool for the new way of abusing individuals – it's not physical, it's psychological.
China has been testing a new system in several provinces via which the citizens and their community
are encouraged to assess the social behavior of individuals by assigning scores for respecting the rules
and values practiced in this society. If you don't achieve a high score, your ranking is low and your
prospects are limited. Isn't this just perfect for the new stormtroopers?! It's a modern reincarnation of
the Munich gang, when a mediocre, covetous burgher pretends to be a civilized, progressive thinker.
They put labels on everyone who disagrees. They love drama and straightforwardness. But they are
incapable of engaging in rational argument. It's only natural that they began with declaring lofty values
and ended with riots. They have started fires and justified arson. But you can't rein in the freedom to
love or hate using a set of rules established by the new ethics committee. Today, being free means being
outside this mob of attacking, hating, condemning, moralizing, angry hypocrites.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely
those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Konstantin Bogomolov is an award-winning Russian theater director, actor, author and
poet.
MSM: We don't call for censorship.
GOOGLE: We know.
MSM: Hey google, we don't like a couple of other news agencies. Do us a
favor.
GOOGLE: No problem comrade
Truth that is painful to hear. Explained with mastery by Tucker Carlson, again. So, after years of radical leftest ideological
brainwashing through mainstream media. Well, we're left with that part of any common sense we've been able to retain in the sane
areas of our paradigms. But, just to make sure they've got us brain controlled, or brain dead. Now we're being sensored in social
media by the big tech mob if we dare to say anything against their radical leftest narrative. For me, really only two things I
can think of to solve this. Be brave and keep speaking up for what each of us believe in, aaand reelect Mr. Trump. Otherwise,
were fu..ed.
I use Duckduckgo as much as possible...it serves the same purpose...it's a search engine... others should try it. Duckduckgo
get it on your phone and delete google.
Not coincidentally, many of those who use the Antifa vexillum are enthusiastic supporters of
and even volunteer mercenaries fighting with the YPG/SDF in an 'International Freedom
Battalion' which claims to be the inheritors of the legacy of the International Brigades which
volunteered to defend the Spanish Republic from fascism in the Spanish Civil War.
Unfortunately, these cosplayers forgot that the original International Brigades were set up by
the Communist International, not the Pentagon. Meanwhile, despite their purported
"anti-fascism", there are no such conscripts to be found defending the Donetsk or Luhansk
People's Republics of eastern Ukraine against literal Nazis in the War in Donbass where the
real front line against fascism has been. Instead, they fight alongside a Zionist and imperial
proxy to help establish an ethno-nation state while the U.S. loots Syria's oil.
One can find signs and banners saying 'Antifa is for Israel'. The Antifa leadership is
heavily Jewish, and it is hence no surprise that you find them fighting for causes that
benefit Israel.
I rather suspect the Occupy Wall Street movement quickly grew into a hot potato that the
largely Jewish wall street oligarchs wanted to suppress. Americans were fresh off the great
financial crises and obscene bailouts that allowed the big banks to maintain bonuses while
avoiding any culpability for crashing the economy.
The anger of the street was quickly directed to race and gender issues. Conveniently since
it took the heat off the Jewish oligarchy that runs the USA and placed it squarely on middle
class white Americans. (Jews can magically become 'not white' when they choose). Of course,
the idea that some Deli manager in Duluth has more power than a Jewish B'Nai Brith member and
hedge fund manager in NYC is laughable, but with enough dollars and Jewish control of the
media, it was easy to pump race baiting and to let OWS wither away.
The working hypothesis should be that Antifa is already subverted and externally controlled (often for nefarious purposes)
organization, Not that different in principle from Red brigades.
On May 31 st , President Trump (or his people)
tweeted: "The United
States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization." Attorney General,
William Barr,
said: "The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in
connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly."
Trump and Barr were referring to the Antifascist collective that has supported the ongoing,
international Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstrations. Mary McCord, an ex-Department of Justice
official, reminds Trump that "no current legal
authority exists for designating domestic organisations as terrorist[s]." At the time of
writing, Trump has taken no action to officially designate Antifa a terror group.
Antifa is a leaderless, direct action platform, making it unusually easy for police,
intelligence groups, and rival organizations to infiltrate and frame for violence. For example,
on the same day that Trump tweeted his wish to see Antifa banned, a livestreamer was forced to
run away after he
incited a New York BLM group to "flip" over a truck before the crowd called him out.
So, let's see how the federal authorities infiltrate, provoke, and subvert.
ANTI-FASCIST ACTION & THE ANTI-NAZI LEAGUE
In Britain, Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) officers "Colin Clark" and "Paul Gray"
(cyphers HN80 and HN126) infiltrated the Socialist Workers' Party and
the Anti-Nazi League between 1977 and 1982. "Geoff" (HN21) raised money for Rock Against Racism
and the Anti-Nazi League in the 1970s, but was an undercover SDS officer. Anthony Lewis ("Bobby
Lewis" HN78) posed as an anti-racist in the 1990s to gather information about Doreen and
Neville Lawrence, whose son, Stephen, was murdered in a racist attack. The Lawrence family
campaigned against the police cover-up of the institutional racism behind their son's death. In
his undercover
role, Lewis had relationships with at least two anti-racist women, Bea and Jenny.
The British group, Anti-Fascist Action, was infiltrated by
the Metropolitan Police's Mark Jenner, who posed as "Mark Cassidy" (HN15). Jenner worked for
the Special Demonstration Squad. Jenner fathered children with a left-wing activist, Alison,
whom he later dumped.
In the US in 2001, it was alleged that the former Roman Catholic priest and anti-fascist,
Bill Wassmuth, was a de facto double-agent, using his Northwest Coalition Against
Malicious Harassment (NWCAMH) as a front to spy on Antifa. Following attacks against Idaho's
Anti-Racist Action (ACA) by a splinter of the racist Aryan Nations, it was alleged that
Wassmuth, who died in 2002, had used his sympathies with ACA as a pretext to gather information
later shared with the police. Disclosure suggests that Wassmuth passed
faxes, flyers, and letters on to Coeur d'Alene's Police Chief, Dave Scates.
It would also appear that Wassmuth worked wittingly or unwittingly with an FBI informant.
Activist and author Jay Taber writes of the broader left-wing groups with which the NWCAMH was
associated: "planted in the midst of the board of this group of social reformers and opponents
of US foreign policy was an FBI informant," whom the authorities could manipulate because of
her status as an immigrant ( Blind Spots , 2003).
THE GLADIO CONNECTION
After WWII, the US and Britain set up "stay behind" networks to fight the Soviets in case of
an invasion of NATO countries. Broadly known as Gladio, the other objective was to use
far-right and fascist groups in Italy, Spain, and elsewhere as a proxy against the pan-European
left. One alleged Gladio operative, Roberto Fiore, was wanted by the Italian authorities for
questioning over the blowing up of the Bologna railway station, Italy, in 1980: an act of
terrorism which killed 80 people and was blamed on the left. But Fiore was an MI6
asset who went on to mentor British racists, including members of the National Front. The
Thatcher government protected
him from extradition.
Fiore alleges that one Carlo Soracchi ("Carlo Neri" HN104), who was working for the Met
Police's Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), tried to provoke two Antifa activists
into firebombing Fiore's London property. Soracchi was later confirmed to be an SDS spy. In
July 2001, he drove Anti-Nazi League activists to a protest in Bradford, which led to the
infamous riots, as the left clashed with the National Front and the British National Party (led
by Fiore's protégé, Nick Griffin). In 2004, Soracchi attended a protest organized
by the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers' union, where it was feared that he was passing on
information about activists to industry black-listers. While spying on the Socialist Party,
Soracchi had relationships with at least three lefty women: Andrea, Beth, and Lindsey.
THE BLACK BLOCK
Since the anti-World Trade Organization "Battle of Seattle" in 1999, gangs of young, masked
vandals have descended on international protests, causing divisions between protestors and
police. These are broadly known as the Black Block, in reference to their dress code. Their
leaderless tactics and choice of attire lump them in with Antifa. But time after time, evidence
exposes their followers as agents provocateur .
In 2007, Heiligendamm, Rostock, Germany, hosted the Group of Eight (G8) meeting. Around
80,000 demonstrators protested that month, only to be met with then-unprecedented
state-violence: "pre-crime" raids, arrests, kettling, and eventual prohibition. After the Black
Block caused trouble, the Federal Constitutional Court banned the demonstrations. Weltreports:
"police have admitted the use of black-clad civilian officers during the summit protests."
Witnesses said that the undercover cop "incited to collect stones from the gravel bed of the
Molli Railway." Another said: "he hurled a stone at the fence and called: 'Get on the cops!'".
Statewatch counted at least five black-clad
provocateurs, some of whom were questioned by peaceful protestors about their agendas and
backgrounds, to which they replied in formal German and refused to answer questions.
Also in 2007, the political leaders of the US, Mexico, and Canada
met in the latter country in Montebello, near Ottawa, to discuss the Security and
Prosperity Partnership 2005. Two thousand people gathered at the chateau to protest. Despite
swearing that they were not provocateurs ("[a]t no time did the police of the
Sûreté du Québec act as instigators or commit criminal acts"), the Quebec
provincial police
acknowledged that they had planted at least three, black-clad, masked, undercover officers
among the protestors. Their police-issued boots gave them away. One of the coppers was seen
carrying a rock. Videographer, Paul Manly,
caught one of the undercover cops slapping the face of a riot squad officer.
In 2010, Vancouver hosted the Winter Olympic Games. The Olympic Resistance Network was there
to protest. Constable Lindsey Houghton of the Vancouver Police
described : "people dressed in all black who were encouraging the vandalism." Harsha Walia
described what activists believed was a provocateur: "He was pushing forward and forcing people
into the police."
CONCLUSION: ANTIFA TODAY
After Trump "won" the election in 2016, a young Baja Fresh manager, June Davies ("Tan"),
donned black to join Antifa in Lake Oswego, Portland, Oregon. Within weeks, "Tan" was
working with Portland Sgt., Jeff Niiya, telling him about planned protest routes.
Alberta-based teacher, Kurt Phillips, set up a website, Anti-Racist Canada, to track
far-right groups. But the far-right Rebel Media alleged that Phillips was also an
informant spying on the left. Phillips strenuously denies Rebel Media 's claim that he
was a "member" of Antifa, but in an
interview, Phillips does not deny or even raise the issue of being an informant against
Antifa. The term "member" does not apply to the member-less, leader-less Antifa. It would be
helpful if Phillips could clear this up.
Antifa came out in support of the recent and ongoing Black Lives Matter protests.
Referring to FBI Director, Christopher Wray, the National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien,
stated: "The president and the attorney general want to know from [Wray] what the FBI has
been doing to track and dismantle and surveil and prosecute Antifa And if that hasn't been
happening, we want to know what the plan is going forward." In early-June, media
reported on "a law enforcement official with access to intelligence" about Antifa.
Also in early-June in Minneapolis, #UmbrellaMan trended on Twitter after a man dressed in
black, carrying an umbrella and wearing a mask, gloves, and boots, was caught by peaceful
protestors breaking AutoZone windows with a hammer shortly before the establishment was set
ablaze. When asked if he is a policeman, Umbrella Man
replied: "Does it matter?" The St. Paul Police Department denies that he's one of their
officers. But it's not just the feds. More recently, @ANTIFA_US
incited violence on Twitter. The fake account was traced to the white supremacist group,
Identity Evropa, and deleted by Twitter.
As usual, the state is the most violent of all the institutions involved. It subverts and
oppresses as methods of its survival. The state typically directs its energy against left-wing
groups while allying with far-right and fascist elements as proxies against progressives. None
of this can be uttered in mainstream media, lest one is accused of conspiracy theorizing.
Grassroots activists, on the other hand, are all-too-aware of these tactics. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: T.J. Coles
It could also be said that not taking the responsibility to ensure who is voted for is not
a type of person who goal is to instill more authority to the government and size really is
more of the problem than voting.
Not voting also does not change the system for in that case the system quickly becomes
filled by those who are hell bent on ensuring the desires of the few become all powerful.
When any country gets to the point where almost more people are employed by the government
than in private sector jobs then you have a problem.
Example which anyone can find.
Nationally, state and local governments employed about 7.4 million full-time equivalent
(FTE) workers in 2014. That's approximately 232 public employees for every 10,000 Americans,
according to Governing calculations of Census survey data.
The only private company that has a large employee base is Walmart at about 1.3 million.
7.4 million people their only way of survival is either from taxes without being done through
a loan or taxes later collected from government taking out a loan.
The plan all along was not just to create competing sides for a vote but also to create a
mass of people who care not to be involved in how government is to become and ran.
The only level needed to be involved is to ensure government doesn't become to big to
eventually stab you in the back while robbing you.
#TermLimitsMatter That is what the people should be on the street protesting for.
The government has already captured without force a part of the population that is willing
to be monitored 24/7 without resistance because of the "Virus Hype". That is the reason the
"Virus" is still being pushed as a threat. It is to ensure those who have been captured
remain so.
Now it appears they are going for the rest of those who might resist such a thing by
allowing violence to flow freely more so than any freedom you think you have.
Eventually both sides will want the "Government" to do something about all forms of
violence. Why do you think there are two forms of violence that is being focused upon? Police
violence and People violence. It is to get both sides to ask for extra government
monitoring.
I always have to go back to the old saying "Be careful what you ask for". It will not be
what you are thinking it's going to be.
Propaganda will tell you the "Truth" and a "Lie" at the same time. It also ushers in a lot
of opinion not only to ensure that the average person can't tell when there are being told
the truth or a lie but also to keep a division going based upon opinions.
It is a "Blood Ritual" and the sides are fighting to see who gets to stab all natural
freedoms in the heart.
I am not trying to tell you how to think. It is your own life and your own choice but damn
it they are trying to kill every form of your choice to believe what freedom really is.
"... Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here in apathetic Australia. ..."
"... When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger - their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research... ..."
"... " We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008 ..."
Sky News Australia In this Special Investigation Sky News speaks to former spies, politicians and investigative journalists to
uncover whether US President Donald Trump is really at war with "unelected Deep State operatives who defy the voters".
George Soros, The clintons, The royal family, The Rothschild's, the Federal reserve as a whole, The modern Democrat, cia, fbi,
nsa, Facebook, Google, not to mention all the faceless unelected bureaucrats who create and push policies that impact our every
day lives. This, my lads, is the deep state. They run our world and get away with whatever they want until someone in their circle
loses their use (Epstein)
The Cabal owns the US intelligence agencies, the media, and Hollywood. That's how all these big name corrupted figure heads
aren't in prison for their crimes. The Clinton email scandal is a prime example. This is much bigger than the USA... it's effects
are world wide.
The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion: 1 - Demoralization 2 - Destabilization 3 - Crisis 4 - Normalization Are you not
entertained? The above is "their" roadmap. Learn what it means and spread this far & wide, as that will be the means by which
to end this.
President JFK on April 17, 1961: "Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared
in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching
troops, no missiles have been fired. If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat
conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of 'clear
and present danger,' then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.
It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman
or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of
elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted
vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried,
not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.
It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match." thoughts: by saying,
'conducts the Cold War' did he directly call out the CIA???
Most troubling now it is known about the deep state: is Trump a double agent just another puppet just giving the appearance
of working against the deep state?
Thank you Australians for having rhe courage to speak out for us Patriots!!! We know the Deep State Cabal retaliated with the
fires. We love you guys from 💖💗
Well done Skynews. THE DEEP STATE IS REAL. I woke up 10+ years ago. Turn off the TV for 1-2 years to study and awaken. Make
a start on learning with David ickes Videos and books. WWG1 WGA
Before I go and pass this on to as many as I can get to follow it I just wanted to commend those that produced this and I hope
that it gets fuller dissemination because it is such a rare truth in such a time of utter deceit by most all of the MSM (Main
Stream Media) that this country I reside in uses to supposedly inform the American people ...what a crock! Thank You, Australia
for making this available (but beware, the Five Eyes are always very active in related matters to this) ... This has been welcome
confirmation of what many of us have known and attempted to tell others for about 5 years now. Sadly, I doubt that has or will
help very much, The System is so corrupted from top to bottom ... IMnsHO and E.
Firstly your definition of 'deep state' is too limited, it includes the bureaucracy, much of the judiciary, banks and other
financial institutions, and the major political parties. It is not restricted only to the intelligence agencies. It is not a US-specific
issue, but a global one. For the deep state exists everywhere, and is often more powerful in commonwealth countries, such as here
in apathetic Australia.
When the CIA kills Kennedy you know you've got problems... And whilst agents in the CIA probably did not pull the trigger -
their "assets" did... If you don't believe me spare me your tiresome ignorant replies and go and do some research...
" We were warned about the Military Industrial Complex, Sadly the Government Media Complex, has done way more damage, and will
be much harder to overcome" ~ Dr. Mike Savage 2008
14:20 I met a guy from Canada in the early
2000s, a telephone technician, told me about when he worked at the time for the government telephone company in the early 80s.
He was given a really strange job one day, to go do some work in the USA. Some kind of repair work that required someone with
experience and know-how, but apparently someone from out-of-country, he guesses, because there certainly must have been many people
in the USA who could have done it, he figured. He flew down to oregon, then was driven for hours out into the middle of nowhere
in navada, he said. They came to a small building that was surrounded by fencing etc. Nothing interesting. Nothing else around,
he said, as far as he could see. They went in, and pretty much all that was there was an elevator. They went in, and he said,
he didn't know how many floors down it went, or how fast it was moving, but seemed to take quite sometime, he figured about 8
stories down, was his guess, but he didn't know. He was astounded to see that there was telephone recording stuff in there about
the size of two football-fields. He said they were recording everything. He said, even at that time, it was all digital, but they
didn't have the capacity to record everything, so it was set up to monitor phone calls, and if any key words were spoken, it would
start recording, and of course it would record all phone calls at certain numbers. "So, who knows what they've got in there today,
he said" back in the early 2000s. So, imagine what they've got there today, in the 2020s. I didn't know whether or not to believe
this story, until I saw a doc about all of the telephone recording tapes they have in storage, rotting away, which were used to
record everyone's phone calls onto magnetic tape. Literally tonnes and tonnes of tapes, just sitting there in storage now, from
the 1970s, the pre-digital days. They've always been doing it. They're just much better at it today than ever. Now they can tell
who you are by your voice, your cadence, your intonation, etc. and record not just a call here and there, but everything.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled is convincing the world he didnt exist" Credit the --- Usual Suspects ---- That's
the playbook of the "Deep State"
The last guy (denying the deep state's existence) was lying. When someone shakes their head when talking in the affirmative
you can be 100% sure it is a lie (micro expressions 101).
Bitcoin Blockchain
1 day ago
1950–1953: Korean War United States (as part of the United Nations) and South Korea vs. North Korea and Communist China
1960–1975: Vietnam War United States and South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam
1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion United States vs. Cuba
1983: Grenada United States intervention
1989: U.S.Invasion of Panama United States vs. Panama
1990–1991: Persian Gulf War United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
1995–1996: Intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina United States as part of NATO acted as peacekeepers in former Yugoslavia
2001–present: Invasion of Afghanistan United States and Coalition Forces vs. the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to fight terrorism
2003–2011: Invasion of Iraq The United States and Coalition Forces vs. Iraq
2004–present: War in Northwest Pakistan United States vs. Pakistan, mainly drone attacks
2007–present: Somalia and Northeastern Kenya United States and Coalition forces vs. al-Shabaab militants
2009–2016: Operation Ocean Shield (Indian Ocean) NATO allies vs. Somali pirates
2011: Intervention in Libya U.S. and NATO allies vs. Libya
2011–2017: Lord's Resistance Army U.S. and allies against the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda
2014–2017: U.S.-led Intervention in Iraq U.S. and coalition forces against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria
2014–present: U.S.-led intervention in Syria U.S. and coalition forces against al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Syria
2015–present: Yemeni Civil War Saudi-led coalition and the U.S., France, and Kingdom against the Houthi rebels, Supreme Political Council in Yemen, and allies
2015–present: U.S. intervention in Libya
Deep State is the "Wealthy Oligarchy", an "International Mafia" who controls the Central Bank (a privacy owned banking system
which controls the worlds currencies). The Wealthy Oligarchy "aka Deep State" controls most all Democratic countries, and controls
the International Media. In the United States, both the Republican and Democrat parties are controlled by the Wealthy Oligarchy
aka Deep State.
A beautifully crafted and delivered discourse, impressive! As a Londoner I have become increasingly interested in Sky News
Australia, you are a breath of fresh air and common sense in this world of ever growing liberal media hysteria!
I have to laugh at the people, including our supposedly unbiased and intelligent media, who said the Russia thing was the truth
when it was nothing but a conspiracy theory. Everything else was a conspiacy theory according to the dems ans the mainstream media..
Wall Street and the banksters control the CIA. One can imagine the ramifications of control of the world via the moneyed interests
backed by James Bond and the Green Berets, the latter, under control of the CIA.
Deep State Powers have been messing with your USA long before your War of Independence . Your Founding Fathers knew , why do
you think they wrote your Constitution that way. Now everyone is always crying about something but fail to realize you gave your
freedoms away over time . The Deep State never left it just disguised itself and continued to regain control under a new face
or ideaology. Follow the money . "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."― Edmund Burke
After the John F. Kennedy assassination the took full power,those who are in power now are the descendants of the criminals
who did it,some of their sons just have a different last name but they are the same family,like George Bush and John Kerry are
cousins but different last name and the list goes and goes.
Council on Foreign Relation is more Deep State than CIA and FBI . The two worked for CFR. CFR tel president whom to appoint
to what positions. Nixon got a list of 22 deep state candidates for top US position and all were hired. Obama appointed 11 from
the list. Kissinger is behind the scenes strings puller also.
Thanks Sky and Peter for bringing this to the mainstream attention, it really is time! Wished you had aired John Kiriakou,s
other claims off child sex trafficking to the elites which has been corroborated by so many other sources now and is the grossest
deformity of this deep state which you can see footage of trump talking about. I am amazed and greatful to see Trump has done
more about this than all other presidents in the last 20 years. Lets end this group. All we need to do is shine the light on them
The CIA are only an intelligence and operations functioning part of the deep state its much more complex and larger than just
the CIA. The British empire controls the deep state they always have it is just a modern version of the old East India Company
controlled by the same families with the same ideology.
https://theduran.com/the-origins-of-the-deep-state-in-north-america/
It's funny how for decades "the people" were crying on their knees about how bad every president was n how corrupt n controlled
they were. Now you've got a president with no special interest groups publicly calling out the deep state n ur still bitching.
U know you've got someone representing the people when the cia n fbi r out to get him. In 50 years trump will be looked back at
with the likes of Washington, Lincoln n jfk. Once the msm smear campaign is out of everyone's brain.
When they start spying on people within the United States and when they used in National Defense authorization act that gave
them a lot of power since after 911 to give them more power now they have Homeland Security which is the next biggest threat to
the United States it can be abused and some of these people have a higher security clearance than the president.... they're not
under control the NSA is one of them you don't mention in here either one is about the more that you don't even know about that
they don't have names are acronyms that we knew about that's why the American people have been blindsided by this overtime they've
been giving all this money to do things... allocation of money they gathered to do this and now Congress itself doesn't know temperature
of Schumer when you caught him saying to see I can get back at you three ways to Sunday I mean he's got some words in this saying
to the president of usa donald trump... basically threatening the President right there.. you can see it's alive and well when
Congress is immune from prosecution from anything or anyone....
"I think in light of all of the things going on, and you know what I mean by that: the fake news, the Comeys of the world,
all of the bad things that went on, it's called the swamp you know what I did," he asked. "A big favor. I caught the swamp. I
caught them all. Let's see what happens. Nobody else could have done that but me. I caught all of this corruption that was going
on and nobody else could have done it."
there is no big secret that CIA is deeply involved in drug smuggling operations...i remember interview with ex marine colonel
who said that he was indirectly involved in such operations in panama...
Attempting to infiltrate News rooms😆😅😂 all those faces you see in the MSM are all working for Cia. In 1967 one of the 3
letter agencys bragged about having a reporter working in 1 of the 3 letter news channel!
Wow this was really good. It's funny you showed a clip from abc of kouriakow and it reminded me how much the news in america
has been propagandized and just fake. I'm 38 and it's sad that these days the news is unpatriotic. Well most . Ty sky news Australia
Why no mention of what facilitates the surveilance? Telecom infrastructure is a nations nerve system and the powergrid its
bloodsystem. Who controls them? That is where you find the head of the deep state!
What people aren't aware of is that Facebook YouTube Twitter Instagram Google maps and Google search are all NSA CIA and DIA
creations and CEO's are only highly paid operatives who are not the creators but the face of a product and what better way to
collect all of your information is by you giving it to them
More please? A subject for another installment regarding the Deep State could be Banking, Federal Reserves and Fiat currencies.
Later, another video could be Russia's success at expelling the Deep State in 2000 after it took them over (for a 2nd time) in
1991. Be cognizant, the Deep State initially had for a short time from 1917 via 'it's' 'Bolshivics,' orchestrated the creation
of the Soviet Union through the Bolshivic take over of Russia from it's independence minded and Soveriegn Czarist led Eastern
Orthodox State. Now, President Trump is preventing a similar Deep State take-over by Intelligence agencies, Corporations and elected
political thugs as bad as Leon Trotsky and V I Lennin were to the Russian Czar. The Soviets soon after their (1917) take-over
went Rogue on the Deep State and therefore the Soviet Union was independent until The Deep State orchestrated it's downfall and
anexation of it's substantial wealth and some territory (1991). More, more, more please Sky News, this video was great!
Amazing, Sky News is the ONLY TV News Service in Australia Trying to deliver true news. Australia's ABC news are CIA Deep State
Shills and propagandists - Sarah Ferguson Especially - see her totally CIA scripted Four Corners Report on the Russia Hoax. John
Gantz IS a Deep State Operative Liar.
Isnt it time to see TERM LIMITS in Co gress and to realign our school education to teach the real history of these unites states?
End the control of Congress and watch the agencies fall in step with OUR Conatitution. No one should ever be allowed in Congress
or any other elected position of trust if they are not a devout Constitutionalist. Anyone who takes the oath to see w the people
and fails to so so should be charged with TREASON and removed immediately. Is there a DEEP STATE? Damn right there is and has
been for many decades. Where is our sovereignty? Where is the wealth of a capitalist nation? Why so much poverty and welfare and
why do communists and socialist get away with damaging our country, state or communities. Yes, there has been a deep state filled
with criminals who all need to be charged, tried and executed for TREASON.
