Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
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

Andrew Bacevich on The New American Militarism

News Jingoism of the US neoliberal elite Recommended Links The History of Media-Military-Industrial Complex Concept American Exceptionalism War is Racket
The Deep State Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Neocons Neocon foreign policy is a disaster for the USA The Deep State Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich
Non-Interventionism Right to protect Bacevich Videos American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism Mayberry Machiavellians Neoliberalism as a New Form of Corporatism
American Exceptionalism Brexit revisited: Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as antidote to Neoliberalism Neoconservatism as an attack dog of neoliberalism Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Predator state War is Racket
Propaganda as creation of artificial reality Civil war in Ukraine Syria civil war Looting pays dividends to empire Co-opting of the Human Rights industry by the US to attack and embarrass governments who oppose neoliberalism The Grand Chessboard
 National Security State Resurgence of neofascism as reaction on crisis of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization  Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Big Uncle is Watching You Humor Etc
  “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.”

Ron Paul


Introduction

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.

Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War; War as a natural state of the USA since 1945

[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.

Bacevich's book  Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War  describe the "sacred trinity" of global US-led neoliberal empire:

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.

Here is the summary from Bacevich - Washington Rules (2010) - Synopsis by Mark K. Jensen

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:

  1. the purpose of the military is to defend the U.S. and its vital interests;
  2. soldiers' primary duty stations are on American soil;
  3. 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:

June 22, 2015 | fpif.org

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.

Another useful review is from  Gerard De Groot -- Andrew Bacevich's Washington Rules and John Dower's Cultures of War  Here are some highlights:

"...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. "
September 12, 2010 | washingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON RULES: America's Path to Permanent War

This Story

By Andrew J. Bacevich

Metropolitan. 286 pp. $25

CULTURES OF WAR

Pearl Harbor/Hiroshima/9-11/Iraq

By John W. Dower

Norton. 596 pp. $29.95

"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."

 Andrew Feldman review (Review Washington Rules - FPIF)

Army-officer-turned professor Andrew Bacevich makes the realist case against American expansionism.

By Andrew Feldman, August 26, 2010.

Print

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.

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:

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.

 

The Limits of Power The End of American Exceptionalism

Here is one Amazon reader review of he first book (Amazon.com David R. Cook Dave Cook's review of The Limits of Power The End of American E...)

Cliche or not, this is a "Must Read" book

By David R. Cook on August 15, 2008

Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase

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:

The New American Militarism

There are several very insightful reviews of Bacevich latest book The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (2005) on Amazon. I strongly recommend to read them.

Bacevich argues that the new militarism came about because of a convergence of several social forces (and as such has significant social base):

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Myth-making about warfare sentimentalized, sanitized and fictionalized war. The film Top Gun is only one example of "a glittering new image of warfare."
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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:

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.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 1999

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

[Jul 05, 2020] Watch: Protesters Pull Down Christopher Columbus Statue In Baltimore, Dump In Harbor

Looks like the most powerful complain for re-election of Trump
Jul 05, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

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

https://twitter.com/i/status/1279588928736104449

erhaps some thoughts by Matt Taibbi are worth repeating ( via SubStack ):

Much of America has watched in quizzical silence in recent weeks as crowds declared war on an increasingly incoherent succession of historical symbols. Maybe you nodded as Confederate general Albert Pike was toppled or even when Christopher Columbus was beheaded, but it got a little weird when George Washington was emblazoned with "Fuck Cops" and set on fire , or when they went after Ulysses S. Grant , abolitionist Colonel Hans Christian Heg , " Forward ," (a seven-foot-tall female figure meant to symbolize progress ), the Portland, Oregon " Elk statue ," or my personal favorite, the former slave Miguel de Cervantes , whose cheerful creations Don Quixote and Sancho Panza were apparently mistaken for reals and had their eyes lashed red in San Francisco.

Was a What the Fuck? too much to ask? It was! In the space of a few weeks the level of discourse in the news media dropped so low, the fear of being shamed as a deviationist so high, that most of the weirder incidents went uncovered. Leading press organs engaged in real-time Soviet-style airbrushing. Here's how the Washington Post described a movement that targeted Spanish missionary Junipero Serra , Abraham Lincoln (a " single-handed symbol of white supremacy ," according to UW-Madison students), an apple cider press sculpture , abolitionist Mathias Baldwin , and the first all-Black volunteer regiment in the Civil War , among others.


lockandload , 52 seconds ago

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

[Jul 05, 2020] Afghanistan and the Endless War Caucus by DANIEL LARISON

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. ..."
Jul 03, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

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 .

email

kouroi a day ago

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!

Fran Macadam a day ago

For elite war profiteers and the politicians they own, the only war that is lost is one that ends. No lives matter.

chris chuba a day ago

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.

kouroi chris chuba a day ago

If you have watched Oliver Stone's interview with Putin, it comes through that in fact there were at least three or four attempts to Putin's life...

William Toffan chris chuba 21 hours ago

Death penalty for Putin = Death Penalty for continental USA.

RBH 15 hours ago

So you can get into a war without Congressional approval, but you can't get out of one without Congressional approval. Gotcha.

Lavinia 10 hours ago • edited

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.

wynn an hour ago • edited

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.

Blood Alcohol wynn an hour ago

Same argument goes for the Iraqi people.

[Jul 05, 2020] "Coddling these stupid brats." You'll get a kick out of reading this story. It's about Kelly Ann Conway's "woke" 15 year old daughter.

Jul 05, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

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.

Finn McCool , 9 minutes ago

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8489983/Kellyanne-Conways-daughter-15-slams-parents-blocking-freedom-speech.html

"coddling these stupid brats." You'll get a kick out of reading this story. It's about Kelly Ann Conway's "woke" 15 year old daughter.

What a disaster. Pretty funny though.

ToWo , 12 minutes ago

Rerun

_arrow
Insert farm animal here , 13 minutes ago

100 percent, choose your side wisely now.

[Jul 03, 2020] Every American Should Watch Abby Martin's Afghanistan War Exposed- An Imperial Conspiracy

Jun 29, 2020 | www.mintpressnews.com

By MintPress News Desk

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.

