Softpanorama

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

Non-Interventionism

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. – Issac Asimov
"War is the health of the State." -- Randolph Bourne

News US anti war movement Recommended Links Non-Interventionism Anti-globalization movement Economic nationalism Bannon
Anti war libertarians Ron Paul Tulsi Gabbard Dennis Kusinish Chris Hedges Ray Mcgovern anttwar.com -- the most  prominent anti war site run by linertarian Justin Raimondo
Paul Craig Roberts Philippics Neoliberal Globalization American biblical nationalism and religious far right American Exceptionalism Predator state Ethno-linguistic and "Cultural" Nationalism as a reaction to Neoliberalism induced decline of standards of living
Secular Stagnation under Neoliberalism Who Rules America Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich TTP, NAFTA and other supernational trade treates Brexit as the start of the reversal of neoliberal globalization Immigration, wage depression and free movement of workers Debt slavery
American Imperialism, Transnational Capitalist Class and Globalization of Capitalism Merchants of Debt Greece debt enslavement Eroding Western living standards Ukraine debt enslavement IMF as the key institution for neoliberal debt enslavement Wolfowitz Doctrine
Donald Trump -- an unusual fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism National Security State Demonization of Putin Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Neoliberalism and Christianity The Far Right Forces in Ukraine as Trojan Horse of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism Neocolonialism Neoconservatism Media-Military-Industrial Complex The art of manufacturing of prisoners of consciousness Machiavellism Color revolutions
New American Militarism Jingoism of the US neoliberal elite Demonization of Putin Cold War II Pathological Russophobia of the US elite Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak Anti Trump Hysteria
Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair Hillary wet kiss with neocons Hillary role in Libya disaster Syria civil war Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Manipulation of the term "freedom of press" Sect of fraudulent election witnesses
The art of manufacturing of prisoners of consciousness Paleoconservatism Machiavellism Humanitarian Imperialism  John Kenneth Galbraith Humor Antiwar Quotes

Noninterventionism: A Primer

America's alternative to war and empire is not "isolationism."

By Daniel Larison June 11, 2014

Americans have grown understandably weary of foreign entanglements over the last 12 years of open-ended warfare, and they are now more receptive to a noninterventionist message than they have been in decades. According to a recent Pew survey, 52 percent of Americans now prefer that the U.S. “mind its own business in international affairs,” which represents the most support for a restrained and modest foreign policy in the last 50 years. That presents a challenge and an opportunity for noninterventionists to articulate a coherent and positive case for what a foreign policy of peace and prudence would mean in practice. As useful and necessary as critiquing dangerous ideas may be, noninterventionism will remain a marginal, dissenting position in policymaking unless its advocates explain in detail how their alternative foreign policy would be conducted.

A noninterventionist foreign policy would first of all require a moratorium on new foreign entanglements and commitments for the foreseeable future. A careful reevaluation of where the U.S. has vital interests at stake would follow. There are relatively few places where the U.S. has truly vital concerns that directly affect our security and prosperity, and the ambition and scale of our foreign policy should reflect that. A noninterventionist U.S. would conduct itself like a normal country without pretensions to global “leadership” or the temptation of a proselytizing mission. This is a foreign policy more in line with what the American people will accept and less likely to provoke violent resentment from overseas, and it is therefore more sustainable and affordable over the long term.

When a conflict or dispute erupts somewhere, unless it directly threatens the security of America or our treaty allies, the assumption should be that it is not the business of the U.S. government to take a leading role in resolving it. If a government requests aid in the event of a natural disaster or humanitarian crisis (e.g., famine, disease), as Haiti did following its devastating earthquake in 2010, the U.S. can and should lend assistance—but as a general rule the U.S. should not seek to interfere in other nations’ domestic circumstances.

LarisonIf parties to a dispute request outside arbitration, the U.S. should be in a position to act as a neutral mediator—which presupposes that the U.S. is not actively backing one side against another. We have seen the futility and absurdity of trying to act as an “honest broker” while providing lopsided support to one side in a conflict, and this should have no place in a noninterventionist foreign policy. There could be a potentially large and active role for U.S. diplomats abroad, but not one in which the U.S. was attempting to dictate terms or to promote a particular cause. International engagement could not and would not cease in a noninterventionist foreign policy, but it would be of a very different kind.

One of the priorities of a noninterventionist agenda would be the scaling back of America’s numerous commitments overseas. This would be accomplished mainly by shifting burdens gradually to current allies and regional powers: ceding regional influence in Central Asia to India and Russia, for example, and encouraging a more independent foreign policy for allies such as Japan and Germany. In general, the states that have the most at stake in maintaining regional stability should be given the responsibility for securing it. U.S. commitments have been building up over decades, so it is neither realistic nor desirable to end them suddenly. Nonetheless, there are also far more commitments than the U.S. can afford, and many of them are relics of the struggle with the Soviet Union or the remains of a “War on Terror” that has expanded beyond anything that most Americans imagined when it began a decade ago. Cutting back security entanglements is a long-delayed and necessary adjustment that the U.S. should have been making for the last 20 years. But it will not be sufficient simply to return to status quo ante at the start of the 21st century. The U.S. was already overcommitted around the world before the Bush era and will still be so after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Ideally, the U.S. would reduce its overseas military presence in the Near East to at most what it was in the years before Desert Storm in 1991, and continue to reduce its presence in Europe as European governments bear more of the costs of their own defense. To date, wealthy allies have been able to skimp on their military spending, on the safe assumption that the U.S. would be ready and willing to make up the difference, but this arrangement is neither sustainable nor in our best interests. It not only creates an unhealthy dependence that ends up dragging unwilling Europeans into U.S. wars of choice, but as we saw in Libya, it perversely pulls the U.S. into European wars of choice because Europe’s governments cannot fight them on their own.