The CIA and Australias Federal police have One main Job/activity to feed their Populations with Propaganda & Lies to give them
their Thoughts & Opinions on Everything using their psyOps through MSM News & Programming...you prolly beLIEve this informative
News Story as well. : (
These people denying a deep state with such straight faces are psychopaths. Unwittingly, or maybe not, Schumer made liars of
them with his comment to Maddow
President Trump is correct. He knows exactly what's going on. The 3 letter agencies are up to no good and work against the
fabric of our nation's founding fathers. It's despicable behavior. Just one example is John Brennan (CIA Director) and Barack
Hussein Obama's Terror Tuesdays. Read all about it on the internet now before it's permanently removed. Thank you for creating
this video.
When was the last time we ever witnessed an American President openly abused continually attacked over manufactured news treated
with absolutely no respect for him or the office his family unfairly attacked and misrepresented etc, etc, that's right never,
which proves he threatens the existence of the deep state as discussed. He should declare Martial Law Hang the consequences and
remove every single deep state player everywhere. Foreign influence? read Israel.
People are so fixated on trumps outspoken Sometimes outrageous demeanor which in my opinion it's just being really honest and
yes he can Be rude at times but when you look at the facts He's the only one that has gone against the deep state! those are the
real devils dressed up in sheep's clothing! Wake up!
You are missing the point. It goes further then intelligence agency working against the people. It's the ultra rich literally
trillionaires like the rothchilds that control the cia etc. That is who trump is fighting. The globalists line gates soros etc.
There is a counter-insurgence operation ongoing to demonize and hijack the original genuine
leaderless protests sparked by the murdering of Floyd in broad day-light by a gang of
policemen.
In this, the US is an expert, having mastered its expertise through the past Cold War
through its Gladio operations.
If you followed the videos linked by the people and independent journalists through social
media, there were lots of young, and not so, white and black people of various ways of life
demonstrating against policial violence and race hatred instigated to unknown heights in
decades by the current occupant of the WH.
After the first peaceful protests, riots started, riots which we witnessed being started
by police plants and infiltrators, and then followed by usual neighborhood gangs who always
fish in chaos.
The counter-insurgence operation started just after first days of protests, as the
authorities saw this was not a passing phenomena, but merely the drop which filled the glass
of US citizenry stamina to cop with Trump´s presidency´s ravage of the
country.
After some days of riots, some figures, impersonating BLM or Black Panthers started
appearing heading the demonstrations which, by their modeling look, suggested all the way an
intent on hijacking the protests for the political benefit of the Democratic Party, that is
the US establishment. The obvious fake support to the protests by Democrat politicians who
have never done anything for equality and to put an end to policial violence, only comes in
benefit of Trump, whose election was in danger after his disastrous management of the
Covid-19 pandemic in the US left his polls acceptance in thel owest marks. The only way to
save Trump´s reelection was to push the people´s rage to the limit,by the public
summary execution of Floyd, to then push chaos and violence, by the riots started by the
police and infiltrators, so that Trump can appear, since the Democrats appear supporting the
protests, as the only one who could bring "law and order" again, the only way he could win
the election after having proved inept for anything else, except applying fascist methods
needed to counter with the awareness by the people which will take place around September on
that they have been robbed of anything thye had left, this time at armed hand.
US "Antifa" movement, is probably to the real international antifascist movement as the
Democratic Party is to the real international left, a fake built by TPTB to deprestigiate,
demonize and disband the left and genuine protests by justified causes.
"Antifa" allied with the YPG kurds supported by the US in the Syrian war against the
legitimate government of Syria.
No antifascist will ally ever with an Imperialist fascist nation like the US is today
anywhere by whatever reason....As a proof, you could find real antifascists fighting along
the Donbass people which was in the way of being exterminated by the fascist junta unleashed
on them by the US through "color revolution" so called Maidan...
With this, I do not want to say there could not be genuine antifascist people who, by
ignorance or naivety join "Antifa" in the US. With this may happen as with the NGOs, of which
many of us have fallen victims out of lack of information and naivety proper of our youth
days.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr has
blamed Antifa -- a militant "anti-fascist" movement -- for the violence that has erupted at
George Floyd protests across the United States. "The violence instigated and carried out by
Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will
be treated accordingly," he said.
Barr also
said that the federal government has evidence that Antifa "hijacked" legitimate protests
around the country to "engage in lawlessness, violent rioting, arson, looting of businesses,
and public property assaults on law enforcement officers and innocent people, and even the
murder of a federal agent." Earlier, U.S. President Donald J. Trump had instructed the U.S.
Justice Department to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization.
Academics and media outlets sympathetic to Antifa have argued that the group cannot be
classified as a terrorist organization because, they
claim , it is a vaguely-defined protest movement that lacks a centralized structure. Mark
Bray, a vocal apologist for Antifa in America and author of the book "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist
Handbook," asserts
that Antifa "is not an overarching organization with a chain of command."
Empirical and anecdotal evidence shows that Antifa is, in fact, highly networked,
well-funded and has a global presence. It has a flat organizational structure with dozens and
possibly hundreds of local groups. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Department of Justice is
currently
investigating individuals linked to Antifa as a step to unmasking the broader
organization.
In the United States, Antifa's ideology, tactics and goals, far from being novel, are
borrowed almost entirely from Antifa groups in Europe, where so-called anti-fascist groups, in
one form or another, have been active, almost without interruption, for a century.
What
is Antifa?
Antifa can be described as a transnational insurgency movement that endeavors, often with
extreme violence, to subvert liberal democracy, with the aim of replacing global capitalism
with communism. Antifa's stated long-term objective, both in America and abroad, is to
establish a communist world order. In the United States, Antifa's immediate aim is to bring
about the demise of the Trump administration.
Antifa's nemeses include law enforcement, which is viewed as enforcing the established
order. A common tactic used by Antifa in the United States and Europe is to employ extreme
violence and destruction of public and private property to goad the police into a reaction,
which then "proves" Antifa's claim that the government is "fascist."
Antifa claims to oppose "fascism," a term it often uses as a broad-brush pejorative to
discredit those who hold opposing political beliefs. The traditional meaning of "fascism" as
defined by Webster's Dictionary is "a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and
emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism."
Antifa holds the Marxist-Leninist definition of fascism which equates it with capitalism.
"The fight against fascism is only won when the capitalist system has been shattered and a
classless society has been achieved," according to the German Antifa group, Antifaschistischer
Aufbau München .
Germany's BfV domestic intelligence agency, in a special report on left-wing extremism,
noted
:
"Antifa's fight against right-wing extremists is a smokescreen. The real goal remains the
'bourgeois-democratic state,' which, in the reading of left-wing extremists, accepts and
promotes 'fascism' as a possible form of rule and therefore does not fight it sufficiently.
Ultimately, it is argued, 'fascism' is rooted in the social and political structures of
'capitalism.' Accordingly, left-wing extremists, in their 'antifascist' activities, focus
above all on the elimination of the 'capitalist system.'"
Matthew Knouff, author of An Outsider's Guide to Antifa: Volume II , explained Antifa's ideology
this way:
"The basic philosophy of Antifa focuses on the battle between three basic forces: fascism,
racism and capitalism -- all three of which are interrelated according to Antifa.... with
fascism being considered the final expression or stage of capitalism, capitalism being a
means to oppress, and racism being an oppressive mechanism related to fascism."
In an essay, "What Antifa and the Original Fascists Have In Common," Antony Mueller, a
German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil, described how Antifa's
militant anti-capitalism masquerading as anti-fascism reveals its own fascism:
"After the left has pocketed the concept of liberalism and turned the word into the
opposite of its original meaning, the Antifa-movement uses a false terminology to hide its
true agenda. While calling themselves 'antifascist' and declaring fascism the enemy, the
Antifa itself is a foremost fascist movement.
"The members of Antifa are not opponents to fascism but themselves its genuine
representatives. Communism, Socialism and Fascism are united by the common band of
anti-capitalism and anti-liberalism.
"The Antifa movement is a fascist movement. The enemy of this movement is not fascism but
liberty, peace and prosperity."
Antifa's Ideological Origins
The ideological origins of Antifa can be traced back to the Soviet Union roughly a century
ago. In 1921 and 1922, the Communist International (Comintern) developed
the so-called united front tactic to "unify the working masses through agitation and
organization" ... "at the international level and in each individual country" against
"capitalism" and "fascism" -- two terms that often were used interchangeably.
The world's first anti-fascist group, Arditi del Popolo (People's Courageous Militia), was
founded in Italy in June 1921 to resist the rise of Benito Mussolini's National Fascist Party,
which itself was
established to prevent the possibility of a Bolshevik revolution on the Italian Peninsula.
Many of the group's 20,000 members, consisting of communists and anarchists, later joined the
International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War (1936–39).
In Germany, the Communist Party of Germany established the paramilitary group Roter
Frontkämpferbund (Red Front Fighters League) in July 1924. The group was banned due to its
extreme violence. Many of its 130,000 members continued their activities underground or in
local successor organizations such as the Kampfbund gegen den Faschismus (Fighting-Alliance
Against Fascism).
In Slovenia, the militant anti-fascist movement TIGR was established in 1927 to oppose the
Italianization of Slovene ethnic areas after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The
group, which was disbanded in 1941, specialized in assassinating Italian police and military
personnel.
In Spain, the Communist Party established the Milicias Antifascistas Obreras y Campesinas
(Antifascist Worker and Peasant Militias), which were active in the 1930s.
The modern Antifa movement derives its name from a group called Antifaschistische Aktion ,
founded in May 1932 by Stalinist leaders of the Communist Party of Germany. The group was
established to fight fascists, a term the party used to describe all of the other
pro-capitalist political parties in Germany. The primary objective of Antifaschistische Aktion
was to abolish capitalism, according to a detailed history of the group. The group, which had
more than 1,500 founding members, went underground after Nazis seized power in 1933.
A German-language pamphlet -- "80 Years of Anti-Fascist Actions" ( 80 Jahre
Antifaschistische Aktion )" -- describes
in minute detail the continuous historical thread of the Antifa movement from its ideological
origins in the 1920s to the present day. The document states
:
"Antifascism has always fundamentally been an anti-capitalist strategy. This is why the
symbol of the Antifaschistische Aktion has never lost its inspirational power....
Anti-fascism is more of a strategy than an ideology."
During the post-war period, Germany's Antifa movement reappeared in various manifestations,
including the radical student protest movement of the 1960s, and the leftist insurgency groups
that were active throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.
The Red Army Faction (RAF), also known as the Baader-Meinhof Gang, was a Marxist urban
guerrilla group that carried out assassinations, bombings and kidnappings aimed at bringing
revolution to West Germany, which the group characterized as a fascist holdover of the Nazi
era. Over the course of three decades, the RAF murdered more than 30 people and injured over
200.
After the collapse of the communist government in East Germany in 1989-90, it was discovered
that the RAF had been given training, shelter, and supplies by the Stasi, the secret police of
the former communist regime.
John Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor University, described the group's
tactics, which are similar to those used by Antifa today:
"The goal of their terrorist campaign was to trigger an aggressive response from the
government, which group members believed would spark a broader revolutionary movement."
RAF founder Ulrike Meinhof explained the relationship between
violent left-wing extremism and the police: "The guy in uniform is a pig, not a human being.
That means we don't have to talk to him and it is wrong to talk to these people at all. And of
course, you can shoot."
Bettina Röhl, a German journalist and daughter of Meinhof, argues that the modern
Antifa movement is a continuation of the Red Army Faction. The main difference is that, unlike
the RAF, Antifa's members are afraid to reveal their identities. In a June 2020 essay published
by the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung , Röhl also drew attention
to the fact that Antifa is not only officially tolerated, but is being paid by the German
government to fight the far right:
"The RAF idolized the communist dictatorships in China, North Korea, North Vietnam, in
Cuba, which were transfigured by the New Left as better countries on the right path to the
best communism....
"The flourishing left-wing radicalism in the West, which brutally strikes at the opening
of the European Central Bank headquarters in Frankfurt, at every G-20 summit or every year on
May 1 in Berlin, has achieved the highest level of establishment in the state, not least
thanks to the support by quite a few MPs from political parties, journalists and relevant
experts.
"Compared to the RAF, the militant Antifa only lacks prominent faces. Out of cowardice,
its members cover their faces and keep their names secret. Antifa constantly threatens
violence and attacks against politicians and police officers. It promotes senseless damage to
property amounting to vast sums. Nevertheless, MP Renate Künast (Greens) recently
complained in the Bundestag that Antifa groups had not been adequately funded by the state in
recent decades. She was concerned that 'NGOs and Antifa groups do not always have to struggle
to raise money and can only conclude short-term employment contracts from year to year.'
There was applause for this from Alliance 90 / The Greens, from the left and from SPD
deputies.
"One may ask the question of whether Antifa is something like an official RAF, a terrorist
group with money from the state under the guise of 'fighting against the right.'"
Germany's BfV domestic intelligence agency explains
Antifa's glorification of violence:
"For left-wing extremists, 'Capitalism' is interpreted as triggering wars, racism,
ecological disasters, social inequality and gentrification. 'Capitalism' is therefore more
than just a mere economic order. In left-wing extremist discourse, it determines the social
and political form as well as the vision of a radical social and political reorganization.
Whether anarchist or communist: Parliamentary democracy as a so-called bourgeois form of rule
should be 'overcome' in any case.
"For this reason, left-wing extremists usually ignore or legitimize human rights
violations in socialist or communist dictatorships or in states that they allegedly see
threatened by the 'West.' To this day, both orthodox communists and autonomous activists
justify, praise and celebrate the left-wing terrorist Red Army Faction or foreign left-wing
terrorists as alleged 'liberation movements' or even 'resistance fighters.'"
Meanwhile, in Britain, Anti-Fascist Action (AFA), a militant anti-fascist group founded in
1985, gave birth to the Antifa movement in the United States. In Germany, the Antifaschistische
Aktion-Bundesweite Organisation (AABO) was founded in 1992
to combine the efforts of smaller Antifa groups scattered around the country.
In Sweden, Antifascistisk Aktion (AFA), a militant Antifa group founded in 1993, established
a three-decade track record for using extreme violence against its opponents. In France, the
Antifa group L'Action antifasciste , is known
for its fierce opposition to the State of Israel.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the collapse of communism in 1990, the Antifa
movement opened a new front against neoliberal globalization.
Attac, established in France in 1989 to promote a global tax on financial transactions, now
leads the so-called alter-globalization movement, which, like the Global Justice Movement, is
opposed to
capitalism. In 1999, Attac was present in Seattle during violent demonstrations that led to the
failure of WTO negotiations. Attac also participated in anti-capitalist demonstrations against
the G7, the G20, the WTO, and the war in Iraq. Today, the association is active in 40
countries, with more than a thousand local groups and hundreds of organizations supporting the
network. Attac's decentralized and non-hierarchical organizational structure appears to be the
model being used by Antifa.
In February 2016, the International Committee of the Fourth International advanced the political
foundations of the global anti-war movement, which, like Antifa, blames capitalism and
neoliberal globalism for the existence of military conflict:
"The new anti-war movement must be anti-capitalist and socialist, since there can be no
serious struggle against war except in the fight to end the dictatorship of finance capital
and the economic system that is the fundamental cause of militarism and war."
In July 2017, more than 100,000 anti-globalization and Antifa protesters converged on the
German city of Hamburg to protest the G20 summit. Leftist mobs
laid waste to the city center. An Antifa group called "G20 Welcome to Hell" bragged about how it
was able to mobilize Antifa groups from across the world:
"The summit mobilizations have been precious moments of meeting and co-operation of
left-wing and anti-capitalist groups and networks from all over Europe and world-wide. We
have been sharing experiences and fighting together, attending international meetings, being
attacked by cops supported by the military, re-organizing our forces and fighting back.
Anti-globalization movement has changed, but our networks endure. We are active locally in
our regions, cities, villages and forests. But we are also fighting trans-nationally."
Germany's domestic security service, in an annual report, added :
"Left-wing extremist structures tried to shift the public debate about the violent G20
summit protests in their favor. With the distribution of photos and reports of allegedly
disproportionate police measures during the summit protests, they promoted an image of a
state that denounced legitimate protests and put them down with police violence. Against such
a state, they said, 'militant resistance' is not only legitimate, but also necessary."
Part II of this series will examine the activities of Antifa in Germany and the United
States.
Coram Justice , 34 minutes ago
One can see why Antifa comrades conceal their identities. If in the coming dog days of
summer, the rule: "Nine meals to anarchy," is exceeded, and Civil War-2 breaks out, the
Antifa instigators of violence could be in grave trouble.
Maltheus , 49 minutes ago
Any right-wing group, attempting to do what antifa has done, would have been broken up
long ago. The fact that they've been able to engage in violence, with little to no
accountability, tells me that this is a state-sponsored group.
LightBeamCowboy , 1 hour ago
I had a chance to talk once with a young 82nd Airborne army officer who was fresh back
from a posting in intelligence in Eastern Europe where he had to interface regularly with his
CIA counterparts. He described them thusly: "To a man, they were boneheads."
Iconoclast27 , 59 minutes ago
Operation Gladio would prove otherwise, they use these groups on the left and right for
political purposes, namely to maintain the existing gov't structure.
Operation Gladio - BBC documentary from 1992, they even interview the CIA director at the
time (I believe William Colby? It has been awhile) about their role in these groups
activities.
Drop-Hammer , 1 hour ago
Of course these Antifa rabble are organized and supported by outside benefactors. A young
person with no visible means of support can not travel cross-country or to other countries to
'protest' without money. Same holds true for all terrorism. Money is the life-blood. We know
that in the past, it was countries such as the Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba, et al that
provided money to leftists/terrorists to destabilize western nations and governments. Today,
it is NGO's and individuals with king-pins such as the demonic *** vampire (((George Soros)))
who fund this chaos/mayhem.
LightBeamCowboy , 1 hour ago
...remember that the entire push to take down Trump has been tax-funded. From the FBI and
DOJ, to the Mueller Report, to the Obama White House, to Congress itself, hundreds of
millions of tax dollars have now been spent to obstruct or remove a duly elected president
based on nothing but lies. But when the arrests begin for all the lies, subversion, and
sedition, wait for the Dems to claim that it's all "political", not hard evidence of crimes
these people can be prosecuted for "by the book" as Obama would say.
Iskiab , 1 hour ago
What's most troubling is the widespread democrat acceptance of these tactics. Try and get
a Democrat to say someone's a looter and not a demonstrator, it's next to impossible.
It was also pretty genius to recruit so hard amongst rich white kids. If these autonom
zones or looters were black or poor kids there'd have been a crackdown by now. Instead we
have the police being asked to de-escalate.
It's no wonder police are so confused. They've been trained to control a situation at all
costs for the last 20 years, now it's white kids so they're being told to use different
rules.
Sandmann , 1 hour ago
When the two Brooklyn lawyers get to meet their future in the US penal system it might
create some reality check
Aquamaster , 1 hour ago
Because Democrats are totalitarians as well. They have always had their military wing.
First it was the KKK, who, in fact, killed whites as well as blacks. Now it is Antifa. They
have no problem with radical left wing groups terrorizing the population as long as it will
translate into more votes. They will buy your vote, steal your vote, change your vote, or
coerce your vote by any means necessary.
silverwolf888 , 2 hours ago
It was established in the 80's that Meinhof was Gladio, A creation and asset of German
Intelligence. The goal was to discredit the Ostpolitik movement.
This is an established fact, yet the article attempts to deceive you by ignoring it. The
Red Brigades in Italy were the same, part of Operation Gladio.
Antifa in America has been untouchable since 1986, when Reagan gave the Jews control of
American policy.
Many believe a new kind of Gladio has been in play since that time. Certainly the feds
have worked hand in glove with Antifa for decades.
Now Trump says he wants to designate them a terrorist group. But he only has a few months
left, and cannot get any orders obeyed, and his administration is stocked to the gills with
Globalists.
Perhaps the FBI wants to sever that relationship. It is true that since Comey was fired
the mass shootings that had been happening for decades have stopped. So there is hope.
But this article is deliberate disinformation. Antifa was a Soviet creation to begin
with.
Sandmann , 1 hour ago
Red Brigades were CIA directed to kill Aldo Moro so he would not bring Communists into
Coalition in Rome
Operation Gladio BBC documentary from 1992, all sides are clearly subverted.
TheOutlander , 2 hours ago
Antifa is Zionist *** sponsored fascist organization, period. Their sponsor, Soros, should
be executed first, prosecuted later.
Jacksons Ghost , 2 hours ago
The Feds are not going to do squat. Trump has done nothing to stand up to his enemies in
his whole term. Build Wall=Nope Drain Swamp=Nope indict Hillary=Nope Take on Globalist= Nope
He talked a great game and in the end did nothing. Now granted, he has been hamstrung by
impeachment and his enemies, but at what point does he say "**** it" and lay waste. He has
failed us. I will vote for him again, because the alternative is insane. Still, I am
disappointed.
LightBeamCowboy , 1 hour ago
Even in the above article it talks of these "anti-fascist" groups using the tactic of
goading the police/government into an over-reaction that will turn the public against them.
Trump has wisely left responding to these riots to the local governors and mayors so that
they own the results, not him. There is already evidence that this tactic is turning people
against their Dem elected officials and towards Trump. Q has repeatedly said that sometimes
you have to let people see exactly who these people are before you can win the silent
majority to your side. Antifa and BLM were just handed enough rope to hang themselves -- no
sane American could support them now.
Vernon_Dent , 2 hours ago
There's still slavery in Africa . Now. In the 21st. Century. And it has NOTHING to do with
whitey.
What do all the jive *** BLM hypocrite assholes and cuck boy Antifags have the say about
it?--absolutely nothing.
All those little SJW black and white *** boys should just stick to fellating each
other.
Time to get huge' , 2 hours ago
That's a lot to write when you could have just said CIA/DHS/FBI....It's another ISIS
creation....Originally from:
SoDamnMad , 3 hours ago
Given that our FBI 's main goal is to protect and defend the United States, to uphold and
enforce the criminal laws of the United States but couldn't overthrow the duly elected
President of the United State using their international contacts in the UK, Australia and
Ukraine, how about they find and break antifa before the Republic is destroyed. If the FBI
now finds that supporting Antifa will destroy Trump then they have to ask themselves who in
this broken Republic will pay their salaries and pensions. It will all be gone.
hootowl , 2 hours ago
The FBI is/and probably always has been a broken/unconstitutional national policing
agency, which our founders assiduously avoided providing in the U.S. Constitution, has run
amok ever since the early days of homosexual J. Edgar Hoovers leadership. It will certainly
NEVER become a lawful, trustworthy, agency under Christopher Wray and his cadre of
ne'er'do'wells in the Hoover Building coven of operatives + 17 Deep State
fauxjew/Edomite/Khazarian/Mossad/dominated alleged intelligence agencies.........That is
absolutely preposterous!!!
Antifa exists because elements in government allow it.
recent events should prove that. the mayor of DC all but handed out arms to encourage an
attack on the white house. the mayor of seattle refused to act, and even vowed to protect
protesters if Trump intervenes. in city after city, governments have refused to do more than
observe the violence. search, and there are entire web sites with hundreds of accounts filled
with coordination efforts. there are hundreds of groups and hundreds of millions of dollars
sloshing about.
all of this with a security state that monitors internet chatter, emails, cell calls, and
bank transfers?
antifa, and by extension, the current turmoil, can only be operating with the tacit
approval of certain elements of the establishment.
it is literally impossible for the government to not know what is going on.
Max21c , 3 hours ago
Sorry but Baader-Meinhof does not control the New York City Mayor's office.
This is entirely on a faction of radical screwball left wing Liberal Elites atop and
inside the Democrat Party.
tangent , 4 hours ago
What part of fascism are they supposed to be against? Certainly they enjoy censorship,
randomly beating the **** out of people who have different opinions than they do, and their
headquarters in Seattle shows strong border controls against unwanted classes of people by
warlord Raz who you can only defeat by rap battle.
OTMPut , 4 hours ago
Academics and media outlets sympathetic to Antifa have argued that the group cannot be
classified as a terrorist organization because, they
claim , it is a vaguely-defined protest movement that lacks a centralized
structure.
Ain't Al Qaeda like that? We have developed a a large body of laws and "special judiciary"
procedures to deal with them. We just need to apply them! Who is in favour of a Guantanamo
bay in Portland?
Le Baron , 3 hours ago
Having viewed and studied the Anarchist movement in Europe over several decades, and long
before Antifa showed up as a force in U.S. politics, I have concluded that Antifa is one and
the same as the European Anarchist movement. The Anarchists have a long history in Europe.
Other than chaos and destruction used to promote social unrest, they have no agenda beyond
destruction of whatever government is in power in the areas where they operate. History shows
that, in the few cases where they have successfully grabbed power on a limited basis, the
result is the same as Seattle is now experiencing: creation of a power vacuum into which the
most thuggish and brutal step. The fact that Anarchists/Antifa supporters do not operate in
Communist counties or true Dictatorships is that these power structures do not tolerate
dissent, brutally suppress it and the Anarchist/Antifa supporters know it. To summarize:
unlike true freedom fighters (e.g.: Thomas Payne, Martin Luther King, etc.) Anarchists/Antifa
supporters are cowardly thugs who offer nothing to overall society
nodhannum , 4 hours ago
KKK = democrats with white masks that burn crosses
Antifa = democrats with black masks that burn black businesses
What they both have in common is they are racist and totalitarian. The KKK goes for overt
racism. Antifa goes for the soft sneaky kind of racism of low expectations and the
development of dependency in the group to be subjugated.
Summers Eve , 4 hours ago
Downvoter doesn't like you leaking the truth
Oboneterm , 3 hours ago
How many Black owned businesses around the county were burned to the ground by antifa?
Answer.......All of them.
Commodore 1488 , 3 hours ago
This concept of comparing the Democratic ideology of 1850's to the anarchists/Democrats of
today is FLAGRANTLY false! First off the
Republicans ever since 1865 have empirically controlled America. The Democrats immediately
following 1865 couldn't even hold office. The KKK was a civil defense group when the average
Southerners had no voice after their defeat. The KKK helped to prevent northern extortion
plans, lawlessness, and in general was trying to protect against overreaching aggression in a
post apocalyptic war torn zone.