[Jul 03, 2020] The BLM-Antifa revolution under the cover of ending systemic racism is an anti-Trump movement controlled by the neoliberal elite through foundations, thinktanks, wealthy donors, and corporate donations; they are not interested in black population economic status and discrimination, only in return to power

Jul 03, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

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.

Gary Allen wrote in 1971:

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.

[Jul 03, 2020] Hollywood, Disney, Goldman Sachs, Bitcoin, Epstein child trafficking networks exposed

Wexner is the key figure in Epsten-maxwell story
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Jul 03, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Richard Steven Hack , Jul 3 2020 6:51 utc | 102

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?)

Anonymous and OpDeathEaters begin massive expose of powerful child rape ring, big names set to be dropped
"Hollywood, Disney, Goldman Sachs, Bitcoin, Epstein child trafficking networks exposed," Anonymous tweeted

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.

Peter AU1 , Jul 3 2020 7:19 utc | 110

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.

uncle tungsten , Jul 3 2020 8:46 utc | 118

Richard Steven Hack #115

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.

Mark2 , Jul 3 2020 9:23 utc | 122

Peter AU1 #110

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 !

(Oh and) -- -- -- In my opinion.

uncle tungsten , Jul 3 2020 8:55 utc | 120
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.

Mina , Jul 3 2020 9:37 utc | 123

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.""

450.org , Jul 3 2020 16:05 utc | 160

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.

Accused Jeffrey Epstein Sex Crimes Accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested At $1 Million New Hampshire Home

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.

450.org , Jul 3 2020 16:11 utc | 161

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.

Lawyers are the most evil beings to ever exist.

About Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

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.

[Jul 01, 2020] Chagnon theorized that war, far from being the product of capitalist exploitation and colonization was in fact the true "state of nature."

Jul 01, 2020 | www.unz.com

Sean , says: June 30, 2020 at 12:58 pm GMT

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.

[Jul 01, 2020] Kosovo Indictment Proves Bill Clinton s Serbian War Atrocities - Defend Democracy Press by Jim Bovard

Notable quotes:
"... 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? ..."
Jun 25, 2020 | www.defenddemocracy.press

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."

Read also: From the very beginning: Α conscious plan to destroy Greece!

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.

Read also: Derrière l'affaire Benalla, la banalisation de la violence policière

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?

[Jun 29, 2020] What Would the Black Panthers Think of Black Lives Matter? by Paul Street

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. ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | www.truthdig.com

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.

[Jun 29, 2020] ANTIFA- The truth behind the mask - YouTube

Jun 29, 2020 | www.youtube.com


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


plmvirginiauva
, 2 weeks ago

College students are the most easily manipulated

[Jun 28, 2020] Barr creates task force focused on 'anti-government extremists' TheHill

Notable quotes:
"... 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." ..."
Jun 28, 2020 | thehill.com

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."

[Jun 28, 2020] THEY AIN'T NOTHING BUT DEVILS'

Jun 28, 2020 | www.rt.com

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.

[Jun 28, 2020] Conservative Journalist Jack Posobiec Assaulted By DC Antifa

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. ..."
Jun 28, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com
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.

Clip courtesy of @BreitbartNews edited by moi .. God Bless https://t.co/qXrO1MgGg8 pic.twitter.com/QLYiDCks0c

-- wlctv.ca (@wlctv_ca) June 27, 2020

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

-- Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) June 27, 2020

For a detailed account of the sequence of events, see here .

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 .

Literally shaking right now from his intimidating presence. pic.twitter.com/vXEInIylyl

-- Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 27, 2020

Based chad DC cops vs dork face pic.twitter.com/Cnm9jF1bmD

-- 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.

Yes https://t.co/piaXfAWzvA

-- Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) June 27, 2020

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

-- ZeroPointNow (@ZeroPointNow) April 24, 2017

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.

https://twitter.com/KState/status/1276551914755362816?s=19

fersur , 7 hours ago

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.

[Jun 25, 2020] A Brief History Of Antifa Part II

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. ..."
Jun 24, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

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."

Rose City Antifa tweeted :

"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!"

Seattle Antifascists added :

"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."

An Antifa radical from Maryland tweeted :

"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."

[Jun 24, 2020] No Security Council resolution authorized aggression against Yugoslavia. NATO's Operation Allied Force lasted 78 days.

Jun 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

Robjil , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 10:21 pm GMT

@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.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/natos-rape-of-yugoslavia/5375189

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.

[Jun 24, 2020] War is the health of the state" is true only to a certain limit. After that the bankruptcy is looming

Jun 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

onebornfree , says: Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:21 pm GMT

"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. "

This "just" in: "War is the health of the state" Randolph Bourne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Bourne

Agent76 , says: Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2020 at 2:22 pm GMT
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.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/02/26/neoconservative-threat-world-order-paul-craig-roberts/

[Jun 24, 2020] Senator Accuses Google Of Posing Tremendous Threat To Free And Fair Press As Antitrust Probe Gets Going

Jun 24, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

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."

[Jun 22, 2020] Is Antifa a branch of ADL, or it is a abother "Red Brigates"?

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
Jun 22, 2020 | www.unz.com

Corporal Punishment , says: Show Comment June 17, 2020 at 5:32 pm GMT

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?
Exile , says: Show Comment June 17, 2020 at 7:48 pm GMT

My Bet: the DNC

You misspelled ADL.

ThreeCranes , says: Show Comment June 17, 2020 at 11:27 pm GMT
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.

mark tapley , says: Show Comment June 17, 2020 at 11:48 pm GMT
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.

mark tapley , says: Show Comment June 18, 2020 at 12:08 am GMT
@ThreeCranes Yes, 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.
mark tapley , says: Show Comment June 18, 2020 at 12:25 am GMT
@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.

Ann Nonny Mouse , says: Show Comment June 18, 2020 at 6:09 am GMT
My bet, the CIA for sure. The ADL also, highly likely.
mark green , says: Show Comment June 18, 2020 at 6:13 am GMT
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.