These anarchists on the otherhand are doing the exact opposite. They are tearing down an
established order with MAYBE a future order in mind. But even if they have a future order in
mind it seems that implementing it against the will of the majority is ok.
Caliphate Connie and the Headbangers , 1 hour ago
The KKK was formed by the southerners who were completely disillusioned by both the
confederates and the Union. Neither one offered anything before or after the war. The wealthy
owned the slaves, 95% of southerners did not own slaves, and after the war now they had even
more competition just to survive. They originally formed the Klan because they wanted to
reimplement the CLAN system, as in the Scottish Clans. Remember the Scots Clans were opposed
to the Union, meaning the United Kingdom and it was only 100 years earlier that the British
destroyed the Clans in Scotland. Most were rounded up and deported to the Americas as slaves
by the Union of the Crowns, The United Kingdom. As kids these Southerners would have heard of
all of it as children from their parents and grandparents. The Clan systems worked for 1000's
of years and provided security and a certain standard of living. We don't have a country
anymore, we just are diverse peoples being controlled and manipulated by
Internationalists.
IvannaHumpalot , 4 hours ago
Dangerous and violent
daily Mail group sent out an email to staff saying they would donate to black lives
matter
Ted Baker , 4 hours ago
another way to sell news..i think they should close the newspaper down or do an
independent enquiry.
Infinite QE , 4 hours ago
E. Michael Jones `The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit'. Can't understand any of this without
that book's wisdom.
Along with many other books the ADL has censored for inordinate truthiness.
Arch_Stanton , 3 hours ago
Jews have served our owners as tax farmers for centuries. "Revolution" is another product
they supply to our owners.
Sparehead , 4 hours ago
"decentralized and non-hierarchical organizational structure appears to be the model being
used by Antifa."
Arch_Stanton , 3 hours ago
BS.
Sparehead , 2 hours ago
I'm not denying that these are well-organized and well-funded largely criminal political
organizations. Just that it's structured in a way to allow its supporters the denial of
support.
Arch_Stanton , 1 hour ago
Yes. They are compartmentalized. Like the Masons, for example.
IvannaHumpalot , 3 hours ago
Thrr Er y have a structure of cells similar to multilevel marketing or Hizb ut tahrir
no official leader or member list For safety
a cell of 5 will have one recruiter / head who reports up to the next cell of five
nobody not in the cell knows the names of that cell and everyone uses fake names
anyway
Just a guess
847328_3527 , 5 hours ago
Anteefer (white kids dressed in black) and BLM burned down a significant portion of the
Bronx in NYC. 83% of the businesses destroyed in the Bronx by these white kids were black
owned.
"Yes we can!"
The black people be played. Keep voting Demorat liberals and that's what you get.
truthalwayswinsout , 6 hours ago
Antifa is the easiest thing in the world to end.
Why?
Because they are spoiled wanna be white brats who live in a dream world created by
activist left of left professors at universities and funded by the Soros crowd.
How do you end them? It can all be done in about 6 months max.
#1 Long term: Create an online university that is very hard and free. All you do is pay
for your exams. From $100 to $400 per exam. Have corporations sponsor special degrees that
are harder than the already difficult base degree. Those corporations would have to hire at
least 200 interns in their 3rd and 4th year of school and for the summer. All students must
work a part time job of at least 10 hours per week. A degree would cost $4000 to $16000 and
no student loans and no debt. Students can live at home or live in dorms for a monthly fee to
experience the social and connection aspect of college. This will bankrupt 95% of the current
private colleges and universities and get 100,000 radical left of left professors without a
job.
#2 Short Term: Cut the amount of funding for college loans by 50%. Almost overnight 1/2
the radical faculty at every school will be fired and 70% of the administrators will be gone
as well.
#3 Put the leaders in jail. The leaders are Hillary and the Half-Breed Muslim ****** along
with Soros and all the rest of the funders. Trump's worst mistake was in not putting Hillary
in jail from the very start of his presidency. As a result, she threw the first brick and now
you have 100's coming at us. Put her in jail where she belongs along with the coup
conspirators and the ****** and freeze all of Soros' money and watch how fast it all
ends.
#4 Take the most vocal of all the Antifa local groups and infiltrate and arrest them and
put them in jail for 30-40-50 years making sure they go to isolated prisons and are locked
down 23 hours per day. 10 or so in jail should do the trick.
What is important is the order you do things. To set the right tone announce the school
first so you can tell all the Woke that school will now be free. Then a month or two later
right before the start of the next school year cut the loan amounts, and then target the
people.
Oh and target just one violent Antifa demonstration and make sure you surround them with
1000's of law enforcement and arrest them all and kill any who violently resist. Then charge
them all with terrorism and try them all with no plea deals and make them and their parents
pay money to defend them. The sucker deal is whoever helps fund their legal defense is now on
the radar for elimination.
Let them go on go fund me and then seize the money raised.
The Atlantic and NYT just announced that Antifa is a grass-roots organization, and
(literally) that anyone who opposes their agenda is by definition a "white supremacist".
So that pretty much clears up the funding source.
Fireman , 7 hours ago
Aunty *** fascists are thugs and murderers. So if Agent Orange is serious about fighting
terrorism in Slumville (he isn't) then why doesn't he outlaw and arrest the filth on the
street and the Soros slash Rothschild filth financing these controlled whore punks?
The answer should be obvious to all who know who financed Orange's white House
sojourn.
Like BLM (Bowel Movements Matter) and the rest of the unwashed masses running riot across
Slumville....it's all part of the Hegelian con to take US all down to the next level of
outright tyranny. But try explaining that to the black shirted mobs and useful braindead
white assed idiots prostrating themselves on the streets in front of skateboard losers and
meth addled clowns.
As Shlomo Gatestein proves over and over again......If it's good for the juice...it's good
enough for everyone else by default.
We are looking at South Africa 2.0 and if the white community does not stop this, the
white community is going to be toast. Going after the attackers is not going to be
productive. Instead, we have to go after the manipulators.
We know where they are
They are over at Channel 3, or wherever your local news and radio stations are. They are on
CNN, and running Twitter, Facebook, Google and all the rest -
They are your city council, raping you for exorbitant taxes, working in secure areas,
leaving secure parking garages and then going home to gated communities.
IvannaHumpalot , 3 hours ago
Daily mail newspaper group is now funding BLM
hugin-o-munin , 8 hours ago
I want to apologize for calling you an idiot, that was uncalled for.
The reason I get upset is because I see the agenda being played out here. There was
recently a report about someone within the Seattle CHAZ area that wielded a machete and that
follows the script perfectly. If the government (in this case Trump) doesn't take the bait
they will switch tactic and start using operatives/patsies like this to force some kind of
resolution. The Soros clan use these types of tactics all the time, it's what they've done
for decades. I just want people to be awake to see it for what it is.
Southerly Buster , 8 hours ago
Gatestone Institute = didn't bother reading.
My theory from the froth and bubble generated by ANTIFA chatter is that they are obvious a
boogeyman for the right or fifth column organisation for the left. Either way they are an
irrelevance.
Keep your eye on those that have the real power.
supermaxedout , 9 hours ago
The article is complete ******** except for the fact that the modern Antifa was created in
Germany appx 20 or 25 years ago. But one can be assured that such a movement would have never
gathered any importance if it would have not been backed up by the Secret Services of the US
and the UK.
You can not let even a political fart go unnoticed by the powers still occupying Germany.
They controll Germany. That is a fact. So the logical conclusion is the US and the UK are
behind Antifa otherwise it would have been eradicated already longtime ago.
The actual conclusion regarding the US is that we see already the start of a Civil War in
the US. Antifa backers in the administration against Trump backers. Its that simple.
hugin-o-munin , 8 hours ago
Antifa is part of a spectrum of movements directly sponsored and funded through NATO and
it's Gladio network. This has always been the case and this article is full of propaganda
bullsh!t. It is well known that the Baader-Meinhof terrorists were directly led and funded by
western intelligence groups. Some people, especially clueless Americans may wonder why and it
is quite straight forward. Europe has since the end of ww2 developed a strong
social-democratic form of political movements which the US is quite afraid of.
Just look at my country Sweden which during the early 60's started very large scale plans
to allow organized labor unions, state funded programs to provide housing, education and
healthcare to everyone. A very socialist sounding program that relied on private capitalist
industries to work. The model proved successful and even profitable overall and this is what
US and UK powers absolutely did not want to see. Germany, France, Italy and many other
countries had similar trends and this is what sparked the Gladio operations to perpetrate
terror inside these countries and provide a reason for the governments to clamp down on these
'communists'.
A big part of the overarching agenda here is to keep in place the separation between
Europe and Russia. Russia today has many faults but it is hardly a communist dictatorship
like China and this is a problem for the mind controllers. It's all about economic power in
the end and all these politically flavored games are all meant to keep people fighting with
themselves. The US very often goes full throttle into things without even thinking and that's
the case right now with the American Antifa movement. They are exposing themselves for the
simple tools they are and I suspect they will get absolutely decimated soon.
webmatex , 8 hours ago
Merkel allows/uses them as push against the new right in Germany which is what her and her
party are afraid of.
They both share Stasi roots.
hugin-o-munin , 8 hours ago
I agree with your point on Merkel but I disagree with the notion that this is/was a Stasi
operation, it was orchestrated and funded by western intelligence. Merkel is now way behind
the curve and what may have worked in the past no longer does. What Antifa is doing in
Germany is actually bolstering AfD who are gaining ground in many Länder. The problem is
that the CDU/CSU are becoming stale and lack ideas. They still have a large portion of the
older generations but younger generations view them as rudderless and clueless. It is the
same in many European countries right now.
hootowl , 5 hours ago
Just another manipulative academic/Deep State/fauxjew dual state/Mossad/ israhell-American
Deep State/intelligence horror for the American people to have to deal with.
Egao , 9 hours ago
Current ANTIFA has nothing to do with pre-WW2 anti-Fascists. Those people were fighting
Fascism and Nazism risking their lives, and not all of them were Communists or even Left. And
history has proven that they were right.
As we move towards next economical and political crisis there will be drift towards
Fascism but modern ANTIFA are just bunch of fight clubs for people looking for thrill.
donkey_shot , 9 hours ago
much as we all should deeply abhor antifa, the gatestone institute is probably even worse:
this is like modern-day nazis criticising modern-day nazis for being modern-day nazis: the
gatestone institute is a far-right, neo-con "think tank" aka propaganda outlet and a known
zionist mouthpiece that has included the likes of john bolton (an architect of the iraq war
and as such a mass murderer) amongst its directors. please, boycott the gatestone institute!
please, don`t print their tripe on zerohedge.
One should point out Capitalists are the ones who came up with Communism and Fascism in
the first place.
All the systems are tools of the elite.
B52Minot , 9 hours ago
In the LEAST it is a GLOBAL TERROR NETWORK no different than ISIS...and any other terror
group that needs not just outlawing but a full disclosure of all of its donors and inner
workings....How about it DOJ/FBI and CIA...and the CONGRESS....Why are you Congress spending
your time on the items related to the Durham Prob when we the people want to know this group
and its relationship to BLM....How about NOW Congress??? Get off your asses and START your
investigation NOW.....and until we see who is/is not being indicted then we can always go
back to the 3+ yr ago issues with the Coup.
Meatballs , 9 hours ago
The stench is pretty thick around Gatestone.
Nina
Rosenwald , President
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President
Just sayin'
*But wait! There's more! Nina- " She is a member of the Council on Foreign
Relations".Prolly AIPAC too. GTFO with this ****.
Lazy, Tylers. WTF?
webmatex , 8 hours ago
I read these articles purely to keep an eye on neo-con policy making.
Their policies are much more dangerous than Antifa can smoke up.
These articles serve a purpose.
Most of us see thru their stale propaganda.
debunker1 , 10 hours ago
That's funny, a bunch of young unemployed loser/vandal/cowards that live in their parents
basement have become the latest "terrorist organization".
ANTIFA is what you get with massive youth unemployment. Keep letting corporations employ
cheap compliant third world labor, keep pushing young people out of work and ANTIFA is what
you get.
captain-nemo , 11 hours ago
We know they are labeled a terrorist organisation, yet nobody is arrested for it.
We know they uses campuses in schools to recruit people. Yet nothing is done to prevent
and put a stop to it.
we know that they are funded nationally by hundreds of big businesses and also large
political organizations to the left (Democrats), clinton foundation etc. and also
international groups , like Soros and others. Yet nothing is done to stop it (even when they
openly know they are funding a terrorist organization)
we know they have support among mayors, police, governors, senators, congress members of
all parties. Yet nobody is arrested or prosecuted for it.
There are 18 intelligence agencies in America , and they all seems to do nothing. We also
have BARR who is only talking and doing nothing. He recently sais this:
"The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection
with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly,
Still, nothing is happening. Isn't silence the same as compliance??????
notppcperson , 11 hours ago
They want this whole thing to go out of control. They setup the beer virus **** to start
things off. Didn't go as plan. So BLM/Antifa ********.
It's set up either Orange Monkey to declare martial law or someone else to declare marital
law.
WorkingClassMan , 10 hours ago
Hopefully investigations are ongoing behind the scenes. I used to have some measure of
faith in the FBI and DoJ to act least act against low-level groups (if not their child raping
buddies), but even that seems beyond them now.
quanttech , 10 hours ago
faith in the FBI and DoJ??????? loolololololololololololoololoolololo .... Antifa is
likely run by the ******* FBI ffs.
Even J. Edgar's corpse got a laugh out of that one.
WorkingClassMan , 10 hours ago
Hey, I was naive once. I believed in Santa Claus too.
Victor999 , 9 hours ago
They could stop this if they wanted to. So it is much more than 'compliance', it is
complicity: it is control - to create chaos from which their New World Order will arise.
desertboy , 7 hours ago
"There are 18 intelligence agencies in America , and they all seems to do nothing."
Are you f'ing kidding me?
Who TF did you think was passing talking points to the MSM and Hollywood since before the
Church commission?
quanttech , 11 hours ago
...After 1968, the government determined that ONE OUT OF SIX rioters in Chicago 1968 was a
cop or a fed. Who the **** do you think "Antifa" is??? Suckers.
captain-nemo , 10 hours ago
How many people are working in the NSA? Doesn't the NSA have access to pretty much
everything there is that exist electronically? If i were given the job, It would take me a
few days to roll up the entire network and a week to destroy them.
quanttech , 10 hours ago
Exactly.
And yet it doesn't happen.
So who's Antifa again?
Joe A , 11 hours ago
If they are against capitalism, why don't they go after Wall Street, banks, big
corporations, etc. but instead go after small businesses downtown? Small businesses are
easier targets I guess and crimes against them more likely to go unpunished. I guess they
learned from the RAF in Germany: if you go after big businesses and important business people
then you get the full weight of the state on you, as happened with the RAF. But with their
actions of targeting small businesses they only alienate the average citizen.
By no means I want to say they should go after Wall Street, big corporations and business
people. But by destroying Main Street they show what they have in store for everybody should
they ever get into power (God forbid).
Real capitalism btw. is about small businesses, not the rogue capitalism of Wall Street
and big corporations.
G. Wally , 11 hours ago
Hmmmmm...so Germany's political parties seemingly aligned with the US Democratic party
fund Antifa?
"Bettina Röhl, a German journalist and daughter of Meinhof, argues that the modern
Antifa movement is a continuation of the Red Army Faction. The main difference is that,
unlike the RAF, Antifa's members are afraid to reveal their identities. In a June 2020 essay
published by the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Röhl also drew
attention to the fact that Antifa is not only officially tolerated, but is being paid by
the German government to fight the far right :
"The RAF idolized the communist dictatorships in China, North Korea, North Vietnam, in
Cuba, which were transfigured by the New Left as better countries on the right path to the
best communism....
"The flourishing left-wing radicalism in the West, which brutally strikes at the opening
of the European Central Bank headquarters in Frankfurt, at every G-20 summit or every year on
May 1 in Berlin, has achieved the highest level of establishment in the state, not least
thanks to the support by quite a few MPs from political parties, journalists and relevant
experts.
"Compared to the RAF, the militant Antifa only lacks prominent faces. Out of cowardice,
its members cover their faces and keep their names secret. Antifa constantly threatens
violence and attacks against politicians and police officers. It promotes senseless damage to
property amounting to vast sums. Nevertheless, MP Renate Künast (Greens) recently
complained in the Bundestag that Antifa groups had not been adequately funded by the state in
recent decades. She was concerned that 'NGOs and Antifa groups do not always have to struggle
to raise money and can only conclude short-term employment contracts from year to year.'
There was applause for this from Alliance 90 / The Greens, from the left and from SPD
deputies.
"One may ask the question of whether Antifa is something like an official RAF, a terrorist
group with money from the state under the guise of 'fighting against the right.'"
Isn't curious, then, that with all the videotaped violence... who does the FBI (the org
that tried to frame the sitting president and his staff) arrest? Let's LOOK:
The FBI arrested three suspected white supremacists on firearms charges on Tuesday, the
Justice Department announced Thursday. Brian Lemley, Jr., and William Garfield Bilbrough IV,
alleged to be ...
Three men connected to a white supremacist organization are facing federal charges related
to plans ... June 4, 2020 @ 8:21 pm. ... FBI arrests 3 connected to white supremacist group
who were ..."
So these "White Supremacists " had plans " to commit violence...anyone here think the FBI
weren't tracking them, infiltrating them...yet "for some reason" the FBI "could not find"
anyone actually COMMITTING VIOLENCE during this looting and pillaging???
Defund and eliminate the FBI.
How many US MSM journalists called for assassinating the sitting president? How many got
arrested?
Now, we learn donating to BLM means it is transferred to the DNC to elect Democrats! The DNC
was party to TREASON, with the FBI, CIA and NSA as willing accomplices...and what is Barr
doing about it?
Heck US aircraft carriers used to visit HK quite often until recently, even after the hand
over. They anchored in the harbor while thousands of sailors headed to the Wanchai bars,
although after the hand over they anchored in a less visible part of the harbor. China didn't
have a problem.
I doubt China sweats a couple of aircraft carriers when we have large bases in Japan and
South Korea, not to mention Guam.
False conflicts with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are needed to keep support for
MIC and Security State which cost 1.2 trillion a year.
If the US were serious about confronting China there would be sanctions and not tariffs.
China and US are partners. We sell them chips that they put in our electronics and sell to
us, so we can spy on our people, and they test out our social control technology on their own
people. They clothe us, sell cheap API's for drugs and they invest in treasuries and other US
assets and we educate their young talent and give them access to our research and technology
and fund some of their own research and share numerous patents
"... As author Jim Keith explains, "Create violence through economic pressures, the media, mind control, agent provocateurs: thesis. Counter it with totalitarian measures, more mind control, police crackdowns, surveillance, drugging of the population: antithesis. What ensues is Orwell's vision of 1984 , a society of total control: synthesis." ..."
"... This isn't about racism in America. ..."
"... This is about profit-driven militarism packaged in the guise of law and order, waged by greedy profiteers who have transformed the American homeland into a battlefield with militarized police, military weapons and tactics better suited to a war zone. This is systemic corruption predicated on the police state's insatiable appetite for money, power and control. ..."
The Deep State, the powers-that-be, want us to turn this into a race war, but this is about
so much more than systemic racism. This is the oldest con game in the books, the magician's
sleight of hand that keeps you focused on the shell game in front of you while your wallet is
being picked clean by ruffians in your midst.
It was February 1933, a month before national elections in Germany, and the Nazis weren't
expected to win. So they engineered a way to win: they began by infiltrating the police and
granting police powers to their allies; then Hitler brought in stormtroopers to act as
auxiliary police; by the time an arsonist (who claimed to be working for the Communists in the
hopes of starting an armed revolt) set fire to the Reichstag, the German parliamentary
building, the people were eager for a return to law and order.
Fast forward to the present day, and what do we have? The nation in turmoil after months of
pandemic fear-mongering and regional lockdowns, a national election looming, a president with
falling poll numbers, and a police state that wants to stay in power at all costs.
Then again, it's also equally possible that the architects of the police state have every
intention of manipulating this outrage for their own purposes.
It works the same in every age.
As author Jim Keith explains, "Create violence through economic pressures, the media, mind
control, agent provocateurs: thesis. Counter it with totalitarian measures, more mind control,
police crackdowns, surveillance, drugging of the population: antithesis. What ensues is
Orwell's vision of 1984 , a society of total control: synthesis."
Here's what is going to happen: the police state is going to stand down and allow these
protests, riots and looting to devolve into a situation where enough of the voting populace is
so desperate for a return to law and order that they will gladly relinquish some of their
freedoms to achieve it. And that's how the police state will win, no matter which candidate
gets elected to the White House.
You know who will lose? Every last one of us.
Listen, people should be outraged over what happened to George Floyd, but let's get one
thing straight: Floyd didn't die
merely because he was black and the cop who killed him is white. Floyd died because America
is being overrun with warrior cops -- vigilantes with a badge -- who are part of a
government-run standing army that is waging war on the American people in the so-called name of
law and order.
Not all cops are warrior cops, trained to
act as judge, jury and executioner in their interactions with the populace. Unfortunately,
the good cops -- the ones who take seriously their oath of office to serve and protect their
fellow citizens, uphold the Constitution, and maintain the peace -- are increasingly being
outnumbered by those who believe the lives -- and rights -- of police should be valued more
than citizens.
These warrior cops may get paid by the citizenry, but they don't work for us and they
certainly aren't operating within the limits of the U.S. Constitution.
This isn't about racism in America.
This is about profit-driven militarism packaged in the guise of law and order, waged by
greedy profiteers who have transformed the American homeland into a battlefield with
militarized police, military weapons and tactics better suited to a war zone. This is systemic
corruption predicated on the police state's insatiable appetite for money, power and
control.
This is a military coup waiting to happen.
Why do we have more than a million cops on the taxpayer-funded payroll in this country whose
jobs do not entail protecting our safety, maintaining the peace in our communities, and
upholding our liberties?
This is the new face of war, and America has become the new battlefield.
Militarized police officers, the end product of the government -- federal, local and state
-- and law enforcement agencies having merged, have become a "standing" or permanent army,
composed of full-time professional soldiers who do not disband.
Yet these permanent armies are exactly what those who drafted the U.S. Constitution and Bill
of Rights feared as tools used by despotic governments to wage war against its citizens.
American police forces were never supposed to be a branch of the military, nor were they
meant to be private security forces for the reigning political faction. Instead, they were
intended to be an aggregation of countless local police units, composed of citizens like you
and me that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every
American community.
As a result of the increasing militarization of the police in recent years, however, the
police now not only look like the military -- with their foreboding uniforms and phalanx of
lethal weapons -- but they function like them, as well.
Thus, no more do we have a civilian force of peace officers entrusted with serving and
protecting the American people. Instead, today's militarized law enforcement officials have
shifted their allegiance from the citizenry to the state, acting preemptively to ward off any
possible challenges to the government's power,
unrestrained by the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment .
For years now, we've been told that cops need military weapons to wage the government's wars
on drugs, crime and terror. We've been told that cops need to be able to crash through doors,
search vehicles, carry out roadside strip searches, shoot anyone they perceive to be a threat,
and generally disregard the law whenever it suits them because they're doing it to protect
their fellow Americans from danger. We've been told that cops need extra legal protections
because of the risks they take.
Militarized police armed with weapons of war who are allowed to operate above the law and
break the laws with impunity are definitely not making America any safer or freer.
Militarism within the nation's police forces is proving to be deadlier than any
pandemic.
This battlefield mindset has gone hand in hand with the rise of militarized SWAT ("special
weapons and tactics") teams.
Frequently justified as vital tools necessary to combat terrorism and deal with rare but
extremely dangerous criminal situations, such as those involving hostages, SWAT teams have
become intrinsic parts of local law enforcement operations, thanks in large part to substantial
federal assistance and the Pentagon's military surplus recycling program, which allows the
transfer of military equipment, weapons and training to local police for free or at sharp
discounts while increasing the profits of its corporate allies.
Where this becomes a problem of life and death for Americans is when these SWAT teams --
outfitted, armed and trained in military tactics -- are assigned to carry out relatively
routine police tasks, such as serving a search warrant. Nationwide, SWAT teams have been
employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community
nuisances: angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and
misdemeanor marijuana possession, to give a brief sampling.
Remember, SWAT teams originated as specialized units dedicated to defusing extremely
sensitive, dangerous situations. They were never meant to be used for routine police work such
as serving a warrant. Unfortunately, the mere presence of SWAT units has actually injected a
level of danger and violence into police-citizen interactions that was not present as long as
these interactions were handled by traditional civilian officers.
Yet the tension inherent in most civilian-police encounter these days can't be blamed
exclusively on law enforcement's growing reliance on SWAT teams and donated military
equipment.
It goes far deeper, to a transformation in the way police view themselves and their line of
duty.
Specifically, what we're dealing with today is a skewed shoot-to-kill mindset in which
police, trained
to view themselves as warriors or soldiers in a war , whether against drugs, or terror, or
crime, must "get" the bad guys -- i.e., anyone who is a potential target -- before the bad guys
get them. The result is a spike in the number of incidents in which police shoot first, and ask
questions later.
Making matters worse, when these officers, who have long since ceased to be peace officers,
violate their oaths by bullying, beating, tasering, shooting and killing their employers -- the
taxpayers to whom they owe their allegiance -- they are rarely given more than a slap on the
hands before resuming their patrols.
This lawlessness on the part of law enforcement, an unmistakable characteristic of a police
state, is made possible in large part by police unions which routinely oppose civilian review
boards and resist the placement of names and badge numbers on officer uniforms; police agencies
that abide by the Blue Code of Silence, the quiet understanding among police that they should
not implicate their colleagues for their crimes and misconduct; prosecutors who treat police
offenses with greater leniency than civilian offenses; courts that sanction police wrongdoing
in the name of security; and legislatures that enhance the power, reach and arsenal of the
police, and a citizenry that fails to hold its government accountable to the rule of law.
Indeed, not only are cops protected from most charges of wrongdoing -- whether it's shooting
unarmed citizens (including children and old people),
raping and abusing young women, falsifying police reports , trafficking drugs, or
soliciting sex with minors -- but even on the rare occasions when they are fired for
misconduct, it's only a matter of time before they
get re-hired again .
Incredibly, while our own Bill of Rights are torn to shreds, leaving us with few protections
against government abuses, a growing number of states are adopting Law
Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights (LEOBoR), which provide cops accused of a crime with
special due process rights and privileges not afforded to the average citizen.
This, right here, epitomizes everything that is wrong with America today.
As I explain in my book Battlefield
America: The War on the American People , we need civic engagement and citizen activism,
especially at the local level. However, if it ends at the ballot box without achieving any real
reform that holds government officials at all levels accountable to playing by the rules of the
Constitution, then shame on us.
"... You think, should the police go on strike, it will be kumbaya? If the police leave an area who fills the vacuum? This will destroy poor neighbourhoods not make them any better. ..."
Another important excerpt from the liked essay @14 that's highly informative:
"Defining social control as crime control was accomplished by raising the specter of the '
dangerous classes .' The suggestion was that public drunkenness, crime, hooliganism,
political protests and worker 'riots' were the products of a biologically inferior,
morally intemperate, unskilled and uneducated underclass . The consumption of alcohol was
widely seen as the major cause of crime and public disorder. The irony, of course, is that
public drunkenness didn't exist until mercantile and commercial interests created venues for
and encouraged the commercial sale of alcohol in public places. This underclass was easily
identifiable because it consisted primarily of the poor, foreign immigrants and free blacks
(Lundman 1980: 29). This isolation of the 'dangerous classes' as the embodiment of the
crime problem created a focus in crime control that persists to today, the idea that policing
should be directed toward 'bad' individuals, rather than social and economic conditions
that are criminogenic in their social outcomes .
Of course, none of the above is ever related via media when discussing the overall
issue--that it began as a class/immigrant/racial issue is suppressed so the root of the
problem doubly emphasized above is never discussed and is thus another component in the
longstanding Class War. Another input never considered is the many penny press True Crime and
Police Gazette publications that twisted the minds of the gullible during the period from
1880-1930, which today are present in the all too many cop "reality" shows on TV, although
some are now finally being pulled from broadcast.
"Qualified immunity" is clearly unconstitutional as it violates the 4th, 5th, and 7th
Amendments, and has no place in settled law. It will enter the dust bin just as non-majority
verdicts in jury trials did.
vk
, Jun 10 2020 21:30 utc |
34somebody , Jun 10 2020 21:34 utc |
35
Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 10 2020 21:01 utc | 29
I wonder. People usually need the police to feel safe. If the police can feel safe in a
country where everyone may carry a gun or not is another matter.
The manner of the deaths doesn't follow any pattern, said Robyn Small with the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Some officers died responding to robberies or domestic
disturbances. Others were ambushed.
Overall, that's less than last year -- 47 officers were gunned down by the end of 2018,
according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.
You think, should the police go on strike, it will be kumbaya? If the police leave an
area who fills the vacuum? This will destroy poor neighbourhoods not make them any
better.
Yes, that's a most important point, the WHY behind the formation of police forces.
This multipart
essay details "The History of Policing in the United States" and gives us two key clues:
Policing in the South emerged to enforce slavery, while in the North it evolved much later
primarily as a means of social control :
"In the Southern states the development of American policing followed a different path.
The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the 'Slave Patrol' (Platt
1982). The first formal slave patrol was created in the Carolina colonies in 1704 (Reichel
1992). Slave patrols had three primary functions: (1) to chase down, apprehend, and return to
their owners, runaway slaves; (2) to provide a form of organized terror to deter slave
revolts; and, (3) to maintain a form of discipline for slave-workers who were subject to
summary justice, outside of the law, if they violated any plantation rules. Following the
Civil War, these vigilante-style organizations evolved in modern Southern police departments
primarily as a means of controlling freed slaves who were now laborers working in an
agricultural caste system, and enforcing 'Jim Crow' segregation laws, designed to deny freed
slaves equal rights and access to the political system....
"More than crime, modern police forces in the United States emerged as a response to
'disorder.' What constitutes social and public order depends largely on who is defining those
terms, and in the cities of 19th century America they were defined by the mercantile
interests, who through taxes and political influence supported the development of
bureaucratic policing institutions. These economic interests had a greater interest in social
control than crime control. Private and for profit policing was too disorganized and too
crime-specific in form to fulfill these needs. The emerging commercial elites needed a
mechanism to insure a stable and orderly work force, a stable and orderly environment for the
conduct of business, and the maintenance of what they referred to as the 'collective good'
(Spitzer and Scull 1977). These mercantile interests also wanted to divest themselves of the
cost of protecting their own enterprises, transferring those costs from the private sector to
the state."
It seems clear the two systems and their rationales merged with the main goal being social
control, not the protections of freedoms and otherwise serving the community as the logo
Protect & Serve implies, unless we look at that logo from the Establishment's POV, for it
then becomes clear who the police protect and serve. When looking at Labor History, it
becomes very clear who police served and protected while totally ignoring the rights of those
they attacked--the Police Riot has a very long and sordid history and certainly attacked
whites more than blacks since the former constituted the greater mass of industrial workers
then and now. However, whites weren't subjected to being hunted down and lynched for sport
and entertainment in ways that evidenced cultural approval for such terroristic acts. Rightly
or wrongly, it's that putrid history that strikes a chord with all people, particularly when
the vastly greater amount of violence used against workers is suppressed and barely studied
in survey US History courses, the curriculum of which is controlled by that same
Establishment wanting to maintain social control.
Sorry, but I must copy/paste another excerpt for this aspect of the Outlaw US Empire's
political history gets very little mention--Tammany Hall usually being the sole example
provided without any details of how it functioned and for whom. New York City wasn't the only
large city where this sort of police-political syndicate arose:
"Early American police departments shared two primary characteristics: they were
notoriously corrupt and flagrantly brutal. This should come as no surprise in that police
were under the control of local politicians. The local political party ward leader in most
cities appointed the police executive in charge of the ward leader's neighborhood. The ward
leader, also, most often was the neighborhood tavern owner, sometimes the neighborhood
purveyor of gambling and prostitution, and usually the controlling influence over
neighborhood youth gangs who were used to get out the vote and intimidate opposition party
voters. In this system of vice, organized violence and political corruption it is
inconceivable that the police could be anything but corrupt (Walker 1996). Police
systematically took payoffs to allow illegal drinking, gambling and prostitution. Police
organized professional criminals, like thieves and pickpockets, trading immunity for bribes
or information. They actively participated in vote-buying and ballot-box-stuffing. Loyal
political operatives became police officers. They had no discernable qualifications for
policing and little if any training in policing. Promotions within the police departments
were sold, not earned. Police drank while on patrol, they protected their patron's vice
operations, and they were quick to use peremptory force. Walker goes so far as to call
municipal police 'delegated vigilantes,' entrusted with the power to use overwhelming force
against the 'dangerous classes' as a means of deterring criminality."
Yes, "organized crime" was developed by the police and their politico allies as further
means of social control and to augment their salaries. Still happens today with the nation's
supposedly most important intelligence agency--CIA--being the most formidable criminal
organization on the planet.
It didn't take very long as an examination of the literature shows the rise of Police came
with the rise of Capitalism and many excellent books exist on the subject, but there doesn't
seem to be much interest in looking beyond one's predilections on the topic. Further proof
cementing that verdict:
"State police agencies emerged for many of the same reasons. The Pennsylvania State Police
were modeled after the Phillipine Constabulary, the occupation force placed in the Philipine
Islands following the Spanish-American War. This all-white, all-'native,' paramilitary force
was created specifically to break strikes in the coal fields of Pennsylvania and to control
local towns composed predominantly of Catholic, Irish, German and Eastern European
immigrants. They were housed in barracks outside the towns so that they would not mingle with
or develop friendships with local residents. In addition to strike-breaking they frequently
engaged in anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic violence, such as attacking community social
events on horseback, under the pretense of enforcing public order laws. Similarly, the Texas
Rangers were originally created as a quasi-official group of vigilantes and guerillas used to
suppress Mexican communities and to drive the Commanche off their lands."
I wonder if those now in control of what's being called the Seattle Commune will form some
type of police or other defense force. According to this
article , the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone will be self-policing. IMO, this development
deserves watching as it's not getting much media attention a la Occupy Wall Street.
Let's not forget the likes of The Baldwin Felts Detective Agency. They are also precursors to
contemporary police. Another excellent movie that speaks to this theme and validates
karloft1's latest post is John Sayles' Matewan . It deals with the Matewan Massacre
which is the precursor to the Battle of Blair Mountain where bombs were dropped from
airplanes on the striking miners. The bombs were left over from World War I. The United
States government supplied aerial surveillance.
Trump has the audacity to pretend he's a friend of the coal miners, or what's left of
them. He's a friend of the owners and The Baldwin Felts Detective Agency or its contemporary
equivalent. You work, Trump doesn't. He's never worked a day in his life. He has no notion of
what work is, but he knows enough to know work is not for him, that it's for you instead as
he and his ilk spit and piss and crap on you.
What is a Vassal State? ... visited a Neocon website putting on the warpaint
against China and posters accused China of oppressing their vassal states and it got me
thinking, what is a fair definition of a vassal state. This is what I came up with.
A Vassal state: Needs are subordinate to the wants of the master, not allowed to make
their own choices, not allowed to leave the relationship on their own, they are
expendable.
N. Korea, are they a vassal state of China? I don't see any of these
attributes. N. Korea depends on China many times but the master state needs the vassal more
than the vassal needs the master.
Iraq is a vassal state of the U.S. (I had many choices, too many) Recently,
they needed a waiver from Pompeo to buy electricity from Iran, talk about humiliating. We
ignored multiple requests to leave and threatened to impose a trade embargo and freeze their
bank accounts if they pushed the issue but told they 'could' bring up the issue later. We
them more than they need us for as long as we must have military bases close to Iran and the
ability to kill Iraqis we don't like. If we leave, we will leave Iraq in ruins rather than
allow them to have unfettered trade with Iran.
Last night on the Australian ABC current affairs program "The Drum", the host actually asked
a guest "Is it possible that the USA is becoming a fascist state?".
The guest replied that he thought the USA has been traveling down this path for the last
20 years.
The unusual aspect of this exchange was that a host on an Australian mainstream news
program had the courage to ask such a question at all.
"Is it possible that the USA is becoming a fascist state?".
Not until this happens:
"USURY is the cancer of the world, which only the surgeon's knife of Fascism can cut it
out of the life of the nations." ~ Ezra Pound
If the guest who replied thought the USA has been traveling down this path for the last 20
years, it would follow that the plight of those who are not elites, would be better, not
worse.
"... Kevin Barrett's political incorrectness recently got him un-invited from a radio program. Here he argues, "The two biggest factors behind the demise of First Amendment America are the rise of identity politics, and the 9/11-launched "war on terror." Identity politics has made political correctness into the monster it has become, but "the dirty little secret" the American public is finally realizing, in spite of mainstream media's deception, is that, "It is not white identity advocates who are instigating the violence at these rallies, but their antifa opponents." ..."
"... The two biggest factors behind the demise of First Amendment America are the rise of identity politics, and the 9/11-launched "war on terror." Identity politics brought political correctness and the fear of offending this or that "disadvantaged" group. 9/11 and the war on terror destroyed America's self-confidence, led to the shredding of constitutional liberties, and created a toxic atmosphere of fear and hysteria. ..."
"... Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) agenda was in many respects a reaction against America's post-9/11 decline. In reaction to the prevailing leftist identity politics, heterosexual, white, working-class males began asserting themselves, often identifying with Trump and MAGA. Trump's attacks on the U.S. decision to invade Iraq ("the worst decision ever made") and his incoherent but provocative insinuations questioning the official version of 9/11 resonated with a broad segment of the population that vaguely sensed something in America had gone badly wrong. ..."
"... The Chicago Tribune ..."
"... This is the dirty little secret that is slowly leaking out to the American public: It is not white identity advocates who are instigating the violence at these rallies, but their antifa opponents. This was clearly the case at Charlottesville, where the police shut down the pro-Robert E. Lee statue rally, forced ralliers to exit through an antifa mob that had come primed for violence, and then disappeared as the provocateur-driven riot broke out. (For a detailed analysis of the events in Charlottesville, read Political Theater in Charlottesville ..."
Kevin Barrett's political incorrectness recently got him un-invited from a radio
program. Here he argues, "The two biggest factors behind the demise of First Amendment
America are the rise of identity politics, and the 9/11-launched "war on terror." Identity
politics has made political correctness into the monster it has become, but "the dirty little
secret" the American public is finally realizing, in spite of mainstream media's deception,
is that, "It is not white identity advocates who are instigating the violence at these
rallies, but their antifa opponents."
On Thursday, March 8, I was informed that my scheduled appearance the next day on Portland's
KBOO community radio had been cancelled by station management -- over the strong objections of
the host, John Shuck. The reason? Portland's antifa chapter, led by a graduate student named
Alexander Reid Ross, had led a defamation campaign calling me an "anti-Semite," "holocaust
denier," and "conspiracy theorist" who shouldn't be allowed to speak.
Since when could mindless insults shout down free and fair debate based on logic and
evidence? Since when did America become such a fearful place that non-mainstream ideas had to
be silenced rather than refuted?
The two biggest factors behind the demise of First Amendment America are the rise of
identity politics, and the 9/11-launched "war on terror." Identity politics brought political
correctness and the fear of offending this or that "disadvantaged" group. 9/11 and the war on
terror destroyed America's self-confidence, led to the shredding of constitutional liberties,
and created a toxic atmosphere of fear and hysteria.
Trump's "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) agenda was in many respects a reaction against
America's post-9/11 decline. In reaction to the prevailing leftist identity politics,
heterosexual, white, working-class males began asserting themselves, often identifying with
Trump and MAGA. Trump's attacks on the U.S. decision to invade Iraq ("the worst decision ever
made") and his incoherent but provocative insinuations questioning the official version of 9/11
resonated with a broad segment of the population that vaguely sensed something in America had
gone badly wrong.
Many leftists (as well as much of the centrist establishment) view the rise of the
Trump-supporting alt-right as a national emergency. The most extreme among them have joined
antifa.
Antifa shows little interest in critiquing or debating its opponents in order to explain why
they are wrong. It is dedicated to shutting them down, silencing them, making sure they can't
be heard -- using slanderous witch hunts, mindless name-calling, and even violence.
At universities all across America, antifa thugs are physically attacking speakers
identified with the alt-right, and even brutalizing audiences who come out to hear them.
The Chicago Tribune reported on March 14:
"At Michigan State University last week, anti-fascist protesters marched toward the venue
where (Richard) Spencer planned to speak, intent on keeping his supporters out. Fights quickly
broke out, and people were shoved to the ground, punched, and pelted with sticks and dirt. Some
people wanting to attend Spencer's speech were forced back. More than 20 people were arrested,
most of them people protesting Spencer."
This is the dirty little secret that is slowly leaking out to the American public: It is
not white identity advocates who are instigating the violence at these rallies, but their
antifa opponents. This was clearly the case at Charlottesville, where the police shut down the
pro-Robert E. Lee statue rally, forced ralliers to exit through an antifa mob that had come
primed for violence, and then disappeared as the provocateur-driven riot broke out. (For a
detailed analysis of the events in Charlottesville, read Political Theater in
Charlottesville , edited by Jim Fetzer and Mike Palecek, available from Moon Rock
Books.)
How can self-styled anti-fascists be rioting in the street and attacking people to shut down
free speech? Isn't their behavior . . . well, fascist ? After all, fascism is based on
using mob violence to shut down opposition and install a tyranny of one party and one opinion
that tolerates no dissent.
Antifa's violent, authoritarian attack on free speech exemplifies the core essence of
fascism. Other characteristics of historical fascism include: extreme glorification of the race
or nation, scapegoating of internal and external enemies, militarism, and socialism, including
an attempt to replace private bank-issued usury currency with national currency. On all but the
last of these counts, Zionism represents by far the biggest and most dangerous fascist movement
on Earth. Antifa, a subsidiary of Zionism, carries the Zionists' fascist thuggery into the
streets.
As an American loyal to our Constitution, and to our history as a tolerant "melting pot" of
different cultures, religions, and worldviews, I am strongly opposed to most aspects of
fascism. I loathe intolerance, authoritarianism, censorship, racism, extreme nationalism,
militarism, and scapegoating. But I do think some fascists, such as America's greatest 20
th -century poet. Ezra Pound, were right in their critique of usury and their
support for overthrowing the dictatorship of the international bankers. And I think much of the
so-called alt-right consists of patriotic Americans -- not fascists -- who are gradually waking
up to oppose the global Zionist dictatorship in the making sometimes known as the New World
Order.
Oppose fascism; support free speech! I have challenged Alexander Reid Ross to debate me on
the nature and history of fascism. Please urge him to accept my challenge. Email: aross@pdx.edu
or Tweet https://twitter.com/areidross.
Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America's best-known
critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and
universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by
Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally
blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a
nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host. He lives in rural western
Wisconsin.
Typically, when a black man gets killed he's presented as some kind of angelic hero. I wonder if people knew George Floyd's
criminal history, including breaking into a pregnant woman's home and threatening her unborn child by pointing a gun at her
belly, whether they'd be so willing to abandon their recent hysteria over catching Covid-19 in favour of a virtue-signalling
march.
https://youtu.be/JtPfoEvNJ74
Designate, then decimate Antifa. "The Fascists of the future will call themselves Anti Fascist." Winston Churchill. "Judge a
man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character." Martin Luthor King Jr. We can see by their actions
that Antifa are Fascists and have no character other than that of psychopathic morons.
AntiFA getting bussed in to burn the city down. Left's narrative : it's white supremacists. Sociopaths use 180 degree lies to
deflect blame And the MSM are complicit.
I think NemesisCalling nails it here best of all, with keen nuances. I can't hear the sax
without thinking of Bill Clinton, Mr. Mass Incarceration himself, playing on Saturday Night
Live, and seducing black America and its turncoat elite, including Obama, for the next two
decades of neoliberal ruin. The malcontribution to American black society of its
entertainment and sports aristocracy could be fat treatise. So nice to see James Baldwin
getting at the heart of things in his 1965 lecture.
Sorry, Antifa and its KKK tactics – beating people up, trashing the homes of
academics, shutting down discussion on campus – speak for themselves. Goons hardly
better than their sworn opponents.
Anyone familiar with the Church Committee hearings knows that government agencies use
agent provocateurs to corrupt movements from within. Knowing that doesn't prove any of the
claims made herein. Without evidence it's all speculation. Speculation can be fun but when it
gets taken seriously we have idiots shaping the narrative.
many thoughtful observers on the right -- including Ross Douthat ,
Rod Dreher , and
Dan McCarthy -- have pointed out that the current protesting and rioting is likely to help
Donald Trump and the Republicans. That is, the ongoing violence, fomented by leftist elements,
including Black Lives Matter and Antifa, could boomerang against Joe Biden and his
Democrats.
However, the planted assumption here is that the vandals and looters want Joe Biden to win.
And that's not so obvious. Indeed, maybe the truth is just the reverse.
To be sure, the protesters and looters all hate Donald Trump. And yet actions speak louder
than words, and their actions on the street suggest a kind of anti-matter affection for the Bad
Orange Man. That is, each act of violence obscures the memory of George Floyd, who died at the
knee of a Minneapolis policeman, and raises the prospect of a national backlash against both
peaceful protestors and violent looters, offering a ray of hope for Trump.
Indeed, Douthat quotes Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, whose research shows that
back in the 1960s, peaceful civil rights protests helped the Democrats, while violent
protests (also known as riots) hurt the Democrats. In Wasow's words, "proximity to
black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to
black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines." And that's how Republican
Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
We might add that Humphrey was a lot like Biden. Both were gabby senators turned vice
presidents, regarded as reliable liberals, not as hard-edged leftists.
So now we're starting to see where Biden, a pillar of the smug liberal establishment -- he
once
told a group of donors that if he's elected, "nothing would fundamentally change" -- veers
away from the far-left ideologues amidst the mobs.
Let's let Andy Ngo –who has
shed blood , literally, while chronicling bullyboy leftists -- define the ideology of
Antifa and Black Lives Matter: "At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia
Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM's founders, are self-identified Marxists who make
no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want
the abolition of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the
rule of law. Antifa has partnered with Black Lives Matter, for now, to help accelerate the
breakdown of society."
We can observe that by "regime change," these revolutionary leftists don't mean replacing
Trump with Biden -- they mean replacing capitalism and the Constitution. In the meantime, if
one looks at a Twitter feed identified by Ngo as an Antifa hub, It's Going Down , one sees plenty of anti-Trump rhetoric,
along with general hard leftism, but nothing in support of Biden.
However, here's something interesting: The Biden campaign shows no small degree of
support for the street radicals. As Reuters
reported on May 30,
"At least 13 Biden campaign staff members posted on Twitter on
Friday and Saturday that they made donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which opposes the
practice of cash bail, or making people pay to avoid pre-trial imprisonment. The group uses
donations to pay bail fees in Minneapolis."
We might observe that these 13 employees posted their pro-rioter sympathies on Twitter; in
other words, not only did they make no effort to hide their donations, but they also actively
bragged about them.
It could be argued, of course, that these are just 13 vanguard employees out of a campaign
staff that numbers in the hundreds, maybe even thousands. And yet as the Reuters piece adds,
Team Biden is not practicing political distancing from its in-house radicals: "Biden campaign
spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement to Reuters that the former vice president opposes
the institution of cash bail as a 'modern day debtors prison.'"
When pressed by Reuters -- which is not exactly Fox News in its editorial stance -- the
official spox for Middle Class Joe was unwilling to say more: "The campaign declined to answer
questions on whether the donations were coordinated within the campaign, underscoring the
politically thorny nature of the sometimes violent protests."
So we can see: The Biden campaign is trying to maintain its equipoise between liberals and
mobs, even as the former is bleeding into the latter. Indeed, a look at Biden's Twitter feed
shows the same port-side balancing act. On May 30, for instance, he tweeted , "If we are complacent,
if we are silent, we are complicit in perpetuating these cycles of violence. None of us can
turn away. We all have an obligation to speak out."
There's enough ambiguity here, as well as in his other tweets, to leave everyone parsing,
and guessing, as to what, exactly, Biden is saying -- except, as he
said on June 2, that he opposes the use of chokeholds to restrain violent suspects, and
also opposes more equipment for the police. The only other thing we know for sure is that he
hasn't tweeted an iota of specific sympathy for the people other than George Floyd who have
died in the recent violence. One such is
Patrick Underwood , an African American employee of the Federal Protective Service; he was
shot and killed in Oakland, Calif. on May 29.
Yet while the Biden campaign attempts to keep its relationship with Antifa and its ilk
fuzzy, other Democrats have made themselves clear. For instance, in 2018, then-Congressman
Keith Ellison tweeted
out a photograph of himself holding a copy of a book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,
which the radical-chic types at The New Yorkerdescribed as
"A how-to for would-be activists, and a record of advice from anti-Fascist organizers past and
present." Ellison is now the attorney general for the state of Minnesota.
And on May 31, Ellison's son, Jeremiah, a Minneapolis city councilman, tweeted , "I hereby
declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA."
Still, if the Democrats can't quite quit Antifa, most are smart enough to recognize the
danger of being too closely associated with hooligans and radicals. Moreover, they need some
theory of the case they wish to make, which is that they loudly support the protests, even as
they mumble about the violence.
And Democrats have found their favored argument -- the one that conveniently takes them off
the hook. Indeed, it's an argument they increasingly deploy to explain everything bad that
happens: The Russians did it.
Thus on May 31, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said on CNN of the
tumult, "In my experience, this is right out of the Russian playbook."
We might allow that it's possible, even probable, that the Russian government has been
taking delight in this spate of violence in America. And it's similarly probable that the
governments of China, Iran, and Venezuela, too, have been pleased, to say nothing of varying
portions of the public in every country. And so sure, more than a few tweets and Facebook posts
have probably resulted -- after all, stories ripping the U.S. were right there, for instance,
on the front
page of China's Global Times .
Still, it's ridiculous to think that hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- of Americans
are taking their cues from a foreign power; we've got plenty of home-grown radicalism and
anger.
Yet even so, the Democrats have persisted in their Russia-dunnit narrative, because
it serves their political, and perhaps psychological, need -- the need to externalize criminal
behavior. In other words, don't blame us for the killings and lootings -- blame Moscow.
Okay, so back to Antifa and Black Lives Matter. The left wing of the Democratic Party --
including elements within the Biden campaign -- might like them, but there's no evidence that
they like Democrats back.
Indeed, if the violence keeps up, it will become obvious that the leftist radicals are
not trying to help Biden. To put it another way, the rads would become the objective
allies (a political science term connoting an ironic congruence of interest) of Trump.
To be sure, right now, Trump is running five or six points behind Biden in the
RealClearPolitics
polling average . And yet, just as Dreher, Douthat, and McCarthy suggest, if the violence
continues and Trump goes firm while Biden stays mushy, that could change.
Indeed, as we think of genuine radicalism, we would do well to look beyond the parochial
confines of American politics, Democrat vs. Republican. Instead, we might ponder the epic
panorama of leftist history, which offers radicals so much more inspiration than historically
centrist America.
For instance, we might look to Russia. But not to the Russia of Vladimir Putin , but
rather, to the Russia of Vladimir Lenin .
In the early 20th century, Lenin's Bolsheviks, awaiting their revolutionary moment, operated
according to a simple slogan: "The worse the better." That is, the enemy of Bolshevism was
incremental reform, or progress of any kind; the reds wanted conditions to get so bad as to
"justify" a communist revolution. And that's what Lenin and his comrades got in October 1917,
when they seized power in the midst of the calamities of World War One.
Yes, of course, the communists made conditions worse, not better, for ordinary Russians. And
yet things weren't worse for Lenin and his Bolsheviks -- they were now in power. So today,
that's the sort of dream that inspires Antifa radicals.
To be sure, an America dominated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter is a distant prospect. But
radicals figure that four more years of Trump in the White House will move the nation to even
higher levels of chaos -- and thus move them closer to power.
With all that in prospect for radicals -- that is, the worse, the better -- the
prospect of Joe Biden losing this year is a small price to pay. Actually, for them, it's no
price at all.
In the meantime, for America, there is no better. Only worse.
Antifa can't function without covert support of FBI. That's given.