Antifa are neo-Bolsheviks with a rainbow flag.

Digital Samizdat , says: Show Comment June 18, 2020 at 12:10 pm GMT
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.

anonymous [400] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment June 18, 2020 at 1:33 pm GMT
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.

Justvisiting , says: Show Comment June 19, 2020 at 8:33 pm GMT
@Ann Nonny Mouse I 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.
Piglet , says: Show Comment June 19, 2020 at 11:53 pm GMT
@Nicholas Stix Here's the video. It's 21 seconds long.

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

https://www.youtube.com/embed/U1LmnQRnw8I?feature=oembed

Nicholas Stix , says: Website Show Comment June 20, 2020 at 9:39 am GMT
@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

Piglet , says: Show Comment June 20, 2020 at 12:46 pm GMT
@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:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/eric-margolis/americas-political-golem/

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.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/10/phil-giraldi/best-government-money-can-buy/

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.

[Jun 19, 2020] The Police Weren t Created to Protect and Serve. They Were Created to Maintain Order. A Brief Look at the History of Police

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... 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.* ..."
Jun 18, 2020 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

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.

By Thomas Neuberger. Originally published at DownWithTyranny!

One version of the "thin blue line" flag, a symbol used in a variety of ways by American police departments , their most fervent supporters , and other right-wing fellow travelers . The thin blue line represents the wall of protection that separates the orderly "us" from the disorderly, uncivilized "them" .

[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.


MK , June 19, 2020 at 12:31 am

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.

timbers , June 19, 2020 at 8:06 am

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.

MLTPB , June 19, 2020 at 11:11 am

Abolish the Fed and/or abolish the police?

Inbetween, there is

Defund Wall Street
Abolish banking
Abolish lending
Abolish cash
Defund fossil fuel subsidies

Etc.

Broader, more on the economic side, and perhaps more fundamental???

TiPs , June 19, 2020 at 8:34 am

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.

David , June 19, 2020 at 9:32 am

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.

km , June 19, 2020 at 11:48 am

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.

David , June 19, 2020 at 12:09 pm

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.

rob , June 19, 2020 at 12:25 pm

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.

flora , June 19, 2020 at 1:36 am

Thanks for this post.

"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.

John Anthony La Pietra , June 19, 2020 at 2:20 am

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."

Adam1 , June 19, 2020 at 7:39 am

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.

rob , June 19, 2020 at 8:07 am

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.

run75441 , June 19, 2020 at 8:23 am

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.

Carla , June 19, 2020 at 12:39 pm

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.

JacobiteInTraining , June 19, 2020 at 9:20 am

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.

km , June 19, 2020 at 11:56 am

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".

cripes , June 19, 2020 at 3:35 am

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..

Boatwright , June 19, 2020 at 7:51 am

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.

MichaelSF , June 19, 2020 at 12:18 pm

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.

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

rob , June 19, 2020 at 7:58 am

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

Tom Stone , June 19, 2020 at 8:20 am

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.

The Rev Kev , June 19, 2020 at 10:10 am

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.

MLTPB , June 19, 2020 at 11:00 am

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 .

Pookah Harvey , June 19, 2020 at 10:54 am

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..

rob , June 19, 2020 at 11:58 am

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?

Carolinian , June 19, 2020 at 11:01 am

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.

MLTPB , June 19, 2020 at 11:15 am

Perhaps we are more likely to argue among ourselves, when genetic fallacy is possibly in play.

Pookah Harvey , June 19, 2020 at 11:37 am

" 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.

Bob , June 19, 2020 at 11:40 am

If we made America Great Again we could go back to the 18th century.

rob , June 19, 2020 at 12:11 pm

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".

Carolinian , June 19, 2020 at 12:42 pm

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.

Mattski , June 19, 2020 at 11:37 am

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.

[Jun 19, 2020] The USG' s definition of Dictator

Highly recommended!
Jun 19, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Cyndy Tyler L RNY 8 hours ago

The USG' s definition of Dictator.

DICTATOR, Noun: Someone who does not let American CEOs dictate how their country is run

[Jun 17, 2020] We're in a sinister new era of totalitarianism, where PC combat units use social media to destroy anyone who disagrees with them by Konstantin Bogomolov

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Jun 17, 2020 | www.rt.com

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.

[Jun 17, 2020] Tucker: Google tries to censor content it disagrees with

Jun 17, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Joseph Beers , 1 hour ago

Google has become a publisher and is no longer a unbiased public forum. They should be stripped of section 230 protections.

Cloudy Days , 1 hour ago

"Google controls 70% of all online ad revenue." That sounds like an anti trust case waiting to happen.

kingtorta , 1 hour ago

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

Riley Reeder , 1 hour ago

Controlling content means they should lose their Platform status

ThePsychoRenegade , 1 hour ago

For once Tucker is saying things agree with. More people need to call out censorship.

Stephen Longchamps , 1 hour ago

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.

J H , 1 hour ago

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.

[Jun 16, 2020] The Antifa leadership is heavily Jewish, and it is hence no surprise that you find them fighting for causes that benefit Israel

Jun 16, 2020 | www.unz.com

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.

jbwilson24 , says: June 15, 2020 at 12:33 am GMT

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.