Notable quotes:
"... According to reporting in a Brooklyn publication from 2013, the "anarchist collective" is run by Elysa Lozano, an assistant professor at LaGuardia Community College who wears her violent extremist views on her sleeve, and Khalid Robinson, a man who according to an interview on an anarchist podcast is the organizer of the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement in New York City. ..."
"... Robinson, pictured above with Lozano, can be seen wearing an "antifa" t-shirt sold as part of a fundraiser for the "Tinley Park 5," a group of anarchists who were arrested for brutally injuring 10 people in a premeditated hammer attack in the Illinois suburb of Tinley Park in 2012. ..."
"... It is unknown how much criminal activity is planned at this venue, but it is a bug light for left-wing extremists from across the country and abroad. The group uses images of explosions as its logo , and has close ties to the Kurdish terrorist militia in Syria, the YPG, which has provided many American anarchists with military training undoubtedly being used in the riots as we speak. ..."
"... National Justice ..."
"... National Justice ..."
"... National Justice ..."
"... It's obvious from surveillance video that Floyd was dealing drugs out of his parked car on the corner that fateful morning. The cops apprehending him appear nonchalant, quietly going about their business with a routine arrest. Only when Floyd begins physically resisting do things begin to go south. ..."
"... How is Floyd's life worth all this havoc? The guy was a criminal deviant who brought his demise upon himself. He was not a sterling example of a freedom fighter or a high-minded social reformer. He playacted not being able to walk, collapsing on the sidewalk as he was being escorted to the cop car. Went all jelly-legged. Winced when a cop merely steered him by one of his burly arms which, while handcuffed behind his back were obviously not overly constrained. Play acting. Oh, the poor 230 lb. black boy, built like Hercules himself, acting all hurt when an Asian male puts a little directing pressure on his arm. ..."
As American cities burn and people are murdered in the street with impunity by groups
protesting the death of George Floyd, very little reporting has been done on who exactly is
responsible beyond tweets from Donald Trump about the mobs being led by "Antifa" (Anti-Fascist)
-- an umbrella term anarchist organizations use as propaganda when trying to win liberal
support for paramilitary attacks they conduct on nationalist protesters and Trump
supporters.
The mainstream media has played its role in intentionally obfuscating who exactly the groups
inciting the rioting and killing are by claiming "antifa" is not a group, which is a malicious
half-truth. Law enforcement sources, Andy Ngo , and Fox News have identified two organizations as
playing an active role in the carnage: The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement and The Base
.
These two groups are interlinked, and currently encouraging and organizing the violence in
the New York City area.
Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement and The Base
The Base, whose Facebook page is now explicitly
telling people to commit acts of violence, is an above ground "organizational space"
located at 1286 Myrtle Ave in Bushwick, Brooklyn.
According to reporting in a Brooklyn
publication from 2013, the "anarchist collective" is run by Elysa Lozano, an assistant
professor at LaGuardia Community College who
wears her violent extremist views on her sleeve, and Khalid Robinson, a man who according to an
interview on an anarchist podcast is the organizer of the Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement in New York City.
Robinson, pictured above with Lozano, can be seen wearing an "antifa" t-shirt sold as part
of a
fundraiser for the "Tinley Park 5," a group of anarchists who were arrested for brutally
injuring 10 people in a
premeditated hammer attack in the Illinois suburb of Tinley Park in 2012.
According to Robinson's interview on the "Solecast," he helped start The Base as "a place
for anarchists to meet."
It is unknown how much criminal activity is planned at this venue, but it is a bug light for
left-wing extremists from across the country and abroad. The group uses images of explosions as
its logo , and has
close ties to the Kurdish terrorist militia in Syria, the YPG, which has provided many American
anarchists with military training undoubtedly being used in the riots as we speak.
The front is also an operating space for groups like the NYC Anarchist Black Cross, which is
composed of "antifa" members and used as an above ground way to raise money and write prisoners
letters.
A photograph obtained by open source intelligence shows masked "antifa" members the media
claims don't exist posing in front of The Base.
As for Khalid Robinson's Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement, they do not hide what they are
about. As Fox News' Lara Logan has reported , they believe in engaging in racial violence
against white people and random police officers in the name of overthrowing "white
supremacy."
The group has two flags, one featuring a red AK-47 on a black banner, and another showing a
red star with the acronym "RAM."
An image of masked RAM members posing with shotguns, AK-47s, machetes and an "antifa" flag
was obtained by National Justice .
This group has been operating for years, spreading violent propaganda with the help of
social media companies, all while the FBI devotes all of its resources to chasing around
imaginary "white supremacist terrorists."
The extent of their terrorist activities is unknown, but they have been very active in the George Floyd riots -- calling it a
"black liberation revolt" -- and have
chapters across the country.
Related "Antifa" Extremists In Brooklyn
Christian Erazo is another important figure in organizing anarchist violence in New York
City.
Erazo, pictured above on the far right in the red and green bandana filming a video
announcing plans to disrupt public transportation, was profiled
for his activities by National Justice last January for his part in planning the
J31 subway riots . In spite of this reporting, the NYPD and the FBI took no action either
against the people who planned this chaos, or the Synagogue who allowed them to host their
planning sessions.
Erazo, the lead singer of punk band (A) Truth pictured above clutching the "antifa" flag,
helps lead multiple violent anarchist projects, such as Brigada 71 (a left-wing soccer hooligan group associated
with the New York Cosmos) and NYC Antifa
. Brigada 71 spends a lot of time at the East River Bar, a popular hangout for left-wing soccer
hooligans, on 97 South 6th Street in Brooklyn,
Both groups are also currently encouraging the violence on social media and are close to the
owners of The Base, who let them use the venue for their activities. Meet up spots like The
Base play an important role in providing fresh recruits due to its storefront visibility, which
invites curious and bored hipsters and radicalizes them in the rapidly gentrifying
neighborhood.
For years, Erazo used a warehouse on 258 Johnson Ave in East Williamsburg nicknamed "The
Swamp" to host punk rock shows that would serve to recruit new anarchists. While Erazo and his
friends did their best to keep the spot a secret, a Brooklyn hipster publication listed "The Swamp" as a cool place to see music as
recently as 2015. Erazo is specifically named as its "founder."
According to a source familiar with the anarchist community, when music wasn't playing, the
building had a gym and was used to conduct paramilitary training. While there doesn't seem to
be any more concerts happening at The Swamp, it is unknown if these anarchist groups are still
utilizing the space for other activities.
The Real Reason Its Difficult to Prosecute "Antifa"
Many Americans have complained that neither the police nor the FBI appear interested in
investigating or prosecuting anarchist paramilitary groups, even when they are leading the
worst and most deadly riots in modern history.
This isn't because it is hard to find out who these people are. It is due to state
corruption and privilege. A large number of anarchists are the sons and daughters of
politicians, bankers, judges, and other connected elite figures, thus immunizing from the
consequences of their crimes.
Recently, New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio's
own daughter was arrested among the rioters in the city he governs. Vice presidential
contender and Virginia Senator Tim Kaine's
son is another example. An "antifa" organizer was exposed
by National Justice as the grandson of a judge and nephew of a Congressman who is also
now a judge.
Ken Klippenstein, a digital blogger who is a fan of the anarchist groups dubbed "antifa,"
was leaked documents by FBI agents about with details about an ongoing investigation into the
activities of these violent extremists.
With virtually every institution in America expressing support for these terrorist groups,
along with their connections to powerful officials, Donald Trump's bluster about labeling them
a terrorist group appears to be nothing but a gust of hot air.
It's obvious from surveillance video that Floyd was dealing drugs out of his parked car
on the corner that fateful morning. The cops apprehending him appear nonchalant, quietly
going about their business with a routine arrest. Only when Floyd begins physically resisting
do things begin to go south.
So this is the hill that liberals choose to take a stand and die on. Defending a low-life,
street drug dealer, who has three cocaine priors on his rap sheet. And when legitimate,
unrelated businesses burn, they say, "Good. That's justice for Floyd."
And they can't see how insane this is? How is Floyd's life worth all this havoc? The
guy was a criminal deviant who brought his demise upon himself. He was not a sterling example
of a freedom fighter or a high-minded social reformer. He playacted not being able to walk,
collapsing on the sidewalk as he was being escorted to the cop car. Went all jelly-legged.
Winced when a cop merely steered him by one of his burly arms which, while handcuffed behind
his back were obviously not overly constrained. Play acting. Oh, the poor 230 lb. black boy,
built like Hercules himself, acting all hurt when an Asian male puts a little directing
pressure on his arm.
What a despicable farce. There's no hope for a nation in which different sides play by
different Rules. The Left obeys no Laws. Acknowledges no limits to their behavior. Acts
according to what will best advance their cause. Has no compunction about lying, about
destroying their enemies by any means, fair or foul, possible.
If factions within a Nation will not and do not agree on basic Rules of the Contest, then
no governance is possible. That Nation will, indeed, degenerate into anarchy. This just
is . For some reason, someone wants America to fracture into smaller units.
@ThreeCranes I mean, he did five years in Prison for bursting into a woman's house with 5
other thugs and jamming a gun into her gut during an attempted robbery. (I heard she was
pregnant, but I'm not sure.) She was battered, though. This is their great Saint.
" the NYPD and the FBI took no action either against the people who planned this chaos, or
the Synagogue who allowed them to host their planning sessions."
Well, surprise surprise. Violent left wing groups hold planning sessions in
Synagogues.
The 'Russian' revolution and others in Eastern Europe followed the same pattern.
It's all political theatre. Antifa, supported by Jewish money, rails against 'white
privilege', never daring to point out that most of the powerbrokers and influencers (eg,
bankers, Hollywood studio owners, blackface performers, publishing house owners) are
Jews.
Leftist revolutionary radicals enjoy the support and protection of the establishment which
appoints them 'the good guys'.
If you are a conservative, you have no overt support from professors, journalists,
politicians, or trend-setting celebrities. You're labeled 'the bad guys'.
If given an informed choice, the Silent Majority of Americans would side with young
conservatives over young anarchists. The problem is that the other side is ahead in a culture
war, and the right is only just getting on its feet to fight it.
In a thoughtful analysis, the Irish journalist O'Toole asserts neoliberalism creates the
conditions for enabling what he calls a trial run for a full-blown state of contemporary
fascism:
To grasp what is going on in the world right now, we need to reflect on two things. One is
that we are in a phase of trial runs. The other is that what is being trialed is fascism -- a
word that should be used carefully but not shirked when it is so clearly on the horizon.
Forget 'post-fascist' -- what we are living with is pre-fascism. Rather than overthrow
democracy in one full swipe, it has to be undermined through rigged elections, the creation
of tribal identities, and legitimated through a 'propaganda machine so effective that it
creates for its followers a universe of "alternative facts" impervious to unwanted
realities.' . Fascism doesn't arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get
people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if
they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially
recoil from, and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we
would be fools not to see it. 40
Ultra-nationalist and contemporary versions of fascism are gaining traction across the globe
in countries such as Greece (Golden Dawn), Hungary (Jobbik), India (Bharatiya Janata Party),
and Italy (the League) and countless others. ...
... ... ...
Trump has elevated himself as the patron saint of a ruthless neoliberalism. This is evident
in the various miracles he has performed for the rich and powerful. He has systemically
deregulated regulations that extend from environmental protections to worker safety rules. He
has enacted a $1.5-trillion tax policy that amounts to a huge gift to the financial elite and
all the while maintaining his "man of the people" posture. He has appointed a range of
neoliberal fundamentalists to head major government posts designed to serve the public. Most,
like Scott Pruitt, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Betsy DeVos, the
secretary of Education, have proved to be either corrupt, incompetent, or often both. Along
with the Republican Congress, Trump has vastly increased the military budget to $717 billion,
creating huge financial profits for the military-industrial-defense complex while instituting
policies that eviscerate the welfare state and further expand a war machine that generates mass
suffering and death.
Trump has reduced food assistance for those who are forced to choose between eating and
taking medicine, and his policies have prevented millions from getting adequate health care.
43 Last but not least, he has become a cheerleader for the gun and
security industries going so far as to call for the arming of teachers as a way to redress mass
shootings in the nation's schools. All of these policies serve to unleash the anti-liberal and
anti-democratic passions, fears, anxieties and anger necessary to mainstream fascism.
... ... ...
The United States is in a dangerous moment in its history, which makes it all the more
crucial to understand how a distinctive form of neoliberal fascism now bears down on the
present and threatens to usher in a period of unprecedented barbarism in the not too distant
future. In an attempt to address this new political conjuncture, I want to suggest that rather
than view fascism simply as a repetition of the past, it is crucial to forge a new vocabulary
and politics to grasp how neoliberal fascism has become a uniquely American model for the
present. One way to address this challenge is to rethink what lessons can be learned by
interrogating how matters of language and memory can be used to illuminate the dark forces
connecting the past and present as part of the new hybridized political nightmare.
The Language of Fascism
Fascism begins not with violence, police assaults or mass killings, but with language. Trump
reminded us of this in 2015 while announcing his candidacy for president. He stated, without
irony or shame, that "when Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're
sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing
drugs, they're bringing crime...
... ... ...
Neoliberal fascism converges with an earlier form of fascism in its commitment to a language
of erasure and a politics of disposability. In the fascist script, historical memory becomes a
liability, even dangerous, when it functions pedagogically to inform our political and social
imagination...
Unsurprisingly, historical memory as a form of enlightenment and demystification is surely
at odds with Trump's abuse of history as a form of social amnesia and political
camouflage,,,
... ... ...
At the same time, the corruption of language is often followed by the corruption of memory,
morality and the eventual disappearance of books, ideas and human beings. Prominent German
historians such as Richard J. Evans and Victor Klemperer have made clear that for fascist
dictators, the dynamics of state censorship and repression had an endpoint in a politics of
disappearance, extermination and the death camps.
...neoliberal fascism has restructured civic life that valorizes ignorance, avarice and
willful forgetting. In the current Trumpian moment, shouting replaces the pedagogical
imperative to listen and reinforces the stories neoliberal fascism tells us about ourselves,
our relations to others and the larger world. Under such circumstances, monstrous deeds are
committed under the increasing normalization of civic and historical modes of illiteracy. One
consequence is that comparisons to the Nazi past can whither in the false belief that
historical events are fixed in time and place and can only be repeated in history books. In an
age marked by a war on terror, a culture of fear and the normalization of uncertainty, social
amnesia has become a power tool for dismantling democracy. Indeed, in this age of
forgetfulness, American society appears to revel in what it should be ashamed of and alarmed
over.
... ... ...
Trump's selective appropriation of history wages war on the past, choosing to celebrate
rather than question fascist horrors. The past in this case is a script that must be followed
rather than interrogated. Trump's view of history is at once "ugly and revealing."....
The production of new narratives accompanied by critical inquiries into the past would help
explain why people participated in the horrors of fascism and what it might take to prevent
such complicity from unfolding again. Comparing Trump's ideology, policies and language to a
fascist past offers the possibility to learn what is old and new in the dark times that have
descended upon the United States. The pressing relevance of the 1930s is crucial to address how
fascist ideas and practices originate and adapt to new conditions, and how people capitulate
and resist them as well.
...Neoliberal fascism insists that everything, including human beings, are to be made over
in the image of the market. Everyone is now subject to a paralyzing language of individual
responsibility and a disciplinary apparatus that revises downward the American dream of social
mobility. Time is now a burden for most people and the lesson to draw from this punishing
neoliberal ideology is that everyone is alone in navigating their own fate.
At work here is a neoliberal project to reduce people to human capital and redefine human
agency beyond the bonds of sociality, equality, belonging and obligation. All problems and
their solutions are now defined exclusively within the purview of the individual. This is a
depoliticizing discourse that champions mythic notions of self-reliance and individual
character to promote the tearing up of social solidarities and the public spheres that support
them.
All aspects of the social and public are now considered suspect, including social space,
social provisions, social protections and social dependency, especially for those who are poor
and vulnerable. According to the philosopher Byung-Chul Han, the subjects in a "neoliberal
economy do not constitute a we that is capable of collective action. The mounting egoization
and atomization of society is shrinking the space for collective action. As such, it blocks the
formation of a counter power that might be able to put the capitalist order in question."
65
At the core of neoliberal fascism is a view of subjectivity that celebrates a narcissistic
hyper-individualism that radiates with a near sociopathic lack of interest in others with whom
it shares a globe on the brink of catastrophe. This project is wedded to a politics that
produces a high threshold of disappearance and serves to disconnect the material moorings and
wreckage of neoliberal fascism from its underlying power relations.
Neoliberal fascism thrives on producing subjects that internalize its values, corroding
their ability to imagine an alternative world. Under such conditions, not only is agency
depoliticized, but the political is emptied of any real substance and unable to challenge
neoliberalism's belief in extreme inequality and social abandonment. This fosters fascism's
deep-rooted investment ultra-nationalism, racial purity and the politics of terminal
exclusion.
We live at a time in which the social is individualized and at odds with a notion of
solidarity once described by Frankfurt School theorist Herbert Marcuse as "the refusal to let
one's happiness coexist with the suffering of others." 66 Marcuse
invokes a forgotten notion of the social in which one is willing not only to make sacrifices
for others but also "to engage in joint struggle against the cause of suffering or against a
common adversary." 67
One step toward fighting and overcoming the criminogenic machinery of terminal exclusion and
social death endemic to neoliberal fascism is to make education central to a politics that
changes the way people think, desire, hope and act. How might language and history adopt modes
of persuasion that anchor democratic life in a commitment to economic equality, social justice
and a broad shared vision? The challenge we face under a fascism buoyed by a savage
neoliberalism is to ask and act on what language, memory and education as the practice of
freedom might mean in a democracy. What work can they perform, how can hope be nourished by
collective action and the ongoing struggle to create a broad-based democratic socialist
movement? What work has to be done to "imagine a politics in which empowerment can grow and
public freedom thrive without violence?" 68 What institutions have to
be defended and fought for if the spirit of a radical democracy is to return to view and
survive?
"... In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists". ..."
"... Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism. Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism. ..."
"... The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic. ..."
"... Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism" to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem). ..."
"... The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin. ..."
"... The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language. ..."
"... The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful thought police for the neoliberal war party. ..."
"... In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise. But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation? ..."
"... The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative to joining the U.S. Marines. ..."
"... American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang is tougher than your gang. ..."
"... In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals, of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry, not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump instead of themselves. ..."
"... Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy, white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods, has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was. ..."
– Ennio Flaiano, Italian writer and co-author of Federico Fellini's greatest film scripts.
In recent weeks, a totally disoriented left has been widely exhorted to unify around a masked
vanguard calling itself Antifa, for anti-fascist. Hooded and dressed in black, Antifa is essentially
a variation of the Black Bloc, familiar for introducing violence into peaceful demonstrations in
many countries. Imported from Europe, the label Antifa sounds more political. It also serves the
purpose of stigmatizing those it attacks as "fascists".
Despite its imported European name, Antifa is basically just another example of America's steady
descent into violence.
Historical Pretensions
Antifa first came to prominence from its role in reversing Berkeley's proud "free speech" tradition
by preventing right wing personalities from speaking there. But its moment of glory was its clash
with rightwingers in Charlottesville on August 12, largely because Trump commented that there were
"good people on both sides". With exuberant Schadenfreude, commentators grabbed the opportunity to
condemn the despised President for his "moral equivalence", thereby bestowing a moral blessing on
Antifa.
Charlottesville served as a successful book launching for
Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook , whose author, young academic Mark Bray, is an Antifa
in both theory and practice. The book is "really taking off very fast", rejoiced the publisher, Melville
House. It instantly won acclaim from leading mainstream media such as the New York Times
, The Guardian and NBC, not hitherto known for rushing to review leftwing books, least of
all those by revolutionary anarchists.
The Washington Post welcomed Bray as spokesman for "insurgent activist movements" and
observed that: "The book's most enlightening contribution is on the history of anti-fascist efforts
over the past century, but its most relevant for today is its justification for stifling speech and
clobbering white supremacists."
Bray's "enlightening contribution" is to a tell a flattering version of the Antifa story to a
generation whose dualistic, Holocaust-centered view of history has largely deprived them of both
the factual and the analytical tools to judge multidimensional events such as the growth of fascism.
Bray presents today's Antifa as though it were the glorious legitimate heir to every noble cause
since abolitionism. But there were no anti-fascists before fascism, and the label "Antifa" by no
means applies to all the many adversaries of fascism.
The implicit claim to carry on the tradition of the International Brigades who fought in Spain
against Franco is nothing other than a form of innocence by association. Since we must revere the
heroes of the Spanish Civil War, some of that esteem is supposed to rub off on their self-designated
heirs. Unfortunately, there are no veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade still alive to point to
the difference between a vast organized defense against invading fascist armies and skirmishes on
the Berkeley campus. As for the Anarchists of Catalonia, the patent on anarchism ran out a long time
ago, and anyone is free to market his own generic.
The original Antifascist movement was an effort by the Communist International to cease hostilities
with Europe's Socialist Parties in order to build a common front against the triumphant movements
led by Mussolini and Hitler.
Since Fascism thrived, and Antifa was never a serious adversary, its apologists thrive on the
"nipped in the bud" claim: "if only" Antifascists had beat up the fascist movements early enough,
the latter would have been nipped in the bud. Since reason and debate failed to stop the rise of
fascism, they argue, we must use street violence – which, by the way, failed even more decisively.
This is totally ahistorical. Fascism exalted violence, and violence was its preferred testing
ground. Both Communists and Fascists were fighting in the streets and the atmosphere of violence
helped fascism thrive as a bulwark against Bolshevism, gaining the crucial support of leading capitalists
and militarists in their countries, which brought them to power.
Since historic fascism no longer exists, Bray's Antifa have broadened their notion of "fascism"
to include anything that violates the current Identity Politics canon: from "patriarchy" (a pre-fascist
attitude to put it mildly) to "transphobia" (decidedly a post-fascist problem).
The masked militants of Antifa seem to be more inspired by Batman than by Marx or even by Bakunin.
Storm Troopers of the Neoliberal War Party
Since Mark Bray offers European credentials for current U.S. Antifa, it is appropriate to observe
what Antifa amounts to in Europe today.
In Europe, the tendency takes two forms. Black Bloc activists regularly invade various leftist
demonstrations in order to smash windows and fight the police. These testosterone exhibits are of
minor political significance, other than provoking public calls to strengthen police forces. They
are widely suspected of being influenced by police infiltration.
As an example, last September 23, several dozen black-clad masked ruffians, tearing down posters
and throwing stones, attempted to storm the platform where the flamboyant Jean-Luc Mélenchon was
to address the mass meeting of La France Insoumise , today the leading leftist party in
France. Their unspoken message seemed to be that nobody is revolutionary enough for them. Occasionally,
they do actually spot a random skinhead to beat up. This establishes their credentials as "anti-fascist".
They use these credentials to arrogate to themselves the right to slander others in a sort of
informal self-appointed inquisition.
As prime example, in late 2010, a young woman named Ornella Guyet appeared in Paris seeking work
as a journalist in various leftist periodicals and blogs. She "tried to infiltrate everywhere", according
to the former director of Le Monde diplomatique , Maurice Lemoine, who "always intuitively
distrusted her "when he hired her as an intern.
Viktor Dedaj, who manages one of the main leftist sites in France, Le Grand Soir , was
among those who tried to help her, only to experience an unpleasant surprise a few months later.
Ornella had become a self-appointed inquisitor dedicated to denouncing "conspirationism, confusionism,
anti-Semitism and red-brown" on Internet. This took the form of personal attacks on individuals whom
she judged to be guilty of those sins. What is significant is that all her targets were opposed to
U.S. and NATO aggressive wars in the Middle East.
Indeed, the timing of her crusade coincided with the "regime change" wars that destroyed Libya
and tore apart Syria. The attacks singled out leading critics of those wars.
Viktor Dedaj was on her hit list. So was Michel Collon, close to the Belgian Workers Party, author,
activist and manager of the bilingual site Investig'action. So was François Ruffin, film-maker, editor
of the leftist journal Fakir elected recently to the National Assembly on the list of Mélenchon's
party La France Insoumise . And so on. The list is long.
The targeted personalities are diverse, but all have one thing in common: opposition to aggressive
wars. What's more, so far as I can tell, just about everyone opposed to those wars is on her list.
The main technique is guilt by association. High on the list of mortal sins is criticism of the
European Union, which is associated with "nationalism" which is associated with "fascism" which is
associated with "anti-Semitism", hinting at a penchant for genocide. This coincides perfectly with
the official policy of the EU and EU governments, but Antifa uses much harsher language.
In mid-June 2011, the anti-EU party Union Populaire Républicaine led by François Asselineau
was the object of slanderous insinuations on Antifa internet sites signed by "Marie-Anne Boutoleau"
(a pseudonym for Ornella Guyet). Fearing violence, owners cancelled scheduled UPR meeting places
in Lyon. UPR did a little investigation, discovering that Ornella Guyet was on the speakers list
at a March 2009 Seminar on International Media organized in Paris by the Center for the Study of
International Communications and the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.
A surprising association for such a zealous crusader against "red-brown".
In case anyone has doubts, "red-brown" is a term used to smear anyone with generally leftist views
– that is, "red" – with the fascist color "brown". This smear can be based on having the same opinion
as someone on the right, speaking on the same platform with someone on the right, being published
alongside someone on the right, being seen at an anti-war demonstration also attended by someone
on the right, and so on. This is particularly useful for the War Party, since these days, many conservatives
are more opposed to war than leftists who have bought into the "humanitarian war" mantra.
The government doesn't need to repress anti-war gatherings. Antifa does the job.
The Franco-African comedien Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, stigmatized for anti-Semitism since 2002
for his TV sketch lampooning an Israeli settler as part of George W. Bush's "Axis of Good", is not
only a target, but serves as a guilty association for anyone who defends his right to free speech
– such as Belgian professor Jean Bricmont, virtually blacklisted in France for trying to get in a
word in favor of free speech during a TV talk show. Dieudonné has been banned from the media, sued
and fined countless times, even sentenced to jail in Belgium, but continues to enjoy a full house
of enthusiastic supporters at his one-man shows, where the main political message is opposition to
war.
Still, accusations of being soft on Dieudonné can have serious effects on individuals in more
precarious positions, since the mere hint of "anti-Semitism" can be a career killer in France. Invitations
are cancelled, publications refused, messages go unanswered.
In April 2016, Ornella Guyet dropped out of sight, amid strong suspicions about her own peculiar
associations.
The moral of this story is simple. Self-appointed radical revolutionaries can be the most useful
thought police for the neoliberal war party.
I am not suggesting that all, or most, Antifa are agents of the establishment. But they can be
manipulated, infiltrated or impersonated precisely because they are self-anointed and usually more
or less disguised.
Silencing Necessary Debate
One who is certainly sincere is Mark Bray, author of The Intifa Handbook . It is clear
where Mark Bray is coming from when he writes (p.36-7): " Hitler's 'final solution' murdered six
million Jews in gas chambers, with firing squads, through hunger an lack of medical treatment in
squalid camps and ghettoes, with beatings, by working them to death, and through suicidal despair.
Approximately two out of every three Jews on the continent were killed, including some of my relatives."
This personal history explains why Mark Bray feels passionately about "fascism". This is perfectly
understandable in one who is haunted by fear that "it can happen again".
However, even the most justifiable emotional concerns do not necessarily contribute to wise counsel.
Violent reactions to fear may seem to be strong and effective when in reality they are morally weak
and practically ineffectual.
We are in a period of great political confusion. Labeling every manifestation of "political incorrectness"
as fascism impedes clarification of debate over issues that very much need to be defined and clarified.
The scarcity of fascists has been compensated by identifying criticism of immigration as fascism.
This identification, in connection with rejection of national borders, derives much of its emotional
force above all from the ancestral fear in the Jewish community of being excluded from the nations
in which they find themselves.
The issue of immigration has different aspects in different places. It is not the same in European
countries as in the United States. There is a basic distinction between immigrants and immigration.
Immigrants are people who deserve consideration. Immigration is a policy that needs to be evaluated.
It should be possible to discuss the policy without being accused of persecuting the people. After
all, trade union leaders have traditionally opposed mass immigration, not out of racism, but because
it can be a deliberate capitalist strategy to bring down wages.
In reality, immigration is a complex subject, with many aspects that can lead to reasonable compromise.
But to polarize the issue misses the chances for compromise. By making mass immigration the litmus
test of whether or not one is fascist, Antifa intimidation impedes reasonable discussion. Without
discussion, without readiness to listen to all viewpoints, the issue will simply divide the population
into two camps, for and against. And who will win such a confrontation?
A recent survey* shows that mass immigration is increasingly unpopular in all European countries.
The complexity of the issue is shown by the fact that in the vast majority of European countries,
most people believe they have a duty to welcome refugees, but disapprove of continued mass immigration.
The official argument that immigration is a good thing is accepted by only 40%, compared to 60% of
all Europeans who believe that "immigration is bad for our country". A left whose principal cause
is open borders will become increasingly unpopular.
Childish Violence
The idea that the way to shut someone up is to punch him in the jaw is as American as Hollywood
movies. It is also typical of the gang war that prevails in certain parts of Los Angeles. Banding
together with others "like us" to fight against gangs of "them" for control of turf is characteristic
of young men in uncertain circumstances. The search for a cause can involve endowing such conduct
with a political purpose: either fascist or antifascist. For disoriented youth, this is an alternative
to joining the U.S. Marines.
American Antifa looks very much like a middle class wedding between Identity Politics and gang
warfare. Mark Bray (page 175) quotes his DC Antifa source as implying that the motive of would-be
fascists is to side with "the most powerful kid in the block" and will retreat if scared. Our gang
is tougher than your gang.
That is also the logic of U.S. imperialism, which habitually declares of its chosen enemies: "All
they understand is force." Although Antifa claim to be radical revolutionaries, their mindset is
perfectly typical the atmosphere of violence which prevails in militarized America.
In another vein, Antifa follows the trend of current Identity Politics excesses that are squelching
free speech in what should be its citadel, academia. Words are considered so dangerous that "safe
spaces" must be established to protect people from them. This extreme vulnerability to injury from
words is strangely linked to tolerance of real physical violence.
Wild Goose Chase
In the United States, the worst thing about Antifa is the effort to lead the disoriented American
left into a wild goose chase, tracking down imaginary "fascists" instead of getting together openly
to work out a coherent positive program. The United States has more than its share of weird individuals,
of gratuitous aggression, of crazy ideas, and tracking down these marginal characters, whether alone
or in groups, is a huge distraction. The truly dangerous people in the United States are safely ensconced
in Wall Street, in Washington Think Tanks, in the executive suites of the sprawling military industry,
not to mention the editorial offices of some of the mainstream media currently adopting a benevolent
attitude toward "anti-fascists" simply because they are useful in focusing on the maverick Trump
instead of themselves.
Antifa USA, by defining "resistance to fascism" as resistance to lost causes – the Confederacy,
white supremacists and for that matter Donald Trump – is actually distracting from resistance to
the ruling neoliberal establishment, which is also opposed to the Confederacy and white supremacists
and has already largely managed to capture Trump by its implacable campaign of denigration. That
ruling establishment, which in its insatiable foreign wars and introduction of police state methods,
has successfully used popular "resistance to Trump" to make him even worse than he already was.
The facile use of the term "fascist" gets in the way of thoughtful identification and definition
of the real enemy of humanity today. In the contemporary chaos, the greatest and most dangerous upheavals
in the world all stem from the same source, which is hard to name, but which we might give the provisional
simplified label of Globalized Imperialism. This amounts to a multifaceted project to reshape the
world to satisfy the demands of financial capitalism, the military industrial complex, United States
ideological vanity and the megalomania of leaders of lesser "Western" powers, notably Israel. It
could be called simply "imperialism", except that it is much vaster and more destructive than the
historic imperialism of previous centuries. It is also much more disguised. And since it bears no
clear label such as "fascism", it is difficult to denounce in simple terms.
The fixation on preventing a form of tyranny that arose over 80 years ago, under very different
circumstances, obstructs recognition of the monstrous tyranny of today. Fighting the previous war
leads to defeat.
Donald Trump is an outsider who will not be let inside. The election of Donald Trump is above
all a grave symptom of the decadence of the American political system, totally ruled by money, lobbies,
the military-industrial complex and corporate media. Their lies are undermining the very basis of
democracy. Antifa has gone on the offensive against the one weapon still in the hands of the people:
the right to free speech and assembly.
Notes.
* "Où va la démocratie?", une enquête de la Fondation pour l'innovation politique sous la direction
de Dominique Reynié, (Plon, Paris, 2017).
While that talk has many interesting points, it is basically wrong. Fascism is a political
movement centered on political party with far right nationalist political ideology and that use
mobilization of people.
Inverted totalitarism does not use distinct political party and reject mass mobilization for
reaching its goals. That's an important difference.
Notable quotes:
"... ANTIFA defines fascist as, a cult of purity, victimhood, abandonment of liberty, and redemptive violence. Doesn't it sound like they are defining themselves? (Antifa - The Handbook for Antifascists) ..."
Part 1 - Meet the Antifascists - 0:53 Part 2 - Fascism - 8:18 Part 3 - Violence - 20:47 Part 4 - Free Speech -
39:58 Part 5 - There
Is No Peaceful White Nationalism - 53:30
I remember reading in my Abnormal Psychology textbook that in the early 1900s, the
mentally ill in the United States were forcefully sterilized to prevent them from "breeding"
which made me take a step back and realize that I was never once taught this in school and I
was only ever taught that the United States were (almost) always the good guys. Eugenics has
a deep rooted history in America and it's terrifying.
NOT being taught something in school is not automatically insidious and disturbing. BEING
taught something toxic or deflective in school IS automatically insidious and disturbing. In
school I was taught roughly 0.000000000000000001% about things that are and things that have
been.
Hello! I´m from Brazil and your videos have helped me to deal these awful days and,
also, to understand how Bolsonaro supporters think (if this is possible!) Neonazi and
fascists movements were marginal and formed only for small groups in Brazil in last decades,
despite always considered dangerous. Now, these movements have been appeared in pro-bolsonaro
parades and it´s really scare! Much of this video match with it has happened right now
in Brazil!
div> We shouldn't give up on the entire system due to amendable flaws and corruption
(debt-based commercial banks, multinational companies, cheap labor, etc), and attempt to
replace it with a weak and unstable mob rule. People always find a scapegoat, whether it's
another ethnic group, authorities, or smart and prosperous individuals, which escalates the
situation. Class wars are like other wars, and we'd all end up living in tents and flats,
eating powdered crickets and working to death "for the common good" and in order to "end
exploitation". Many countries have a mixed economy regulated and supervised by the state, and
you have a chance to negotiate a proper wage or become an entrepreneur. Social democracies
provide all citizens tax-funded healthcare and university level education, while allowing
competition, and being capable of maintaining peace and order, even if the exact same model
wouldn't work everywhere, and there could be improvements.
> 54:30 fun fact: In 1964 Brazil
suffered a Military Coup backed by the CIA/US. At the time leading to the coup, the
petite-bourgeois that thought themselves "the people" organized some marches. The names of
the marches were something like "March of the Families with God for Liberty", and they
marched bearing several posters accusing the then President Jango of being a communist,
saying that "Brazil wouldn't turn into a Cuba". Brazil was in a decade-long turmoil and the
President at the time decided to take some Nationalization attitudes and whatnot, so he was
obviously accused of being a communist, despite not even being a socialist. So the great fear
of communism was implanted in the Brazilian people's mind via those marches and subsequently,
less then a month later, the Fascist Military Coup was widely accepted as the unfortunate
best solution against communism. Needless to say that TO THE DAY there's a great denial of a
Coup, they created a narrative in which they lead people into believing the Military Junta
really saved Brazil from becoming Cuba. The result of it is that it's 2020 and the Brazilian
President is an Army Captain, his VP is an Army General, and several of his Ministers are
also Generals, during the COVID-19 Pandemic we have an "Operational President" named by the
High Command of the Armed Forces who is a General, and guess what? The President and his
lackeys are AGAIN shouting about the imminent Communist threat, this time forming armed
Paramilitary Groups trained in Ukraine by the Pravyy Sektor. If anyone out there sees this
comment, keep it in mind and save it, for in about 1-2 years we'll be having an unambiguous
Military Dictatorship in Brazil, AGAIN.
cle"> 12:22 "It's important to note
that fascism is not a wholly different government from the one you might know and it did not
end in 1945. For instance, most of these features I described would also, in milder forms,
describe a certain American presidency. That's right. The Reagan administration" *glaces
to date of the video*
So, by the 'textbook definition' of Fascism, pretty much every right-leaning politician in
the U.S and almost every right-wing pundit is a Fascist. Which isn't surprising, considering
how far the overton window has moved rightward and how far right the Democratic party is. You
can probably attribute this shift to how pro-capitalist and pro-imperialist the donor class
is and how that affects the make-up of the political parties.
rticle"> 41:20 just wanted to add
another example that I know a lot about. In France, the only protest that haven't been
repressed by the police are the protests from fascists (La manic pour Tous, Syndicats de
Police, Generation Identitaire). Other protests like the Yellow Vests, Feminist night
marches, strike protests, etc... (we've had a lotta protests in France these past years) are
always repressed. But what I want to talk about is the violence that counter protesters are
facing from the police. We have to be careful not to get hit or hurt by fascists but also be
careful of violence and arrests from the police. The very violent far right organization (and
very very racist) Generation Identitaire got to protest with thousand of policemen to protect
them. My girlfriend and I were asked (forced) to leave because we had a gay flag. The police
in France is extremely violent, and maybe not as much as in other countries such as Chile,
but the violence keeps increasing and it keeps getting more dangerous. As someone who
regularly goes to protests, I consider myself very lucky and very privilege for never getting
badly hurt by a cop. My lungs do suffer the consequence of the constant breathing of lacrymo
gas ahah Anyway, I just wanted to develop an example of another rich European country. (sorry
for English mistakes)
"Every border implies the violence necessary to maintain it..." That's a throw-away line
that had me stopping and thinking like god damn. LeftTube has definitely made me a more
thoughtful person as a whole.
ANTIFA defines fascist as, a cult of purity, victimhood, abandonment of liberty, and
redemptive violence. Doesn't it sound like they are defining themselves? (Antifa - The
Handbook for Antifascists)
I've just started to watch and I'm concerned about that facist checklist. Trump meets
quite a few of the criteria with his response to what's going on at the moment...so it is
somewhat hypocritical that he wants to label antifa as a terrorist organisation when in fact
anti facist movements are not an organisation (as you explained in the beginning). Possibly
another diversion tactic so people don't look at at Trump and his reaction to the
violence.
Looks like antifa members is Maoists not Fascists.
Notable quotes:
"... Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook ..."
"... These people are self-defeating morons, yes, but they still have the potential to do great damage ..."
"... Last night, here in Washington, the unrest they helped fuel saw a church lit on fire, LaFayette Park near the White House set ablaze, the AFL-CIO building attacked, and the Lincoln Memorial defaced. ..."
Back in 2018, my friend Zachary Yost suffered his way through Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook , a primer on the group
written by (but of course!) Dartmouth lecturer Mark Bray. What he found was a chillingly lucid call to revolution that subordinated
all else to the goal of overthrowing capitalism and the "Far Right." So free speech, for example, is dispensable, valuable only to
the extent that it enables the coming flames.
Yost writes:
By the time he's finished, Bray has thrown everything and the kitchen sink into the category of fascist ideologies that must
be targeted, ranging from whiteness to "ableism, heteronormativity, patriarchy, nationalism, transphobia, class rule, and many
others." Though cloaked in calls to stop oppression, Bray's book at its core makes the case for the exercise of raw, unbridled
power. Under this revolutionary ideology, no dissent can be tolerated. There can be no live and let live -- it is all or nothing.
In fairness, Antifa is a wide and somewhat amorphous umbrella, some of whose members may not subscribe to everything Bray says.
But what the more committed among them seem to understand is that, come lawlessness, power will flow naturally to he who has the
most muscle, he who's most willing to pick up a brick and throw it, at the expense of the poor and vulnerable. Remember that tonight
when we inevitably see more violence in the streets. Senselessness is the point. Preying on the innocent is the goal.
Remember after Charlottesville when some on social media compared these guys to the American soldiers who fought the Nazis at
Normandy? I don't want to hear another word about that. Antifa may stand for antifascist, but Yost's piece makes it clear that they're
fascist to their marrow. And as with many latter-day fascists and extremists, Antifa are simultaneously cogent at the manifesto level
and utterly delusional as to likely outcomes. They aren't going to overthrow capitalism or Donald Trump. They may, however, affect
the election in five months, with the most likely beneficiary the president they so despise.
These people are self-defeating morons, yes, but they still have the potential to do great damage.
Last night, here in Washington, the unrest they helped fuel saw a church lit on fire, LaFayette Park near the White House
set ablaze, the AFL-CIO building attacked, and the Lincoln Memorial defaced.
This is how a Franco ends up in power: because even churches are being targeted, even the moderate leftists aren't safe. Bully
people long enough and they long for a bully of their own. That Antifa has desecrated the protests over George Floyd's death this
way is appalling and I wish them nothing but the worst.
Matt Purple is a senior editor at The American Conservative .
I can picture anarchists setting fire to Minneapolis, but I was always under the clear impression that ANTIFA was really, really,
focused on outing neo-nazis, punching marchers in the face, and deplatforming the ALT-RIGHT. God's work! Why in the world would
they torch Popeyes?
One of the Fox news affiliate stations had reported looking at the paper work for people arrested in their city and said that
80% of the people arrested were from in state. That was after both Trump and Barr had claimed they were almost all from out of
state. If they lied about that what reason is there to believe that the rest of their claims are true? What evidence is there
other than a report of a pallet of brick (how do you unload it with out a forklift?) being left some where what evidence is there
that all of this is co-ordinated and not just random thugs? Why is the assumption that they are left leaning or tied to the Democratic
party? At least one of the people caught breaking windows, carrying an umbrella and masked was an off duty police officer which
generally lean to the right. I know a 25 year old man was arrested for burning a court house. The young tend to lean left but
also tend to act irrationally with out a cause. Is there any actual evidence to point to this being Antifa or are we just supposed
to take POTUS's word for it?
Trump and Barr merely picked up on claims from the governor of MN and mayor of Minneapolis. They did not originate the claim that
the rioters were from out-of-state.
Uh, the assumption that they are left-leaning comes from the fact that they spray-paint left-leaning things, and shout left-leaning
things.
I haven't heard anyone claim that they are tied to the Democratic Party, but many Democratic Party politicians have avoided
condemning them, and many Democratic Party-backing commentators/journalists have openly defended them.
The NYC Police Dept. reports that they have in their possession communications among Antifa units making detailed plans for
riots in places like NYC days before the riots occurred.
Something like a thousand people have been arrested now in these riots. How many of them have been identified as right-wing
or right-leaning? I don't know of a single one. You don't think these lefty Dem mayors and the MSM would be parading any evidence
they had of right-leaning rioters?
The Minnesota Freedom Fund is also being funded by politically correct Hollywood leftists. If Minneapolis really is a right-wing
insurrection highly disguised, it's fooled the woke crowd unmercifully.
"The destruction of businesses we're witnessing across the US is not mere
opportunism by looters. It plays a critical role in antifa and BLM
ideology"
Grouping Black Lives Matter together with Anti-Fa is a good propaganda effort, but those groups have different focuses. Anti-Fa
is a reaction to the neo-Nazis, but it is also home to a lot of anarchists.
Black Lives Matter is focused on African American rights and an opposition to police brutality. If you look at their web site,
it is all about civil rights both in the U.S. and internationally. They also have a stated agenda of supporting LGBTQ rights.
It's hard to find any ideology in favor of looting. In fact, they are on-record in support of minority-owned (capitalist) businesses
and economic development.
Fascism is an ideology that presuppose mass mobilization (often of the base of previous
humiliation and current difficulties) by an ultranationalist party with populist program. Just
being ultranationalist is not enough. If element of mass mobilization is absent this is also not
a fascism.
Notable quotes:
"... The same administration provoked similar ill-conceived and unhelpful monographs on Fascism from Cass Sunstein ( Can it Happen Here? ), Madeleine Albright ( Fascism: A Warning ), and Harvard duo Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt ( How Democracies Die ). All of these individuals are Jews, and this is not a coincidence. In fact, since the production of Leon Trotsky's Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It (compiled between 1922 and 1933) and the Frankfurt School's project on the "Authoritarian Personality," Jews have been at the forefront of paving the cultural, as well as political, path to Antifa activity. ..."
"... They do so by bastardising public understanding of the nature of Fascist politics, thereby shaping "anti-Fascism" as a vehicle for the undermining of the White nation. When it comes to Fascism, "Jews know it when they see it," a pronouncement we are all encouraged to accept without question. ..."
"... His lack of education and reading in the subject is therefore apparently more than compensated for in the fact he is emotionally distressed by it. Right. ..."
"... Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, Ziblatt, and Albright have produced quite typical examples of Jewish propaganda disguised as "anti-Fascist" literature. The key features of such works are invariably a vague definition of Fascism, an attempt to relate "warnings" to some aspect of contemporary politics, melodramatic admonitions about a putative future violent catastrophe that must be avoided, and maudlin appeals to personal family history and "emotional baggage." ..."
"... The family, the acknowledgement of heterosexuality as culturally and biologically normative and preferential, the desirability of mono-ethnic cultures, and the acknowledgement of inequality among human beings are reframed in this kind of "warning literature" as inherently Fascistic. ..."
"... Fascism's unforgivable sin was its spot-on critique of the failure of liberal democracy, which, it argued, was the inevitable result of its corruption by capitalism. ..."
"... In this way, fascism is the thinking person's version of Marxism, stripped of the latter's absurd mismeasures of human nature. Fascism restored the traditional fabric of society, placing the needs of the national community above the selfish whims of the individual. In so doing it gave to otherwise alienated individuals the sense of common purpose and connection to others that are so vital to mental health. ..."
"... And only a strong authoritarian state can claim and effectively wield the power necessary to undo the damage that capitalism does ..."
"... No wonder the mortal adversaries, western imperialism and Soviet communism, were so terrified of this existential challenge to their oppressive systems that they made temporary common cause of ruthlessly annihilating Germany in history's most destructive war. ..."
"... Fascism is the cry of the lower middle class who do not understand how things work or where they came from. It is an urban tryharder phenomenon. Very short attention spans. ..."
"... George Orwell understood this: he was tolerant but realistic, and "conservative" in a natural way, all the time grasping the nature of Capitalism, that man needs to be set free not governed by others. Liberal Democracy is just a means to stablise government instead of civil wars. ..."
"... Vulture Capitalism and Marxist Socialism have the same elite masters and revolting against it in the interest of the people. ..."
"... Paul Gottfried's Fascism: the Career of a Concept. Although Jewish, Prof Gottfried is a paleoconservative and his books are always carefully written. His work on Fascism is probably the best recent work on the subject. I don't know why Dr Joyce didn't mention it. ..."
"... Interesting (and alarming) essay by Dr.. Joyce. Alarming because the sheer relentlessness and vindictiveness of these people is matched only by the vacuity, shallowness and spite of their ostensible "intellectual" product. ..."
Concluding one of America's more infamous obscenity trials in 1964, Justice Potter Stewart
absolved a controversial French motion picture with an opinion that has since passed into
common parlance: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I
understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed
in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it , and the motion picture
involved in this case is not that."
The opinion was celebrated at the time as a victory for
freedom of expression, and paved the way for a later deluge of Western cultural degradation. Of
greater significance, however, is the fact that almost 60 years later "I know it when I see it"
has become a political philosophy in its own right, adopted and pursued by a radical Left
intent on curtailing that very same freedom by claiming an exclusive and unaccountable ability
to define Fascism. This was the starkest message from TheBurkean 's
unprecedented recent Irish
Antifa Project , which was designed to infiltrate and expose self-styled Antifa networks in
mainstream Irish academia and politics.
In my view, the most predictable revelation from the Irish Antifa Project was the extent of
historical and cultural ignorance among the profiled activists. None of the intellectually and
professionally mediocre individuals exposed by The Burkean appeared capable of
articulating what Fascism was, or is alleged to be today. Fascism instead seems to have been
adopted by these non-entities as a vague catch-all for anything touching upon capitalism,
conservatism, religion, or tradition. Equally vague are the proposed activist methodologies of
these individuals, which range from the compiling of databases with the names of those deemed
to be Fascists, to tentative but deniable support for violence. With the exception of a small
number of fanatical Jews like Trinity College student Jacob
Woolf , "anti-Fascism" has evidently been adopted by the majority of those concerned as a
kind of half-hearted virtue signaling hobby or political side gig, albeit one with sinister
potential.
Unfortunately, the problems posed by an uninformed, unaccountable, and unhinged
"anti-Fascist" radical Left aren't helped by the fact confusion about the nature of Fascism is
endemic in society as a whole. There are essentially three traditions when it comes to
explaining Fascism. One can be found within Fascism itself, and demonstrates how self-defined
Fascists see themselves. This material is overwhelmingly historical. Another tradition can be
found in contemporary mainstream academia and, although biased, it is at least academic in
style, serious, and relatively comprehensive. The work of the late Roger Griffin is perhaps the best available
in the English language in terms of this tradition, and is also largely concerned with
history.
The third tradition, on the other hand, is popular, highly politicised, always concerned
with contemporary politics, and is abridged to the point of being a pop-Left caricature of
serious studies of Fascism. It is particularly problematic because it has tremendous traction
among the masses and, despite being propaganda for extremist politics of its own sort, always
presents itself as objective and neutral.
The individuals profiled by The Burkean are unquestionably disciples of the latter
tradition, a recent example of which is Jason Stanley's How Fascism Works: The Politics of
Us and Them (2018). Stanley, a Jewish professor at Yale whose background is in language
and epistemology and not history or politics, hasn't published any peer-reviewed material on
Fascism or anti-Fascism, but his 2018 book proved a moderate publishing sensation because it
represented a thinly veiled attack on the Trump administration.
The same administration
provoked similar ill-conceived and unhelpful monographs on Fascism from Cass Sunstein ( Can
it Happen Here? ), Madeleine Albright ( Fascism: A Warning ), and Harvard duo
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt ( How Democracies Die ). All of these individuals
are Jews, and this is not a coincidence. In fact, since the production of Leon Trotsky's
Fascism: What it is and How to Fight It (compiled between 1922 and 1933) and the
Frankfurt School's project on the "Authoritarian Personality," Jews have been at the forefront
of paving the cultural, as well as political, path to Antifa activity.
They do so by bastardising public understanding of the nature of Fascist politics, thereby shaping
"anti-Fascism" as a vehicle for the undermining of the White nation. When it comes to Fascism,
"Jews know it when they see it," a pronouncement we are all encouraged to accept without
question.
Jewish Definitions of Fascism
A common theme in influential books like Stanley's, destined for a modicum of success in the
paperback mass market thanks to dramatic titles and relentless marketing, is their incredibly
-- and deliberately -- vague definition of Fascism. These Jewish activists know this, of
course, but they push ahead regardless. Stanley, for example, excuses the gaps and logical
leaps inherent in his dubious study by arguing that "generalization is necessary in the current
moment." But if he is defining the "current moment" as Fascist under his generalized
definition, isn't he simply using generalization to excuse the same generalization? Isn't this
tantamount to saying to his readers: "The present moment is so obviously Fascist that we really
don't need to define Fascism"?
Such considerations don't slow Stanley down for a second, and this celebrated Yale professor
slips off the hook to pronounce, even more unhelpfully, "I have chosen the label "Fascism" for
ultranationalism of some variety." What variety? What's his definition of
"ultranationalism"?
It doesn't matter. What is clear in texts like Stanley's is that you aren't here to be
encouraged to think or ask questions, but to absorb a discourse and accept a dogma. The
authority behind such demands stems predominantly from emotional blackmail -- Stanley cashes in
his card as the son of "Holocaust survivors," and explains that "My family background has
saddled me with difficult emotional baggage. But it also, crucially, prepared me to write this
book."
His lack of education and reading in the subject is therefore apparently more than
compensated for in the fact he is emotionally distressed by it. Right.
... ... ...
Conclusion
Stanley, Sunstein, Levitsky, Ziblatt, and Albright have produced quite typical examples of
Jewish propaganda disguised as "anti-Fascist" literature. The key features of such works are
invariably a vague definition of Fascism, an attempt to relate "warnings" to some aspect of
contemporary politics, melodramatic admonitions about a putative future violent catastrophe
that must be avoided, and maudlin appeals to personal family history and "emotional baggage."