[Jun 16, 2020] Infiltrating Antifa: the Feds and Their Long History of Subversion by T.J. Coles

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.
Jun 12, 2020 | www.counterpunch.org
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. Welt reports: "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

T. J. Coles is director of the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research and the author of several books, including Voices for Peace (with Noam Chomsky and others) and Fire and Fury: How the US Isolates North Korea, Encircles China and Risks Nuclear War in Asia (both Clairview Books). New from
CounterPunch
June 15, 2020 Rob Urie
Police Killings are a Political Tactic Dan Kovalik
The Military Must be De-Funded Along with the Police Nick Turse
Will the Death of George Floyd Mark the Rebirth of America? Jeremy Kuzmarov
Cut Overseas Police Training Programs Shelby Seth
Dismantling a Complex Ideology: Thoughts on the BLM Movement Jonathan Cook
Symbols are Invested with Power. Don't Dismiss the Importance of Toppling a Statue M. K. Bhadrakumar
Turkey's Big Bet Has Put Libya in Center of a Global Power Struggle Ralph Nader
Moving Street Protests from Futility to Utility Cesar Chelala
The Day President Kennedy (Almost) Broke the Embargo on Cuba Nick Pemberton
The United States Needs Black Nationalism, Now Diallo Brooks
A Bittersweet Juneteenth Ken Makin
Defund the Police, Invest in Communities Erik Molvar
The "Restoration Grazing" Argument Fell Flat in Court Graham Peebles
Reinvigorating the UN? John G. Russell
In Other Words Weekend Edition
June 12, 2020
Friday - Sunday Bruce Jackson
Buffalo Cops -- And All the Other Cops Mark Schuller
Unmasking Racial Terror and Seeing Whiteness Michael Yates
Police are the Enemy Within T.J. Coles
Infiltrating Antifa: the Feds and Their Long History of Subversion Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: The Ring of the Truncheon Thing Monty Neill
COVID-19, Capitalist Crises, Class Resistance Paul Street
Livable Ecology, Not Police Joseph Natoli
Defunding the Paradigm Chuck Churchill
What Do All Working People Have in Common? Andrew Levine
Where the Fault Line Lies David Rosen
Two Pandemics: COVID-19 and the 1918 Influenza Evan Jones
Covid-19 Hits the French Health System Ron Jacobs
Fighting For Our Future, Fighting Back Against Austerity Pam Martens - Russ Martens
The Fed Just Pulled Off Another Backdoor Bailout of Wall Street Pete Dolack
The Corporate Origins of the Anti-Science "Reopen" Demonstrations Dean Baker
Government-Granted Patent Monopolies and Structural Racism Steve Early
A Mon Valley Memoir: Lessons From The Last Stand Of Steelworkers in Homestead Joyce Nelson
That "Big Green Meltdown" & The Untouchables Thomas Knapp
Police Violence: "Reform" is Not Enough David Yearsley
Dams for the Breaching David Schultz
The Killing of George Floyd and the Final Fracturing of the Democratic Party, Labor, and Civil Rights Coalition Ramzy Baroud
Palestine Bleeds: Execution of Autistic Man is Not an Exception but the Norm Gabriel Kuhn
Will Science and Reason Save Us? The Liberal Left's False Wall of Defense Eve Ottenberg
Police Brutalize the Press Michael T. Klare
The New Cold War with China Karyn Pomerantz
Where Were the Hypocrites When Police Murdered 1000 People, Disproportionately Black, a Year? Richard Moser
Can White People 'Organize Their Own' Against White Racism? Paul Ryder
Removing a U.S. President Without an Election Daniel Warner
Is This the Big One? Dave Lindorff
Fascism on the March Find All Articles

CounterPunch
Tells the Facts and Names the Names
Published since 1996
Copyright © CounterPunch
All rights reserved.
counterpunch@counterpunch.org
Mailing Address
CounterPunch
PO Box 228
Petrolia, CA 95558
Telephone
1(707) 629-3683
Editorial
Jeffrey St. Clair, Editor
Joshua Frank, Managing Editor
Nathaniel St. Clair, Social Media
Alexander Cockburn, 1941-2012
Business
Becky Grant
Business Manager
counterpunchbiz@gmail.com
Deva Wheeler
Subscription and merchandise fulfillment
counterpunchdeva@gmail.com Facebook Twitter Reddit Email

[Jun 16, 2020] 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.

Jun 16, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Lucifer Dreams , 6 hours ago

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.

[Jun 15, 2020] Full Special Investigation - Donald Trump vs The Deep State

Highly recommended!
This is an amazing video. highly recommended
Notable quotes:
"... 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 ..."
Jun 15, 2020 | www.youtube.com

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".


Cee Zee , 7 months ago

Was it not for Trump, we would never have had a clue just how evil and corrupt the fbi, cia, leftist media and big tech giants are!

Tron Javolta , 6 months ago

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)

k-carl Manley , 1 month ago

JFK was right: dismantle the CIA and throw the remaining dust to the wind - same for the traitorous leaders in the FBI!

Nick Krikorian , 7 months ago

The deep state killed JFK

Joe Mamma , 1 week ago

The deep state is real and they are powerful and have an evil agenda!

Joe Graves , 1 month ago

Anyone that says a "deep state" doesn't exist in America, is part of the American deep state.

ceokc13 , 3 days ago (edited)

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.

Francis Gee , 1 week ago (edited)

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.

TheConnected Chris , 1 day ago

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???

Fact Chitanda , 2 weeks ago

The secret services are only one arm of the deep state. Its bigger than them!

David Stanley , 3 days ago

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?

Miroslav Skoric , 2 months ago

"I' never saw corruption" said the blind monkey "I never heard any corruption " said the deaf monkey The mute monkey,of course said nothing.

Franco Lust , 2 months ago

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 💖💗

Always Keen , 7 months ago

Drain that swamp!

joe wood , 2 days ago

Found and cause all wars. Mislead both sides .

Peter Kondogonis , 1 month ago (edited)

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

silva lloyd , 1 month ago

"How does democracy survive" We don't live in a democracy. The English isles and commonwealth are a constitutional monarchy, America is a republic.

Rhsheeda Russell , 5 days ago

And President Trump was right. Senator Graham is a sneaky, lying, sloth who enjoys his status and takes taxpayers money to do nothing.

Jerry Kays , 1 day ago

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.

Jonathan King , 7 months ago (edited)

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.

GB3770 , 1 month ago (edited)

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...

BassBreath100 , 2 months ago

" 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

Scocasso Vegetus , 1 month ago (edited)

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.

cuppateadee , 3 days ago

Assange got banged up because he exposed war crimes by this lot on film Chelsea Manning also. They are heroes.

Shaun Ellis , 7 months ago

"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"

Cheryl Lawlor , 2 weeks ago

Even Obama said, "the CIA gets what the CIA wants." Even he wouldn't upset them.