Underlying the surface veneer, these works are highly focussed efforts to pathologise aspects
of White culture and politics deemed oppositional to Jewish interests. These efforts, and their
framing, are quite obviously derived from Cultural Marxism, especially Adorno's work with the
Frankfurt School on The Authoritarian Personality , and from earlier forms of Jewish
activism witnessed from the end of the 19th century and culminating in Weimar Germany (e.g. the
work of Magnus Hirschfeld).
The family, the acknowledgement of heterosexuality as culturally
and biologically normative and preferential, the desirability of mono-ethnic cultures, and the
acknowledgement of inequality among human beings are reframed in this kind of "warning
literature" as inherently Fascistic.
It is very worrying that our culture has bequeathed a great deal of respect and legitimacy
to Jewish intellectuals, especially in relation to the subject of Fascism. We have allowed them
to assert that "they know it when they see it." The fundamental crisis of our civilization is
that they see it everywhere, and they won't rest until this phantom of their paranoia, and us
with it, are abolished.
Notes
[1] J. Whittam, Fascist Italy , (New York: Manchester University Press, 1995), 81-2.
[2] See, for example,
S. Chakotin, The Rape of the Masses: The Psychology of Totalitarian Political
Propaganda (1940).
Fascism's unforgivable sin was its spot-on critique of the failure of liberal democracy,
which, it argued, was the inevitable result of its corruption by capitalism. Eighteenth
century liberalism broke the power of absolutism but in time it devolved into a reactionary
movement, redirected specifically to defuse the popular revolutionary socialism of the
nineteenth century, which Germany revived.
The elephant in the liberal living room is the embarrassing reality that capitalist
society is organized on the exploitation of one class by another. Fascism spoke the
inconvenient truth that the ideals of the Enlightenment – equality, individuality,
democracy – must collapse into institutionalized injustice under the all-pervasive
directive of the primacy of the private accumulation of capital over all other concerns.
In this way, fascism is the thinking person's version of Marxism, stripped of the latter's
absurd mismeasures of human nature. Fascism restored the traditional fabric of society,
placing the needs of the national community above the selfish whims of the individual. In so
doing it gave to otherwise alienated individuals the sense of common purpose and connection
to others that are so vital to mental health.
And only a strong authoritarian state can claim and effectively wield the power necessary to undo the damage that
capitalism does and to contend with the many domestic and foreign adversaries which a truly class-free social revolution
inevitable creates.
No wonder the mortal adversaries, western imperialism and Soviet communism, were so
terrified of this existential challenge to their oppressive systems that they made temporary
common cause of ruthlessly annihilating Germany in history's most destructive war.
This is one of the best written, most informative and useful articles ever published here.
But the photograph of Madelaine Albright in particular should have been accompanied by some
sort of warning. "Hideous crone" understates the horror.
@Observator You
lost me at "strong authoritarian State". Which human monkeys were those? How is the already
strong authoritarian State bad but if only a new set of talking human monkeys is
"recognized", that will make everything better and different?
Fascism is the cry of the lower middle class who do not understand how things work or
where they came from. It is an urban tryharder phenomenon. Very short attention
spans.
George Orwell understood this: he was tolerant but realistic, and "conservative" in a
natural way, all the time grasping the nature of Capitalism, that man needs to be set free
not governed by others. Liberal Democracy is just a means to stablise government instead of
civil wars.
Personal liberty and private order are much more important and effective than grasping
schemes.
@obvious "Hitler"
is realizing that Vulture Capitalism and Marxist Socialism have the same elite masters and
revolting against it in the interest of the people.
@Pheasant True,
and he makes no mention of Paul Gottfried's Fascism: the Career of a Concept. Although
Jewish, Prof Gottfried is a paleoconservative and his books are always carefully written. His
work on Fascism is probably the best recent work on the subject. I don't know why Dr Joyce
didn't mention it.
Interesting (and alarming) essay by Dr.. Joyce. Alarming because the sheer relentlessness and
vindictiveness of these people is matched only by the vacuity, shallowness and spite of their
ostensible "intellectual" product.
A few thoughts
1. Actual real Fascism is of course dead as a doornail, and has been since the 1950s at
the absolute latest. The word "fascist" is simply a bogeyman, used by Jews and their
playthings to frighten the public, to sell books, and to denote whatever naughty thing they
don't happen to like at the moment -- as Dr. Joyce shows. (So-called "Islamo-fascism" is, if
possible, even funnier as a name-calling stunt, and more mistaken, than calling Trump a
fascist.)
2. In macro-historical terms, the only reason we pay any attention at all to real fascism
is that it ended in a massive train-wreck, as so many things do (who fusses over the far more
impact-laden bloodbaths of Timur the Lame these days?). But unluckily, since the Jews' ox got
gored as well in the general wreckage, the Owners Of All Megaphones will never ever shut up
about it. That's all this really ever is, innit.
3. Again in macro-historical terms, what Fascism really was, in the broadest sense, was
simply one among several rather crude and clumsy attempts made in the early Twentieth Century
to make some sort of sense out of the confusing, and very very recent, transformation of
economic, political and industrial terms brought about by the sudden onset of the Machine
Age. In the same way that it was the unknown effects of the Machine Age which made the Great
War such a vaster cataclysm than previous wars, the Machine Age rattled every single bar in
every single cage of the European order. Fascism was only one of the rather brutish attempts
to navigate the new terrain. (to be continued)
4. We no longer worry about fascism, or have to deal with it, for two reasons. One, it was
decisively defeated militarily and discredited ideologically; and two (and more importantly),
we no longer live in the Machine Age! We moved very quickly into the
Technological/Information Age, and from there into the Immigration/Industrial Outsourcing
Age. Fascism was an attempt to solve the problems of undernourished semi-literate White men
with large families who lived in urban slums and who worked in giant factories full of
deafening machinery. That political constituency has ceased to exist.
5. Centuries from now, the Peruvian robot historians will tell a very different story
about the Second World War, which was of course the apotheosis and endgame of fascism, than
the story we tell ourselves now -- or rather, allow the Jews to tell for us, when they aren't
screaming it at us and drilling it in with sleep-deprivation techniques.
Levels of apportionment can be argued over, but it's certainly true that the Jews bore
substantial responsibility for the actions and circumstances that led to the war. It could be
argued that one of its chief architects was none other than Henry Morgenthau. In any event,
the robots will view the early career of Hitler as a sort of premature German version of
Gandhi -- Hitler kicked the Jewish Empire out of Germany, and got the Germans out from under
the Jewish yoke, in the same way that Gandhi kicked the British Empire out of India. But the
Jewish Empire (which did and does exist in Europe although not on maps, controlling
institutions rather than territory, yet making war and peace just like other nations all the
same) did not go quietly, and instead mustered its British, American and Soviet satrapies to
pursue proxy revenge. The Hitler regime of course then degenerated through its own failures
into madness, incompetence, stupidity and evil, but the ball was already in play.
The point of bringing this up is the role of Jewish vindictiveness in keeping Fascism
afloat as a zombie all-purpose threat to all and sundry. The "threat of fascist evil" is
simply the threat of a nation or people getting the zany unacceptable notion into their heads
that their country might after all be better off without Jews in charge.
And that calamity cannot of course even be thought about or spoken of, much less
implemented.
A pretty silly rant, but some point might worth your attention...
Notable quotes:
"... I don't believe Marxist Social/Communism is the answer, as it has proven to always fail, as it is at complete odds with human nature. It drains creativity and productivity because they aren't rewarded ..."
"... Protests and Maidan open up fabulous opportunities for protest leaders. Chocolate oligarch Poroshenko became president. The little-known leader of the party faction in the parliament, Yatsenyuk, became prime minister. ..."
Meanwhile, what is going to happen to assorted fascisms? Eric Hobsbawm showed us in
Age of Extremes how the key to the fascist right was always mass mobilization: "Fascists
were the revolutionaries of the counter-revolution".
We may be heading further than mere, crude neofascism. Call it Hybrid Neofascism. Their
political stars bow to global market imperatives while switching political competition to the
cultural arena.
That's what true "illiberalism" is all about: the mix between neoliberalism –
unrestricted capital mobility, Central Bank diktats – and political authoritarianism.
Here's where we find Trump, Modi and Bolsonaro.
...Even if neoliberalism was dead, and it's not, the world is still encumbered with its
corpse – to paraphrase Nietzsche a propos of God.
And even as a triple catastrophe – sanitary, social and climatic – is now
unequivocal, the ruling matrix – starring the Masters of the Universe managing the
financial casino – won't stop resisting any drive towards change.
... Realpolitik once again points to a post-Lockdown turbo-capitalist framework, where the
illiberalism of the 1% – with fascistic elements – and naked turbo-financialization
are boosted by reinforced exploitation of an exhausted and now largely unemployed
workforce.
Post-Lockdown turbo-capitalism is once again reasserting itself after four decades of
Thatcherization, or – to be polite – hardcore neoliberalism. Progressive forces
still don't have the ammunition to revert the logic of extremely high profits for the ruling
classes – EU governance included – and for large global corporations as well.
-- ALIEN -- , 2 minutes ago
Allowing the continued uncontrolled exploitation of planetary resources will lead to global
ecosystem collapse, killing most humans.
Cheap Chinese Crap , 10 minutes ago
Good God, it 's like this guy is giving a seminar in technocratic buzzword salad
recognition.
"It takes someone of Marx's caliber to build a full-fledged, 21st century eco-socialist
ideology, and capable of long-term, sustained mobilization. Aux armes, citoyens."
Aux armes, indeed. But not to erect an oligarchy of self-appointed experts to rule us with
an iron hand. I rather prefer the idea of pulling them off their comfy, government-compensated
sinecures and dragging them down into the mud with everyone else.
Anyone who thinks they are better qualified to run your life than you yourself is an enemy
of the Enlightenment. Away with them all.
Leguran , 1 hour ago
Something worthwhile to note is missing among Pepe's carnage....
What has happened is that
every imaginable organized group from doctors to pilots to lawyers, to farmers, to pharma
companies, etc. has carved out a special slice of the economy especially for themselves.
In
Feudal times rivers could not be navigated because cockroach lords would charge fees to use the
rivers. That is exactly the same arrangement today but instead of using force of arms, laws are
used. Our economy is choking on all these impediments.
mtumba , 2 hours ago
I agree that we need a revolution, and that the .01% globalist "elites" have proven to be
not only craven, arrogant and greedy - but also stupid beyond redemption.
But I don't believe Marxist Social/Communism is the answer, as it has proven to always fail, as it is at complete odds
with human nature. It drains creativity and productivity because they aren't rewarded, and it rewards laziness and inertia, because the absolute minimum of effort
results in the barest level needed to survive, which - oddly - is enough for many.
I think it would be great to give actual capitalism a try, with extremely limited govt - a
govt that ONLY provides for the common defense and enforcement of contract laws and protection
against crimes of violence and property theft. NOT crony-capitalism that takes command over the
resources of a nation's klepotcratic govt by the .01% richest and their sycophantic bottom
feeder lawyers, lobbyists, corrupt politicians and other enablers.
Snout the First , 3 hours ago
That was sure a lot of words, needlessly making something simple difficult. Here's what it
all boils down to:
- Who do you want setting prices? The market or a central planner?
- What percent of the economy do you want the government to own or control?
- What percent of your annual income do you want the government to take? Some small amount
to be used for valid purposes, the rest to be pissed away against your better interests?
PKKA , 3 hours ago
Protests and Maidan open up fabulous opportunities for protest leaders. Chocolate oligarch
Poroshenko became president. The little-known leader of the party faction in the parliament,
Yatsenyuk, became prime minister.
You know that on the project of an epic wall between Ukraine
and Russia, Yatsenyuk stole $ 1 billion but did not build a wall. A moron with a certificate
from a psycho hospital Andrei Parubiy became the speaker of parliament. You did not know that
Parubiy had a certificate of moronity from a psycho hospital? Now you know. Boxer Vitali
Klitschko became mayor of Kiev. Vitaly pronounces the words in syllables and wrinkles his
forehead for a long time before expressing a thought. You can even physically hear the creak of
gears as they spin and creak in Klitschko's head. Do you know what rabble passed in the
Ukrainian parliament? Bandits, crooks, nazis, morons, thieves and idiots! So the protests open
up fabulous career opportunities and enrichment!
play_arrow
Phillyguy , 4 hours ago
The American public has a front row seat, watching US economic decline. This process has
been ongoing since the mid 1970's, as corporate profits slumped. In response the ruling elite
enacted a series of Neo-liberal economic policies- multiple tax cuts for the wealthy, attacks
on the poor and labor, job outsourcing, financial de-regulation, lack of spending on public and
private infrastructure and spending $ trillions of taxpayer money on the Pentagon and strategic
debacles in Afghanistan (longest war in US history), Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. In total,
these policies have been a disaster for the average American family.
The ruling elite are well aware of American economic decline, accelerated by the Coronavirus
pandemic. Fascism comes to the fore when capitalism breaks down, and under extreme conditions,
the ruling elite use fascism as an ideological rationale to harness state power- Legislature
and police, to maintain class structure and wealth distribution. Western capitalism is
incapable of reversing its economic decline and as a result, we are seeing fascism reemerging
in the US, EU and Brazil. Donald Trump is the face of American fascism. Michael Parenti
provides an excellent historical analysis of fascism. See: Michael Parenti- Functions of
Fascism (Real History) 1 of 4 Jan 27, 2008; Link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0Bc4KJx2Ao
Vigilante , 4 hours ago
How come 'fascist' Trump is being attacked 24/7 by the Deep State though?
They should be on his side if your assertions are correct
Fascism resides mostly on the Left end of the spectrum...and 'Woke' capital is throwing its
lot with the 'progressives' these days
bshirley1968 , 4 hours ago
It's your perception he is being attacked. Dude, wake up.
The best the deep state has to run against Trump is Joe Biden? They are that stupid? They
are that weak? If they are that stupid and weak, how can they be a conceivable, real
threat.
You are being played. You imagine there are good guys that you can trust......and that is
why you are being played.
HomeOfTheHypocrite , 3 hours ago
The ruling class is currently divided between those who are ready to prepare fascism and
those who want to continue on with neoliberalism. Trump represents one faction of the ruling
class. His political opponents in the Deep State represent another. None of them have any
genuine concern for the fate of the American worker. Trump, if judged by his actions and not
his words, is nothing but a charlatan who mouths populist phrases while appointing billionaire
aristocrats to political positions and lavishing investment bankers with trillions of tax
dollars.
CatInTheHat , 2 hours ago
This is the problem with both sides cult followers: the insanity behind the idea that these
elite somehow have their hands tied behind their backs as they ALL move is toward fascism.
The 2 party system is a ONE party right wing fascist one. Trump is merely a figure head.
People listen to what a politician says and NOT what he does behind their backs.
Trump is 1000% Zionazi just like the rest of them
HomeOfTheHypocrite , 2 hours ago
"basically it looks alot like the age old battle between fascism and communism"
Perhaps on the streets, but not within the ruling class. The ruling class, including the
Democrats, are utterly opposed to communism or socialism. Every Democratic congressperson with
maybe one exception stood and applauded Trump's anti-socialist rants during his State of the
Union addresses. Nancy Pelosi: "We're capitalist and that's just the way it is." Elizabeth
Warren (supposedly a radical): "I'm capitalist to my bones."
"Let's say for example these protesters managed to organize well enough to stage a coup
d'etat and take over - what next ?"
There's little chance of that. They are completely disorganized and lack any sort of
political program. But, if you're giving me the task of developing a political program for
them, I'll try to offer some suggestions that could be accomplished without a Pinochet or
Stalin-style bloodletting.
1. Busting up the monopolies and cartels 2. Raising taxes on the rich 3. A government jobs program to combat unemployment 4. A massive curtailment of the military budget 5. A massive curtailment of the policing and prison budget 6. Free government healthcare (without banning private-sector healthcare)
The first three of these political tasks were accomplished in the US in the 1930s without
the need for "black ops, gulags, secret police, and all the rest of it." Major policy changes
have not always required mass repression. But they do require a serious enough political party
to disassociate itself entirely from the ruling class Democrats and Republicans. During the 30s
there was a significant rise in various populist and socialist parties. Much of FDR's policies
and statements were a response to the threat they posed to established power. There is a famous
quote where he talks about having to "throw a few of these [millionaires] to the wolves" in
order to save America from the crackpot ideas of the "communists" and "Huey Longians."
I completely share your concern related to the use of repression to implement social and
economic policies. Neither the fascists nor the communists have a thing to offer a free people
so long as they rely on tyranny to enforce their program. Above all democracy and the natural
rights of individuals must be preserved.
Jedclampetisdead , 5 hours ago
If this country has any chance, we have to execute the Zionist bankers and their minions
new game , 5 hours ago
What is and will be: Corporate Fascism.
I defy anyone to explain other wise.
Go to the World Economic Forum web page and meet your masters.
Billionaires shaping YOUR future with their fortunes from corporations.
Their wealth was had by joint ventures with bought and paid for politicians and lobbyist
crafted legislation to maximize their wealth. This fakdemic absolutely consolidates more
wealth
to fewer corporations by design. Serf and kings/queens. The club personified by immense
wealth disparity.
In a continuing process, the social scoring via digital systems will limit freedoms to state
approved corporate diktats
that clamp like a boot to the neck. **** here, 6 tissue sections and recycled bug **** for
food.
brave new gatsy world right now with the roll out out of 3 pronged vaccine controlling your
brains emotions.
It is all so obvious to anyone with an ability to see two steps into the future. navigate
the future accordingly.
They are in control, the first denial that must be removed to see clearly the next step. sad
but true.
lysias @ 109
... Here is a fine quote from Wolin's book (page 264) which illustrates the point (please
excuse the length of this quote):
A twofold moral might be drawn from the experience of Athens: that it is self-subverting
for democracy to subordinate its egalitarian convictions to the pursuit of expansive
politics with its corollaries of conquest and domination and the power relationships they
introduce. Few care to argue that, in political terms, democracy at home is advanced or
improved by conquest abroad.
As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed,
imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering inequalities among its citizens. Resources
that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection are
instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, con- sumes the largest percentage of
the nation's annual budget. Moreover, the sheer size and complexity of imperial power and
the expanded role of the military make it difficult to impose fiscal discipline and
accountability. Corruption becomes endemic, not only abroad but at home. The most dangerous
type of corruption for a democracy is measured not in monetary terms alone but in the kind
of ruthless power relations it fosters in domestic politics. As many observers have noted,
politics has become a blood sport with partisanship and ideological fidelity as the
hallmarks. A partisan judiciary is openly declared to be a major priority of a political
party; the efforts to consolidate executive power and to relegate Congress to a supporting
role are to some important degree the retrojection inwards of the imperial thrust.
Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy
and elitism, that experience suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the
tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy and contested, feature
of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise. In the
eyes of contemporary observers, such as Thucydides, as well as later historians, the
advancement of Athenian hegemony de- pended upon a public-spirited, able elite at the helm
and a demos will- ing to accept leadership. Conversely, the downfall of Athens was
attributed to the wiles and vainglory of leaders who managed to whip up popular support for
ill-conceived adventures. As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics
became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite competed to outbid each other by
pro\posing ever wilder schemes of conquest.
In two attempts (411–410 and 404–403) elites, abetted by the Spartans,
succeeded in temporarily abolishing democracy and installing rule by the Few.
...and while I am at it: lysias @ 106
Let's deconstruct what you've said. Even if he resisted arrest (by what degree was he
resisting?) that is not cause for applying deadly force on someone. Clearly he was restrained
and was going no where. Furthermore, the application of restraint should be one that ought
not induce death in someone with a previous health condition. By your rationale, you have no
business of walking the streets if you are not an able-bodied person and that death by
restraint by a police officer is excusable if you happen to be in bad health.
Although you don't explicitly say it, somehow it feels like you are saying that he had it
coming to him when you write "Floyd had a lengthy criminal record." Does that mean just
because he had a lengthy record he deserved to be roughed up like that? This sounds like
victim blaming, which is something commonly done in this country to continue to oppress
people who have no power.
re Norogene | May 30 2020 3:09 utc | 155 "But, of course, you need to protect your country which means maintaining a defense force.
" Yet I cannot think of a single instance of a conflict amerika has gotten into that
wasn't a case of amerika kicking off the action with some particularly egregious act.
eg On the instances I have raised this with amerikans, many have told me they consider
Pearl Harbour to be an instance of amerika being the innocent party, they had no idea that
FDR had instigated a blockade of Japan long before which was starving Japanese people or that
Pearl Harbour wasn't amerikan soil, it was an illegally occupied nation and the Japanese
attack had been careful to only bomb and strafe the occupying force.
No nation needs a defense force if the true will of the citizens of a country was what
steered that nation, since as you said, most humans the world over prefer to live and let
live.
When I worked as a public servant it took me about 5 seconds to suss that those
bureaucrats promoting change didn't have a real interest in change apart from the opportunity
for promotion change can promote.
This is equally true of war, the arseholes arguing for getting into conflicts do so only
for the opportunities for personal benefit conflicts create. Since no war has ever advantaged
the masses it is safe to say left up to the people, no wars would always be their first
preference.
"... You will find in Sheldon Wolin's final book "Democracy Incorporated" an intricate dissection of this precept in the modern form through his analysis of America's decaying trajectory. Thank you for reminding us of this. ..."
"... As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed, imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering inequalities among its citizens. Resources that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection are instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, consumes the largest percentage of the nation's annual budget. ..."
"... Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy and elitism, that experience suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy and contested, feature of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise. ..."
"... As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite competed to outbid each other by proposing ever wilder schemes of conquest. ..."
You can't be a Democracy at home and an empire aboard, the violence of empire will always turn against the very idea
of democracy.
Yes, a keen observation of what ultimately undid Athens. You will find in Sheldon Wolin's final book "Democracy Incorporated"
an intricate dissection of this precept in the modern form through his analysis of America's decaying trajectory. Thank you for
reminding us of this.
lysias @ 109
A variety of scholars who study that period would disagree with you: You cannot maintain an empire abroad and democracy at
home. The two principles are diametrically opposite to one another. It's what caused the democracy of Athens (which was limited
to men -- as usual) to ultimately lose its internal cohesion and reason to be. Yes, formally it was incorporated into the Macedonian
empire, but its demise came because Athens' imperial ambitions sapped domestic resources which further contributed to the trend
toward inequality within the society.
Here is a fine quote from Wolin's book (page 264) which illustrates the point (please excuse the length of this quote):
A twofold moral might be drawn from the experience of Athens: that it is self-subverting for democracy to subordinate its egalitarian
convictions to the pursuit of expansive politics with its corollaries of conquest and domination and the power relationships
they introduce. Few care to argue that, in political terms, democracy at home is advanced or improved by conquest abroad.
As Athens showed and the United States of the twenty-first century confirmed, imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering
inequalities among its citizens. Resources that might be used to improve health care, education, and environmental protection
are instead directed to defense spending, which, by far, consumes the largest percentage of the nation's annual budget.
Moreover, the sheer size and complexity of imperial power and the expanded role of the military make it difficult to impose
fiscal discipline and account- ability. Corruption becomes endemic, not only abroad but at home. The most dangerous type of
corruption for a democracy is measured not in monetary terms alone but in the kind of ruthless power relations it fosters in
domestic politics. As many observers have noted, politics has become a blood sport with partisanship and ideological fidelity
as the hallmarks. A partisan judiciary is openly declared to be a major priority of a political party; the efforts to consolidate
executive power and to relegate Congress to a supporting role are to some important degree the retrojection inwards of the
imperial thrust.
Second, if Athens was the first historical instance of a confrontation between democracy and elitism, that experience
suggests that there is no simple recipe for resolving the tensions between them. Political elites were a persistent, if uneasy
and contested, feature of Athenian democracy and a significant factor in both its expansion and its demise.
In the eyes of contemporary observers, such as Thucydides, as well as later historians, the advancement of Athenian hegemony
de- pended upon a public-spirited, able elite at the helm and a demos will- ing to accept leadership. Conversely, the downfall
of Athens was attributed to the wiles and vainglory of leaders who managed to whip up popular support for ill-conceived adventures.
As the war dragged on and frustration grew, domestic politics became more embittered and fractious: members of the elite
competed to outbid each other by proposing ever wilder schemes of conquest. In two attempts (411–410 and 404–403) elites,
abetted by the Spartans, succeeded in temporarily abolshing democracy and installing rule by the Few.
f you're targeted for antitrust investigations by the U.S. Justice Department and 48 state attorneys general, you're going to
have a bad time. Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that these investigations
will likely lead to antitrust lawsuits , with the Justice Department's lawsuit commencing as soon as this summer.
On a narrow level, these lawsuits deal with various antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. On a broader level,
many are questioning whether big tech companies such as Google have become too powerful, especially when they recklessly abuse that
power.
At the root of many Google's problems, including its antitrust problems, lies a corrosive, Pelagian rot. In his speech,
"The Age of
Pelagius ," Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) warns against a false philosophy of freedom, a "philosophy of liberation" rooted in "unrestricted,
unfettered free choice." As tempting as that philosophy may sound, it inevitably leads to societal decay. "But here is the irony,"
he said. "Though the Pelagian vision celebrates the individual, it leads to hierarchy. Though it preaches merit, it produces elitism.
Though it proclaims liberty, it destroys the life that makes liberty possible."
Google may not be the government, but it does contain another powerful institution which people also like to complain about: management.
Google's founders may not be as wise as the Founding Fathers, but as part of their philosophy, they did figure out how to properly
restrain the power of its managers, instituting Google's own version of checks and balances.
The success of Google was built on those systems, but today, these systems have degraded into mere parchment barriers. In the
new Google, a Pelagian freedom of choice has liberated many people, insofar as they can bypass those systems and even bypass the
law.
I could certainly tell quite a few stories from my time there. In one of those stories, my manager chose to ignore the guidance
of Google's "Managing within the Law" training, and in retrospect, I couldn't think of a better metaphor for so many of Google's
problems, problems which make my stories seem insignificant. They certainly seem to believe that acting with the law is an optional
choice.
Google famously used to preach its motto of "don't be evil," but today, it has degraded into a Pelagian company where freedom
of choice means that you can choose to be evil.
For example, Google can choose to pay an executive a $90 million exit package after a
credible accusation
of sexual misconduct . If someone sues Google for sexual misconduct, it can choose to bypass the public court system, using forced
arbitration to funnel lawsuits into an alternative justice system stacked in its favor. (Though thankfully, the Google Walkout brought
an end to that detestable
practice .) Even after the Google Walkout, it can still choose to engage in
blatant pregnancy discrimination and then arrogantly play hardball after it gets caught.
When Google built its mobile operating system, Android, it could choose to
steal
the Java API from Oracle, deploying its vast resources and crafty lawyers in order to legitimize its theft. (We can debate as
a matter of policy whether the Java API should be copyrightable, but as a matter of law, the
existing copyright law clearly covers the Java API.)
While at Google, I witnessed a number of conflicts. Some conflicts I was involved in, others I was not. Some conflicts were political,
others were not. Nonetheless, a common theme emerged. In these conflicts, neither principles nor the truth nor even the law mattered.
Only one thing mattered: power. And in a world where only power mattered, Google almost always won.
In this latest power struggle over antitrust law, though, Google finds itself going head-to-head against an institution even more
powerful than itself: the government. Conservatives and libertarians have long debated the proper role of government and how its
power should be limited, but at the very least, we need a government that can maintain law and order, especially when big tech companies
choose to act as if they are above the law.
James Madison once said, "If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external
nor internal controls on government would be necessary." If neither men nor those who govern men are angels, then certainly the big
tech companies are not angels. While we must always be on guard against abuses of power by the government, we still need a government
powerful enough to exorcise the demons of the tech industry.
Mike Wacker is a former software engineer for Google and one of the Lincoln Network's 2020 Policy Hacker fellows.
I'm curious why these are examples of a pelagian rot rather than corporate corruption. All of those activities are unfortunately
common place in the business world so I wouldn't think the main factor could be attributed to freedom of choice gone wild as thats
not exactly a common business practice.
The great problem with this article is that Wacker accepts Hawley's sense of 'Pelaginaism'. In some ways, what we know
of that heresy, certainly on later manifestations, is that it produces cultural, political, and economic notions that fit with
the contemporary problems under discussion. But the very term clouds the issue for the vast majority of readers. That issue is
Libertarianism.
This seems mostly semantical, no? Pleaginaism and Libertarianism have similar premises in the way they priotize the freedom of
the individual and choice.
Anyways both TAC and Hawley both regularly critique Libertarianism, especially with its influence over the GOP.
It's taken me months and months of reading conservative media to finally start parsing out the differences between genuine conservatives
and American-ist Libertarians. I suspect most liberals and progressives cannot make the distinction, just as many conservatives
see "the Left" as some totally monolithic thing. As I see it, members of the religious right desperately need to do the work of
separating out their view of freedom, as grounded in classical Christian teaching, and realize that that view really isn't compatible
with Libertarian economics. Reigning in morality while professing a laissez-faire approach to the market is bound to be a failed
venture...and I say that as someone who recognizes that Left won't get anywhere with genuine progress and equity-for-all until
they stop belittling religion and caricaturing conservative arguments.
I think such a cap would be a bit arbitrary and probably be pretty easy to get around through mazes of subsidiaries, related parties,
etc. An update of anti-trust legislation would likely be more effective.
Let me get this straight, because it is rather confusing.
Grover Norquist wanted to make da gummint small enough to drown in a bathtub.
Libertarians posing as Conservatives have for years, denounced the interference of da gummint in any sort of business
activity as being "socialist" and Un-American!
Not putative "conservatives" are wanting da gummint to attack and control private enterprise organizations and cheering
every time Trump tweets outrageous insults against them?
It's taken me months and months of reading conservative media to finally start parsing out the differences between genuine conservatives
and American-ist Libertarians. I suspect most liberals and progressives cannot make the distinction, just as many conservatives
see "the Left" as some totally monolithic thing.
As I see it, members of the religious right desperately need to do the work of separating out their view of freedom, as grounded
in classical Christian teaching, and realize that that view really isn't compatible with Libertarian economics. Reigning in morality
while professing a laissez-faire approach to the market is bound to be a failed venture. I say that as someone who recognizes
that Left cannot achieve genuine progress and equity-for-all until they stop belittling religion and caricaturing conservative
arguments.
Alas, there are some on #bothsides who apparently feel that if we can't demonze those who disagree with our divine wisdom,
what's the use of having a catfight anyway.
One reason I like TAC and TIC (The Imaginative Conservative) is there is a variety of opinion and a (usually) civil atmosphere,
at least until some silly savage comes in on a raid to "count coup".
It is also a remarkable attempt to ignore the factual history:
[The Taliban] have outlasted a superpower through nearly 19 years of grinding war. And
dozens of interviews with Taliban officials and fighters in three countries, as well as
with Afghan and Western officials, illuminated the melding of old and new approaches and
generations that helped them do it.
After 2001, the Taliban reorganized as a decentralized network of fighters and low-level
commanders empowered to recruit and find resources locally while the senior leadership
remained sheltered in neighboring Pakistan.
That is simply wrong. Between the end of 2001 and 2007 there were no Taliban. The movement
had dissolved.
The author later acknowledges that there were no Taliban activity throughout those years.
But the narrative is again skewed:
Many Taliban commanders interviewed for this article said that in the initial months after
the invasion, they could scarcely even dream of a day they might be able to fight off the
U.S. military. But that changed once their leadership regrouped in safe havens provided by
Pakistan's military -- even as the Pakistanis were receiving hundreds of millions of
dollars in American aid.
From that safety, the Taliban planned a longer war of attrition against U.S. and NATO
troops. Starting with more serious territorial assaults in 2007, the insurgents revived and
refined an old blueprint the United States had funded against the Soviets in the same
mountains and terrain -- but now it was deployed against the American military.
Even before the U.S. invaded Afghanistan the Taliban had recognized that they lacked the
capability to run a country. They had managed to make Afghanistan somewhat secure. The
warlords who had fought each other after the Soviet draw down were suppressed and the streets
were again safe. But there was no development, no real education or health system and no
money to create them.
When the U.S. invaded the Taliban dispersed. On December 5 2001 Taliban leader Mullah Omar
resigned and went into hiding within Afghanistan. For one day the Taliban defense minister
Mullah Obaidullah became the new leader. From the
The Secret Life of Mullah Omar by Bette Dam:
The next day, Mullah Obaidullah drove up north to Kandahar's Shah Wali Kot district to meet
with Karzai and his supporters. In what has become known as the "Shah Wali Kot Agreement",
Mullah Obaidullah and the Taliban agreed to lay down their arms and retire to their homes
or join the government. The movement effectively disbanded itself. Karzai agreed, and in a
media appearance the next day, he announced that while al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were
the enemies of Afghanistan, the Taliban were sons of the soil and would effectively receive
amnesty. For the moment, the war was over.
The Taliban fighters went back to their home villages and families. Most stayed in
Afghanistan. Some of the leaders and elder members went back to the tribal regions of
Pakistan where their families had been living as refugees since the Soviet invasion in
1979.
The Taliban did not plan a longer war of attrition - at least not between 2001 and 2006.
The movement had simply ended to exist.
The big question is then why it came back but the New York Times has little to
say about that:
From the start, the insurgents seized on the corruption and abuses of the Afghan government
put in place by the United States, and cast themselves as arbiters of justice and Afghan
tradition -- a powerful part of their continued appeal with many rural Afghans in
particular. With the United States mostly distracted with the war in Iraq, the insurgency
widened its ambitions and territory.
No, the 'corruption and abuses of the Afghan government' were not the reason the Taliban
were reestablished. It were the abuses of the U.S. occupation that recreated them. The
publicly announced amnesty Karzai and Mullah Obaidullah had agreed upon, was ignored by the
U.S. commanders and politicians.
The CIA captured random Afghans as 'Taliban' and brutally tortured them - some to death.
U.S. Special Forces randomly raided private homes and bombed whole villages to rubble. The
brutal warlords, which the Taliban had suppressed, were put back into power. When they wanted
to grab a piece of land they told their U.S. handlers that the owner was a 'Taliban'. The
U.S. troops would then removed that person one way or the other. The behavior of the
occupiers was an affront to every Afghan.
By 2007 Mullah Omar and his helper Jabbar Omari were hiding in Siuray, a district around
twenty miles southeast of Qalat. A large U.S. base was nearby. Bette Dam
writes of the people's mood:
As the population turned against the government due to its corruption and American
atrocities, they began to offer food and clothing to the house-hold for Jabbar Omari and
his mysterious friend.
It was the absurd stupidity and brutality with which the U.S. occupied the country that
gave Afghans the motive to again fight against an occupier or at least to support such a
fight.
At the same time the Pakistani military had come to fear a permanent U.S. presence in its
backyard. It connected the retired Taliban elders with its sponsors in the Gulf region and
organized the logistics for a new insurgency. The Taliban movement was reestablished with new
leadership but under the old name.
The old tribal command networks where again activates and the ranks were filled with newly
disgruntled Afghans. From that point on it was only a question of time until the U.S. would
have to leave just like the Soviets and Brits had to do before them.
By December 2001 the war against the Taliban had ended. During the following five years
the U.S. fought against an imaginary enemy that no longer existed. It was this war on the
wider population that by 2007 created a new insurgency that adopted the old name.
A piece that claims to explain why the Taliban have won the war but ignores the crucial
period between 2001 and 2007 misses the most important point that made the Taliban victory
possible.
The will of the Afghan people to liberate their country from a foreign occupation. Thanks
b for doing a good job in restating the record. IMO, the Outlaw US Empire followed the same
MO as it did in Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines well before them all, all of which were
based on the White Supremacist Settler credo underlying the culture of the US military that
was just called out--again-- in
this very powerful NY Times Editorial , and Iraq was no different either. The
contrast between the Editorial Board and its Newsroom writers is quite stark when their
products are compared--one lies about recent history while the other attempts to educate more
fully about the very sordid past of the most revered federal government institution.
Bombing civilians is recruiting more enemies. Also, in this mistaken adventure the US has
been stupidly allied with and funding the neighboring country (Pakistan) which is supporting
the people (Taliban) who are killing Americans.
General McChrystal's Report to President Obama, Aug 30, 2009:
'Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. . .and are reportedly
aided by some elements of Pakistan's ISI [Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence ]. .
. .Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including
significant efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is
perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan
people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional
tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India." . . .Simply put,
Pakistan didn't want to be in an Indian sandwich with its mortal enemy on two sides.
President Obama was then in the process of more than tripling the US military strength in
Afghanistan, sending 70,000 more troops to that graveyard of empires (UK, Russia). Three
months later, December 1, 2009 at West Point, Obama gave a rah-rah speech to cadets
including: . . ."Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan
is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan."
This article wants on purpose link taliban to Pakistan..there is no connection between
Talibans and yanks backed Pakistani militias..and there is no pakistani talibans..they want
to hide the truth confusing the people but the truth is that the violent and illegal
occupation of Afghanistan created a strong resistance in an already strong population.The
puppet-method didn't work there and this article is the last (I hope) attempt to give a false
narrative of the events.18 years of war for nothing..what the empire has gained from this
war?nothing.
LuBa--
"what the empire has gained from this war?nothing"
Hmmm, not sure about that. First of all it has kept Russia out of Afghanistan, and
somewhere I read that Afghanistan is very central to controlling Eurasia.
I'm pretty sure that attacking Afghanistan was planned before 911 as well, so there must
be some reason for that.
The writer of that NYT piece, Mujib Mashal, studied history (presumably the history of
Afghanistan and western and southern Asia) at Columbia University - O'Bomber's alma mater, I
believe - and in-between working as an NYT intern in Kabul and his current senior
correspondent role, worked for a time with Al Jazeera in Doha. One wonders how much effort
Mashal and other NYT writers with similar backgrounds put into reordering reality to fit
whatever fairy-tale narratives they were taught at Columbia University.
The underlying aim in MM's hit-piece must surely be to set up Pakistan as a target for
criticism. Some sort of narrative arc leading to removing Imran Khan as Prime Minister there
can't be too far away.
Soviet invasion? The Soviet-Afghan Friendship Treaty signed in December 1978 permitted -
inter alia - military assistance and advice to the Afghani government if requested. Saying
the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan is like saying Russia invaded Syria.
Opium production is now seven-fold since the arrival of the empire. It is afflicting
Afghanistan and neighboring countries with addiction all the while paying for CIA
operations.
Mission Accomplished.
Let's not forget the MOAB, we are told was detonated over -- caves?
Millions of dollars earned off-the-books from drug trafficking plus enough product to
carry out narco-aggression against Iran, Russia, China and the 'stans is nothing?
Superb.
The relationship with Pakistan has two aspects : the borders between the countries, imposed
by the British, make no sense, dividing the Pashtun people artificially. The second is that
the US has long used Pakistan as a pawn in the region. This goes back to the foundation of
the country in 1948 and malign US influence in Pakistan has been the major factor in the
country's problems. It is a reminder that there are no known limits to the hypocrisy of the
people running the USA that the links between the Taliban, nurtured under US sponsorship in
Pakistan which was used as a secure base beyond Kabul's writ, and Pakistan are attributed to
Pakistan's initiative.
Another matter which one supposes that the New York Times neglected to mention is that under
US sponsorship since 2001 the Heroin industry, reduced almost to nothing by the Taliban
government has ballooned into the proportions we have grown to expect where US influence is
established. Besides the corpses of those bombed, tortured and shot to death by the
imperialist armies there are millions of victims of the drug trades, ranging from those
killed by death squads in the producing countries, and those in, for example Colombia and
Honduras, victimised by narco governments to the millions of addicts around the world.
Part of the truth of Afghanistan is that the US and its allies have been protecting the
criminal narcotics trade in order to employ its profits for their own evil purposes.
Please allow to add to b 's very good overview another subject: drug planting,
producing and dealing in Afghanistan. The Taliban first were against drugs (religious
reasons), but when they saw that the people were exhausted by the Americans and their corrupt
Afghan friends, and had no more income, they allowed the farmers to plant opium poppy for the
EXPORT. Soon they also realized the profits for themselves (to change into weapons). And so
it happened that Afghanistan became a major producer for the world market. It's an open
question (at least for me) how much international networks with connections to US-people and
US-institutions (like CIA) are involved in this drug dealing business originating in
Afghanistan.
arby | 7 wrote:
I'm pretty sure that attacking Afghanistan was planned before 911 as well, so there
must be some reason for that.
Interesting question (more see below)! A few days ago I made some research to a parallel
problem: was "homeland security" also in the development before 9/11? Parallel to the war
against Afghanistan another war was started: against the American people. Under the roof of
'Homeland Security' in the interior; parallel zu 'National Security' as a topic in foreign
politics. Bush jun. appointed Tom Ridge within 28 days, did they have some plans before? I
found some remarks in Edward LIPTON's book, Homeland Security Office (2002), indicating
plannings as early as Dec. 2000 and Jan. 2001. Please also remember that there were anthrax
mailings parallel to 9/11. Please remember that Homeland Security Act has some paragraphs
about defense against bioweapon attacks and has some paragraphs about vaccine, too. Please
remember that early plannings of homeland security had also controlling american people with
the help of lockdowns. That trail was followed during the next years in 'hidden' further
plannings as You may find them here:
Next interesting question: when did THEY begin to focus on the twin towers? WTC area was
public property and administration. Very profitable. Then SIVLERSTEIN bought the WTC7 ground
and started to built and rented it, among others, to CIA. And then THEY were looking just out
of the window to see the twin towers. And then these very pofitable buildings were privatized
- why? And they were insured. That privatization was a very dramatic poker which was won by
SILVERSTEIN, too. Why? Some 'renovation' had to be done of course when SILVERSTEIN took over
the property. I remember that companies included were overseen by one of the Bush sons
(Jebb?), and so on ...
Back to the questions about planning of War against Afghanistan. There should be documents
available (foreign policy planning & military planning) because the background primarily
was (according to my estimation) geopolitical. But there is a greater framework within which
the war against terrorism has to be seen. On the day after 9/11 a document was published for
the first time which had been collected under Bush Sen. in the 1980s: 'Report of the Vice
President's Task Force on Combatting Terrorism'. It says that terrorism follows
overpopulation in undeveloped countries. So we are here within the idea of depopulation, and
realizing that we can look on the Bill & Melinda Gates' Charitable Works as a far more
human version. For further reading three LINKs are given below.
Concluding, I would like to say: unterstanding and commenting the past doesn't help much.
THEY are acting and THEY are planning, day by day. Things only will change if 'we' are
planning and acting, too. And if 'we' want a better world our instruments must be better than
THEIRs.
Soviet invasion? The Soviet-Afghan Friendship Treaty signed in December 1978 permitted -
inter alia - military assistance and advice to the Afghani government if requested. Saying
the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan is like saying Russia invaded Syria.
Posted by: arby | May 26 2020 20:03 utc | 7 I'm pretty sure that attacking Afghanistan was
planned before 911 as well, so there must be some reason for that.
It's called 1) oil pipeline, and 2) heroin for the CIA to finance their "black black"
operations. That's not a typo: there are "black budget" operations not identified in the
Federal budget - and "black black" operations that are financed outside the Federal budget.
No one knows how much that is.
The "official" Black Budget operations are described in a Harvard University document
as:
On March 18, 2019 the Office the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), announced its
request for the largest sum ever, $62.8 billion, for funding U.S. intelligence operations
in Fiscal Year (FY) 2020.1This request spans the classified funding from more than a dozen
agencies that make up the National Intelligence Program (NIP).2 The U.S. Government spends
these funds on data collection, counterintelligence, and covert action.3 The DNI also
requested $21.2 billion for FY 2019 for the Military Intelligence Program (MIP) devoted to
intelligence activity in support of U.S. military operations.4 For FY2020, it is likely to
request a similar figure, for a total estimated request of approximately $85 billion for
the "Black Budget," t he U.S. Government's secret military and intelligence expenditures.
Interesting article here that shows how some of this has been done in Asia, Saudi Arabia,
Central America, etc.
Before his arrest, the alleged drug trafficker worked with the CIA and the DEA, received
payments from the government, and, at one point, visited Washington and New York on the
DEA's dime. ,/BLOCKQUOTE
Mussolini then realized something very simple: the human being is not inherently rational.
Reason is something that does not occur naturally to human beings, but is rather something
human beings must learn. Therefore, communism could be defeated in elections and in the
streets if the massification of reason was contained in due time. Hence the crude, irrational
violence of fascism. And it worked: the communists were defeated by violence in Italy, and
Hitler would do the same in the 1932-3 elections (who was leading the persecution of
communists at the time? Future second-in-command Hermann Göring).
If I could sum up fascism and all its different variants in one word, it would be this:
irrationality. Fascism must resort to irrational arguments and narratives in order to
manipulate the masses and gain monopoly of violence and, once its hegemony is secure, resort
to art and aesthetics to keep the consensus, in the sense that political domination must be
presented to the public as a form of art, and not as a field of class struggle. This can be
clearly illustrated by the Nazi chain of command: Hitler (political leader, mastermind),
Göring (violence, armed forces), Goebbels (propaganda) and... Albert Speer, the ideal
Nazi (architect cum military).
In the weeks before the 2016 presidential election, the most powerful former leaders of the
Central Intelligence Agency did everything they could to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat
Donald Trump. President Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael Morrell published
a full-throated endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed "Putin ha[s]
recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation," while George W. Bush's
post-9/11 CIA and NSA Chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, writing
in the Washington Post , refrained from endorsing Clinton outright but echoed Morrell by
accusing Trump of being a "useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow" and sounding "a
little bit the conspiratorial Marxist." Meanwhile, the intelligence community under James
Clapper and John Brennan fed morsels to
both the Obama DOJ and the U.S. media to suggest a Trump/Russia conspiracy and fuel what became
the Russiagate investigation.
In his extraordinary election-advocating op-ed, Hayden, Bush/Cheney's CIA chief, candidly
explained the reasons for the CIA's antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate's stated
opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to expand as well as his opposition
to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly "pro-Putin" positions
which, we are now all
supposed to forget,
Obama largely
shared ).
As has been true since President Harry Truman's creation of the CIA after World War II,
interfering in other countries and dictating or changing their governments -- through campaigns
of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the abolition of democracy, systemic
disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots -- is regarded as a divine right, inherent
to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks to impede
it (as the CIA perceived Trump was) is of suspect loyalties at best. ...
The all-consuming Russiagate narrative that dominated the first three years of Trump's
presidency further served to elevate the CIA as a noble and admirable institution while
whitewashing its grotesque history. Liberal conventional wisdom held that Russian Facebook ads,
Twitter bots and the hacking and release of authentic, incriminating
DNC emails was some sort of unprecedented, off-the-charts, out-of-the-ordinary
crime-of-the-century attack, with several leading Democrats (including Hillary Clinton)
actually
comparing it to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor .
The level of historical ignorance and/or jingostic American exceptionalism necessary to
believe this is impossible to describe. ... This propaganda was sustainable because the recent
history and the current function of the CIA has largely been suppressed. Thankfully, a
just-released book by journalist Vincent Bevins -- who spent years as a foreign correspondent
covering two countries still marred by brutal CIA interference: Brazil for the Los Angeles
Times and Indonesia for the Washington Post -- provides one of the best, most informative and
most illuminating histories yet of this agency and the way it has shaped the actual, rather
than the propagandistic, U.S. role in the world. ... I speak to Bevins about his book, about
what the CIA really is and how it has shaped the world we still inhabit, and why a genuine
understanding of both international and domestic politics is impossible without a clear grasp
on this story.
Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate
educational training
Seems rather typical of those making policy, not knowing much about the area they're
assigned to. If a person did know Arabic and had an understanding of the culture they
wouldn't get hired as they'd be viewed with suspicion, suspected of being sympathetic to
Middle Easterners. How and why these neocons can come back into government is puzzling and
one wonders who within the establishment is backing them. Judging by the quotes her father
certainly seems deranged and not someone to be allowed anywhere near any policy making
positions.
Flynn also seems to be a dolt what with his 'worldwide war against radical Islam'. Someone
should clue him in that much of this radical Islam has been created and stoked by the US who
hyped up radical Islam, recruiting and arming them to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Bin
Laden was there, remember? Flynn, a general, is unaware of this? Islamic jihadists are
America's Foreign Legion and have been used all over the Muslim world, most recently in
Syria. Does this portend war with Iran? Possibly, but perhaps Trump wouldn't want to go it
alone but would want the financial support of other countries. They've probably war-gamed it
to death and found it to be a loser.
FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Friday that he has ordered the bureau to conduct an
internal review of its handling of the probe into former national security adviser
Michael Flynn , which has led to his years long battle in federal court.
It's like the fox guarding the hen house.
Wray's decision to investigate also comes late. The bureau's probe only comes after numerous
revelations that former senior FBI officials and agents involved in Flynn's case allegedly
engaged in misconduct to target the three star general, who became
President Donald Trump's most trusted campaign advisor.
Despite all these revelations, Wray has promised that the bureau will examine whether any
employees engaged in misconduct during the court of the investigation and "evaluate whether any
improvements in FBI policies and procedures need to be made." Based on what we know, how can we
trust an unbiased investigation from the very bureau that targeted Flynn.
Let me put it to you this way, over the past year Wray has failed to cooperate with
congressional investigations. In fact, many Republican lawmakers have called him out publicly
on the lack of cooperation saying, he cares more about protecting the bureaucracy than exposing
and resolving the culture of corruption within the bureau.
Wray's Friday announcement, is in my opinion, a ruse to get lawmakers off his back.
How can we trust that Wray's internal investigation will expose what actually happened in
the case of Flynn, or any of the other Trump campaign officials that were targeted by the
former Obama administration's intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
It's Wray's FBI that continues to battle all the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act
requests regarding the investigation into Flynn, along with any requests that would expose
information on the Russia hoax investigation. One in particular, is the request to obtain all
the text messages and emails sent and received by former Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe.
The FBI defended itself in its Friday announcement saying that in addition to its own
internal review, it has already cooperated with other inquiries assigned by Attorney General
William Barr. But still Wray has not approved subpoena's for employees and others that
lawmakers want to interview behind closed doors in Congress.
The recent documented discoveries by the Department of Justice make it all the more
imperative that an outside review of the FBI's handling of Flynn's case is required. Those
documents, which shed light on the actions by the bureau against Flynn, led to the DOJ's
decision to drop all charges against him. It was, after all, DOJ Attorney Jeffery Jensen who
discovered the FBI documents regarding Flynn that have aided his defense attorney Sidney Powell
in getting the truth out to they American people.
Powell, like me, doesn't believe an internal review is appropriate.
"Wow? And how is he going to investigate himself," she questioned in a Tweet. "And how could
anyone trust it? FBI Director Wray opens internal review into how bureau handled Michael Flynn
case."
--
Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) May
22, 2020
Last week, this reporter published the growing divide between Congressional Republicans on
the House Judiciary Committee and Wray. The lawmakers have accused Wray of failing to respond
to numerous requests to speak with FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who along with former FBI
Special Agent Peter Strzok, conducted the now infamous White House interview with Flynn on Jan.
24, 2017.
Further, the lawmakers have also requested to speak with the FBI's former head of the
Counterintelligence Division ,
Bill Priestap, whose unsealed handwritten notes revealed the possible 'nefarious'
motivations behind the FBI's investigation of Flynn.
"Michael Flynn was wronged by the FBI," said a senior Republican official last week, with
direct knowledge of the Flynn investigation.
"Sadly
Director Wray has shown little interest in getting to the bottom of what actually
happened with the Flynn case. Wray's lackadaisical attitude is an embarrassment to the rank
and file agents at the bureau, whose names have been dragged through the mud time and time
again throughout the Russia-gate investigation. Wray needs to wake up and work with Congress.
If he doesn't maybe it's time for him to go. "
Powell argued that Flynn had pleaded guilty because his former Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, along with his prosecutors, threatened to target his son. Those prosecutors also
coerced Flynn, whose finances were depleted by his previous defense team. Mueller's team got
Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI about a phone conversation he had with the former
Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. However, the
agents who interviewed him did not believe he was lying.
Currently the DOJ's request to dismiss the case is now pending before federal Judge Emmet
Sullivan. Sullivan has failed to grant the DOJ's request to dismiss the case and because of
that Powell has filed a writ of mandamus to the U.S. D.C. Court of Appeals seeking the
immediate removal of Sullivan, or to dismiss the prosecution as requested by the DOJ.