NeXus Prime , 1 week ago

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).

zetayoru , 1 month ago

JFK said he wanted to expose a deeper and more sinister group. And when he was moving closer to it, he got killed.

adolthitler , 1 week ago

Yuri Bezmenov will tell you the deepstate has too much power. Yuri was right about much.

Ed P , 3 weeks ago

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

Shirley van der Heijden , 1 month ago

Evil never is satisfied!

The Vault , 5 days ago

https://www.facebook.com/kyle.darbyshire/posts/1085832538454860

Bitcoin Blockchain , 1 day ago


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
Ken Martin , 5 months ago

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.

pharcyde110573 , 6 months ago (edited)

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!

Gord Pittman , 22 hours ago

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..

joe wood , 1 week ago

CIA did 9-11 with bush cabal pulling strings

Joseph Hinton , 1 month ago

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.

Karen Reaves , 2 weeks ago (edited)

Every nation has the same deep state. CIA Mossad MI6 and CCP protect the deep state like one big Mafia. Thank you Sky News. outofshadows.org

killtheglobalists , 2 days ago (edited)

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

Kauz , 1 week ago

Timothy Leary gives the CIA TOTAL CREDIT for sponsoring and initiating, the entire consciousness movement and counter-culture events of the 1960's.

Sierra1 Tngo , 2 weeks ago

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.

iwonka k , 3 hours ago

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.

R Tarz , 2 months ago

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

Adronicus -IF- , 2 months ago

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/

John Doe , 1 month ago

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.

Nicholas Napier , 2 months ago (edited)

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....

itsmemuffins , 7 months ago

"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."

msciciel14therope , 1 month ago

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...

Vaclav Haval , 6 days ago

The Deep State (CIA, NSA, FBI, and Israeli Mossad) did 9/11.

Wilf Jones , 1 week ago

Super Geek Zuckerberg was made a CIA useful Idiot ... I mean agent , lol .

Chubs Fatboy , 2 weeks ago

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!

Rue Porter , 1 day ago

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

peemaster Bjarne , 1 week ago

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!

richard bello , 2 weeks ago

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

AussieMaleTuber , 7 months ago (edited)

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!

Trevor Pike , 2 months ago

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.

Michael Small , 1 month ago

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.

Barry Atkins , 7 months ago (edited)

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. : (

price , 7 months ago

Sky news is owned by rupert Murdoch...the same guy that owns fox news. Nuff said😘

Marie Hurst , 6 days ago

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

Debbie Kirby , 7 months ago

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.

James dow , 1 week ago

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.

mary rosario , 5 days ago

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!

evan c , 2 weeks ago

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.

[Jun 14, 2020] There is a counter-insurgence operation ongoing to demonize and hijack the original genuine leaderless protests sparked by the murdering of Floyd

Jun 14, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

H.Schmatz , Jun 13 2020 21:29 utc | 47

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.


[Jun 13, 2020] A Brief History Of Antifa Part I

Jun 13, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3zbDptbZIk

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

Iconoclast27 , 1 hour ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3zbDptbZIk

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!!!

DaBard51 , 3 hours ago

Hmmm... are Antifa the new Trotskyites?

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

robobbob , 3 hours ago

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.

White Nat , 3 hours ago

Listen to it free at:

https://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=488599

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.

chelydra , 51 minutes ago

Yet Barry Soetoro had the FBI designate Juggalos as a gang.

desertboy , 7 hours ago

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.

https://www.projectveritas.com/

Blanco Diablo , 8 hours ago

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.

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

https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/gatestone_institute/

Salisarsims , 9 hours ago

Neocons being in the Trotskyite tradition.

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:

" FBI arrests 3 suspected white supremacists on federal gun ...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-arrests-3-suspected-white-supremacists-on-federal-gun-charges/

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 ...

Right-wing 'Boogaloo' men arrested on terror charges ...

https://www.businessinsider.com/3-boogaloo-men-terror-charges-george-floyd-protest-riot-conspiracy-2020-6?op=1

According to a June 2 filing, the men discussed "causing an incident to incite chaos and possibly a riot" in response to George Floyd's death.

FBI arrests 3 connected to white supremacist group who ...

https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/fbi-arrests-3-connected-to-white-supremacist-group-who-were-headed-to-richmond-gun-rally/article_33449ddf-5eaf-5ec0-8b31-7e5fef4f05fa.html

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?

SQUAT.


[Jun 13, 2020] Korea is just another distraction: 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

Highly recommended!
The saying "War is racket" means not only that conquered nations are loots, but the the USA taxpayers will be looted as well
Jun 13, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org
Kay Fabe , Jun 13 2020 0:10 utc | 35
Just another distraction.

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

[Jun 12, 2020] Engineering A Race War Will This Be The American Police State's Reichstag Fire by John Whitehead

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Jun 12, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

- George Santayana

Watch and see: this debate over police brutality and accountability is about to get politicized into an election-year referendum on who should occupy the White House.

Don't fall for it.

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's the Reichstag Fire all over again.

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.

That was all it took: Hitler used the attempted "coup" as an excuse to declare martial law and seize absolute power in Germany , establishing himself as a dictator with the support of the German people.

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.

Note the similarities?

It's entirely possible that Americans have finally reached a tipping point over police brutality after decades of abuse . After all, until recently, the legislatures and the courts have marched in lockstep with the police state, repeatedly rebuffing efforts to hold police accountable for official misconduct .

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?

I'll tell you why.

These warrior cops -- fitted out in the trappings of war , drilled in the deadly art of combat, and trained to look upon "every individual they interact with as an armed threat and every situation as a deadly force encounter in the making -- are the police state's standing army.

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 .

They don't work for us. As retired Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis warned, " Corporate America is using police forces as their mercenaries ."

We were sold a bill of goods.

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.

None of that is true.

In fact, a study by a political scientist at Princeton University concludes that militarizing police and SWAT teams " provide no detectable benefits in terms of officer safety or violent crime reduction ." According to researcher Jonathan Mummolo, if police in America are feeling less safe, it's because the process of transforming them into extensions of the military makes them less safe, less popular and less trust-worthy.

The study, the first systematic analysis on the use and consequences of militarized force, reveals that "police militarization neither reduces rates of violent crime nor changes the number of officers assaulted or killed ."

In other words, warrior cops aren't making us or themselves any safer .

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.

The problem, as one reporter rightly concluded, is "not that life has gotten that much more dangerous, it's that authorities have chosen to respond to even innocent situations as if they were in a warzone ." Consequently, Americans are now eight times more likely to die in a police confrontation than they are to be killed by a terrorist.

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.

There are few communities without a SWAT team today, and there are more than 80,000 SWAT team raids per year .

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 .

Much of the "credit" for shielding these rogue cops goes to influential police unions and laws providing for qualified immunity , police contracts that " provide a shield of protection to officers accused of misdeeds and erect barriers to residents complaining of abuse ," state and federal laws that allow police to walk away without paying a dime for their wrongdoing, and rampant cronyism among government bureaucrats.

It's happening all across the country .

This is how perverse justice in America has become.

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.

Even when the system appears to work on the side of justice , it's the American taxpayer who ends up paying the price.

Literally.

Because police officers are more likely to be struck by lightning than be held financially accountable for their actions. As Human Rights Watch explains, taxpayers actually pay three times for officers who repeatedly commit abuses : "once to cover their salaries while they commit abuses; next to pay settlements or civil jury awards against officers; and a third time through payments into police 'defense' funds provided by the cities."

Deep-seated corruption of this kind doesn't just go away because politicians and corporations suddenly become conscience-stricken in the face of mass protests and start making promises they don't intend to keep.

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.

[Jun 10, 2020] Defining social control as crime control was accomplished by raising the specter of the 'dangerous classes.'

Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Jun 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jun 10 2020 19:00 utc | 17

14 Cont'd--

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.


karlof1 , Jun 10 2020 19:10 utc | 19

Piotr Berman @16--

"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 | 34 somebody , 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.

What is the position of black and brown policemen on this? They seem to be underrepresented in the police force but not non-existant .

38 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2019

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.

[Jun 10, 2020] 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

Notable quotes:
"... Police organized professional criminals, like thieves and pickpockets, trading immunity for bribes or information. ..."
Jun 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , Jun 10 2020 18:41 utc | 14

450.org @2--

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.


karlof1 , Jun 10 2020 19:27 utc | 22

14 & 17 Cont'd--

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.

karlof1 , Jun 10 2020 21:01 utc | 29
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.

450.org , Jun 10 2020 21:21 utc | 32
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.

Here's an interview with John Sayles.

John Sayles Talks About Battle of Blair Mountain, Film Matewan & GOP's Union Busting Efforts

You Work, They Don't

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.

[Jun 10, 2020] What is a Vassal State?

Jun 10, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian J Chuba , Jun 10 2020 18:35 utc | 13

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.

[Jun 10, 2020] Is it possible that the USA is becoming a [neo]fascist state?

Jun 10, 2020 | www.unz.com

Ultrafart the Brave , says: Website Show Comment June 4, 2020 at 12:06 am GMT

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.

Interesting times.

Curmudgeon , says: Show Comment June 8, 2020 at 9:55 pm GMT
@Ultrafart the Brave

"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.

[Jun 08, 2020] Antifa- Left Wing Fascism by Kevin Barrett

Notable quotes:
"... 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 ..."
Jun 08, 2020 | americanfreepress.net

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.

[Jun 06, 2020] Trump is to right 'to label Antifa as a terrorist organisation'

Jun 06, 2020 | www.youtube.com

Anarchist group Antifa is engaging in "text book terrorism" and deserve to be labelled as such, according to Sky News contributor Daisy Cousens.



CommanderRich
, 3 days ago

lol everyone scared of corona till its time to protest huh?

Information Warfare , 1 day ago (edited)

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

G ISALL , 2 days ago

The media is 100% responsible for this entire event.


David Galloway
, 2 days ago

Charge and convict George Soros and his foundations for his crimes against humanity.


The Gatekeeper
, 3 days ago

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.

Makai Mauka , 2 days ago

Looks like it took three Antifa cowards to beat up an unarmed woman...


Hectorfarm
, 5 days ago (edited)

Thanks for telling the truth. I live in Minnesota. The local media is covering for these criminals and terrorists.

graham orr , 5 days ago

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.


Thatsright Jack
, 2 days ago

Why are we not using "contact tracing" to locate and eradicate Antifa?

[Jun 06, 2020] 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.

Jun 06, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

gwilliard , Jun 6 2020 5:12 utc | 99

@25 & @27 & @51 & @69

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.

Some items worth reading:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/antiracism-our-flawed-new-religion
https://unherd.com/2020/01/the-rise-of-identitarian-liberalism/
https://johnhalle.com/adolph-reed-on-sanders-coates-and-reparations/
https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/judith-butler-force-of-nonviolence-interview/ > see comment taking her down

@69 - The Verso ebooks on policing are free if you register an account. You have to pick ebook only, not paired with paperback.

anonymous , Jun 6 2020 5:15 utc | 104

@norecovery | Jun 5 2020 23:48 utc | 64

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.

[Jun 06, 2020] The Worse the Better Why Antifa Wants Trump to Win by James Pinkerton

Jun 04, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

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 Yorker described 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.

[Jun 06, 2020] National Justice Exclusive Brooklyn Based Antifa Network Helping Organize Violence Across The Country by Eric Striker

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. ..."
Jun 03, 2020 | www.unz.com

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.


ThreeCranes , says: Show Comment June 3, 2020 at 1:18 pm GMT

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.

JimDandy , says: Show Comment June 4, 2020 at 7:17 pm GMT
@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.
Alden , says: Show Comment June 5, 2020 at 4:25 am GMT
@JimDandy She was pregnant black and had a miscarriage because of the beating that huge man gave her.
jbwilson24 , says: Show Comment June 3, 2020 at 1:51 pm GMT
" 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.

Beavertales , says: Show Comment June 3, 2020 at 2:25 pm GMT
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.

fnn , says: Show Comment June 3, 2020 at 5:47 pm GMT
@anonymous It just takes a few seconds to search "kurds +antifa" and find more than a few stories.

[Jun 05, 2020] Neoliberal Fascism and the Echoes of History

Both national socialism and neoliberalism are flavors of corporatism, so they have a common parent...
Jun 05, 2020 | www.truthdig.com

... ... ...

Fascism by Trial in the Age of Trump

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?

[Jun 05, 2020] A large number of anarchists are the sons and daughters of politicians, bankers, judges, and other connected elite figures

Jun 05, 2020 | www.unz.com

SunBakedSuburb , says: Show Comment June 5, 2020 at 4:02 pm GMT

"A large number of anarchists are the sons and daughters of politicians, bankers, judges, and other connected elite figures"

Says a lot about the managerial class that serves the wicked elites.

[Jun 05, 2020] Antifa in Theory and in Practice

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Photo by jcrakow | CC BY 2.0

" Fascists are divided into two categories: the fascists and the anti-fascists ."

– 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).

[Jun 03, 2020] The Philosophy of Antifa

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) ..."
Dec 01, 2017 | www.youtube.com

... ... ...

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

Bibliography:
Ahmed, The Cultural Politics of Emotion - http://tinyurl.com/y9a569vy
Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism - http://tinyurl.com/yab2r3sm
Auden & Isherwood – On the Frontier - http://tinyurl.com/y8c8w3sc
BadMouse Productions: Spotting Fascism – ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0rRg... )
Bray, Antifa: the Antifascist Handbook - http://tinyurl.com/y7nwsr6c
Burgdörfer: "Sterben die weißen Völker?”
Cacho, Social Death - http://tinyurl.com/yalbdhkb
Contrapoints –
“Debating the Alt-Right,” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPa1w... ),
“Decrypting the Alt-Right” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx4BV... ),
“The Left” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuN6G... ),
“Does the Left Hate Free Speech?” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTDh... ),
“Why White Nationalism is Wrong” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyV0y... )
D’Souza, The Big Lie - http://tinyurl.com/ydavsb82
Faludi, Backlash - http://tinyurl.com/ycnjhv5s
Fang, Delete Your Account Podcast, E63, “Punching Nazis”
Herman & Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent - http://tinyurl.com/ybd3rots
Hermansson, “My Year Inside the Alt-Right” https://alternativeright.hopenothate....
Hitler, Mein Kampf
Hobbes, Leviathan - http://tinyurl.com/y98m5tf7
Kesīqnaeh, Fascism & Anti-Fascism: A Decolonial Perspective http://tinyurl.com/y9m36ckv
King Jr. - Letter From A Birmingham Jail - http://tinyurl.com/ovcktqb
Mill, On Liberty - http://tinyurl.com/y9ajospk
Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism - http://tinyurl.com/y7s6u3xt
Purkis & Bowen (ed.), Changing Anarchism - http://tinyurl.com/y9sdobpp
Raz, “Authority, Law, and Morality” - http://tinyurl.com/ybm5fmhb
Richardson, What Terrorists Want - http://tinyurl.com/y82wpbj6
Robets, Fatal Invention http://tinyurl.com/ybdfgvwh
Satre, “Anti-Semite and Jew” - http://tinyurl.com/y9qmncya
Schmitt, Political Theology and The Concept of the Political http://tinyurl.com/ycsgxlga & http://tinyurl.com/y7v2vojl
Shaun – “The Great Replacement Isn’t Real - ft. Lauren Southern” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbxV... )
Ture, Stokely Speaks - http://tinyurl.com/y7fz2hpj
Vasquez, “The Poor Person’s Defence of Riots” https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/...
Wilson, “What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters” https://www.thenation.com/article/wha...
A Short Documentary About the Battle of Cable Street: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiZFy...

apprenticehera , 1 day ago

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.

Gluemonkey , 6 hours ago (edited)

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.


Carolina Madeira , 1 day ago

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!

Kirikan Kuu , 1 week ago

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.

Al Muarikh , 1 week ago div

> 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.

Rackergen , 5 months ago (edited) div tabindex="0" role="arti

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*

Ben Rogue , 5 months ago

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.

Thaïs Caprio , 2 months ago div tabindex="0" role="a

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)

Chris Woycik , 1 year ago

"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.

Mark Von , 12 minutes ago (edited)

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)

Matt NA , 1 day ago

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.

The Procastinators , 3 months ago

"Fascism is not a wholly different kind of government from the one you might know ..." Laughs in 2020

Stephanie Jean , 1 hour ago

Trump: Antifa is a terrorist group Intellectuals: It's not a specific group tho...

[Jun 02, 2020] The Antifascist Fascists in Our Streets

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. ..."
Jun 02, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

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 .

Scroop Moth 19 hours ago

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?
J Villain 18 hours ago
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?
RCPreader J Villain 15 hours ago
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?

madamX RCPreader 14 hours ago
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.
Zgler 14 hours ago
"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.

WilliamRD 4 hours ago
Lessons from Weimar Germany for the Portland Extremists

https://fee.org/articles/le...

[Jun 01, 2020] How to misindentify fascism by Andrew Joyce

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. ..."
May 29, 2020 | www.unz.com

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 The Burkean '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).


Paul , says: Show Comment May 29, 2020 at 6:54 pm GMT

Given the Zionist treatment of the indigenous Palestinian people, it is odd to hear Jews complain about fascism.
Priss Factor , says: Website Show Comment May 30, 2020 at 12:22 am GMT
True fascism is about exposing and exploring the true nature of power.

Jews are crypto-gangster-fascists who project 'fascist' fantasies on the other.
A diversionary trick.

Observator , says: Show Comment May 30, 2020 at 12:22 am GMT
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.

Johnnie Tumbleweed , says: Show Comment May 30, 2020 at 5:02 am GMT
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.
obvious , says: Show Comment May 31, 2020 at 1:53 am GMT
@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.

Malla , says: Show Comment May 31, 2020 at 9:32 am GMT
@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.
Verymuchalive , says: Show Comment May 31, 2020 at 12:55 pm GMT
@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.
The Germ Theory of Disease , says: Show Comment May 31, 2020 at 7:41 pm GMT
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)

The Germ Theory of Disease , says: Show Comment May 31, 2020 at 8:10 pm GMT
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.

Colin Wright , says: Website Show Comment June 1, 2020 at 4:37 am GMT
Defining fascism's easy. 'Antifa' is out there reprising early fascism right now.

You physically attack people who disagree with you. It's not complicated.

[May 31, 2020] Our Grim Future by Pepe Escobar

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. ..."
May 31, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

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:

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.

simple **** maynard...

[May 30, 2020] Imperialism undercuts democracy by furthering inequalities among its citizens: Corruption becomes endemic, not only abroad but at home.

May 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Norogene , May 29 2020 23:02 utc | 115

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.

[May 30, 2020] The arseholes arguing for getting into conflicts do so only for the opportunities for personal benefit conflicts create

May 30, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

A User , May 30 2020 3:47 utc | 160

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.

[May 29, 2020] You can;t have a Democracy at home and an empire aboard, the violence of empire will always turn against the very idea of democracy

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... 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. ..."
May 29, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

Norogene , May 29 2020 22:19 utc | 105

Kaddath writes:

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.

[May 28, 2020] Google, Meet The One Institution More Powerful Than You

May 28, 2020 | www.theamericanconservative.com

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.


Wil Odin 13 hours ago

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.
GaryH 12 hours ago
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.

Is Libertarianism something we dare not name?

Tradcon GaryH 9 hours ago
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.

Andyroo Tradcon 8 hours ago
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.
Gregtown 12 hours ago
I have no issue with all of these companies being broken up into smaller ones. Should we place a market cap limit on all publicly traded companies?
Wil Odin Gregtown 6 hours ago
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.
Gregtown Wil Odin 5 hours ago
Possibly. The cap doesn't necessarily have to be static.
David Naas 9 hours ago
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?

What is this world coming to?

Andyroo David Naas 8 hours ago
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.

David Naas Andyroo 8 hours ago
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".

[May 26, 2020] Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's ISI

May 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 , May 26 2020 17:41 utc | 1

The New York Times has a 4,000 words long piece about the war on Afghanistan. It tries to explain why the Taliban won the war.

How the Taliban Outlasted a Superpower: Tenacity and Carnage

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.


Don Bacon , May 26 2020 18:03 utc | 3

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."

LuBa , May 26 2020 19:56 utc | 6
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.
arby , May 26 2020 20:03 utc | 7
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.

Jen , May 26 2020 20:18 utc | 8
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.

uncle tungsten , May 26 2020 21:02 utc | 10
Michael Hastings was a real journalist. His demolition of McChrystal the goof US war criminal should be read again and again. Vale brave journalist.
vato , May 26 2020 21:44 utc | 13
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.
Sakineh Bagoom , May 26 2020 21:46 utc | 14
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?

cirsium , May 26 2020 22:01 utc | 15
@LuBa, May 26
what the empire has gained from this war?nothing.

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?

bevin , May 26 2020 22:03 utc | 16
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.
Gerhard , May 26 2020 22:12 utc | 17
Hello!

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:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article209776.html

https://www.voltairenet.org/article209808.html

And that all now will be further developed into future as outlined here:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article210000.html

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.

Kind regards, Gerhard (Germany)


Regarding DEPOPULATION:

https://www.population-security.org (look also into INTRO)

https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/books/book-review-empty-planet-explores-the-world-s-next-biggest-population-threat-1.848236 (opposite perspective but the same thinking; pure academic stuff)
~~~~~~~
The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (hrsg. von Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses)

karlof1 , May 26 2020 22:26 utc | 18
Et Tu @12--

The New York Times occasionally publishes something worthy of reading. One such item I linked to @ 1 above.

DeQuincey , May 27 2020 0:57 utc | 21
vato 13 wrote
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.

Treaty of friendship, good-neighbourliness and co operation. Signed at Moscow on 5 December 1978

b fix the error in your report please.

Richard Steven Hack , May 27 2020 1:34 utc | 22
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.

CIA Funding: Never Constrained by its Congressional Budget
https://whowhatwhy.org/2014/12/12/cia-funding-never-constrained-congressional-budget/

And from The Intercept - another clear example:

The U.S. Quietly Released Afghanistan's "Biggest Drug Kingpin" From Prison. Did He Cut a Deal?
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/01/haji-juma-khan-afghanistan-drug-trafficking-cia-dea/


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

From the Federation of American Scientists:

A Tangled Web: A History of CIA Complicity in Drug International Trafficking
https://fas.org/irp/congress/1998_cr/980507-l.htm

[May 26, 2020] fascists are the communist counterpart at the bourgeois mass movement front. They neutralize communism in a way traditional liberalism can't, because of the very nature of class exploitation. That's why fascism is irrational

May 26, 2020 | www.moonofalabama.org

vk , May 25 2020 15:19 utc | 83

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).

[May 26, 2020] The CIA's Murderous Practices, Disinformation Campaigns, and Interference in Other Countries Still Shape the World Order and U.S. Politics

May 26, 2020 | theintercept.com

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.

[May 24, 2020] Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training

Highly recommended!
I wouldn't hold my breath for the slightest change in that status quo any time soon.
May 24, 2020 | www.unz.com

anonymous [400] Disclaimer , says: Show Comment May 23, 2020 at 12:34 pm GMT

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.

[May 22, 2020] Wray's Review Of FBI's Flynn Probe Is The Fox Guarding The Hen House

May 22, 2020 | www.zerohedge.com

Wray's Review Of FBI's Flynn Probe "Is The Fox Guarding The Hen House" by Tyler Durden Fri, 05/22/2020 - 20:05 Authored by Sara Carter,

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."

WOW? And how is he going to investigate himself? And how could anyone trust it?
FBI Director Wray opens internal review into how bureau handled Michael Flynn case https://t.co/AeE0yL46W6 #FBICorruption #Clapper #Brennan #NSA #spying
Widespread illegal monitoring by #Obama admin

-- 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.