NATO is outdated and unnecessary, but provided that it functions purely as a defensive alliance it wouldn’t necessarily have to be dissolved. If the alliance continued to exist, the U.S. should not use it or permit it to be used as cover for members’ wars of choice and “out of area” missions. It should go without saying that there would be no further NATO expansion, which does nothing except antagonize Russia to the detriment of regional stability. If the alliance’s security guarantees to current members are to mean anything, they shouldn’t be extended to countries that the U.S. and other member nations are not actually willing to defend. To that end, U.S. and NATO officials should stop giving false encouragement to would-be member states that will never be admitted.

A noninterventionist U.S. would keep the major treaty allies it has for the time being but would also review its relationships with the many client states that neither act like nor deserve the name of ally. Clients that expose the U.S. to unnecessary conflicts or create dangerous tensions with other major powers are liabilities, and the U.S. should alter relations with them accordingly. That doesn’t require the U.S. to have poor relations with those states, but it does mean that they would stop receiving support and indulgence when their interests and ours clearly diverge. Many client state relationships would need to be downgraded as a result, and U.S. aid to them would be correspondingly reduced or eliminated.

In keeping with President Washington’s exhortation in his Farewell Address, the U.S. would seek to “observe good faith and justice toward all nations” and to “cultivate peace and harmony with all.” That means that a noninterventionist U.S. would work to maintain normal and full diplomatic relations with as many states as possible, and it would restrict or cut off trade with other states only in the most extreme cases. A noninterventionist foreign policy would very rarely rely on sanctions as a tool, and then only when they are targeted specifically against regime officials rather than the civilian population. In general, an America following Washington’s advice would promote both trade and diplomatic engagement rather than employing the tactics of embargo and isolation.

The U.S. would also refuse to take sides in the internal quarrels of other countries. The sovereignty of other states would be respected much more consistently than in past decades. The U.S. would refrain from destabilizing foreign governments or aiding in their overthrow, and it would not make a habit of siding with whichever protest movement happened to be in the streets of a foreign capital. Likewise, it would refrain from propping up and subsidizing abusive and dictatorial regimes and would condition U.S. aid on how a government treats its people. While there may be a need to cooperate with authoritarian states on certain issues, governments that torture or violently suppress peaceful protests, including the current Egyptian government, shouldn’t be supported in any way by American taxpayers.

War might be necessary at some point, but if so it would be waged only in self-defense or the defense of a treaty ally. A noninterventionist U.S. would never wage a preventive war— which is contrary both to international law and morality—and would generally be wary of using force even when it could be justified. The U.S. should always avoid giving allies and clients the impression that they have a blank check from Washington, since that will tend to make them more combative and unreasonable in disputes with their neighbors. Allies and clients that wanted to pursue reckless and provocative courses of action would be actively discouraged, and it would be the responsibility of the U.S. to pull these states back from avoidable conflicts. A noninterventionist U.S. would manage relations with other major powers by seeking to cooperate on matters of common interest and by avoiding unnecessary disagreements on those issues where the U.S. has relatively little at stake. The U.S. and other major powers are bound to have conflicting interests from time to time, but these unavoidable disagreements shouldn’t be compounded by picking fights over every issue where we differ. As long as the U.S. has allies on the borders of other major powers, there will always be a certain degree of mistrust and tension in our relations. However, the U.S. shouldn’t make this worse by seeking to enlarge our alliances or increase our influence in countries that have historically been in the orbit of another major power. The goal here should be to keep tensions with other major powers at a tolerable minimum and to reduce the possibility of renewed great power conflict in the new century.

As George Washington also said: “In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.” For that reason, a noninterventionist U.S. would be one that doesn’t seek to demagogue or exaggerate foreign threats, nor would it cultivate either hostility towards or adoration of any other country. Above all, it won’t seek to make the U.S. the champion of any other country’s interests at our expense.

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

Senior editor Daniel Larison blogs at TheAmericanConservative.com/Larison.

Opposition to New American Militarism

Libertarians (along will less numerous and less influential paleoconservatives) are the only more or less influential faction of the US society that oppose what Basevich called New American Militarism. The foreign policy of the USA since 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 which started after Cold War ended was well analyzed by Professor Bacevich (who is former colonel of the US army) who called it New American Militarism. Bacevich's book  Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War  describe the "sacred trinity" of global military presence, global power projection, global interventionism is used to achieve those ends. 

Professor Bacevich had shown that the main driver of the US militarism is neocons domination of the US foreign policy, and, especially, neocons domination in State Department regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in power.  They profess that the US that we are 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 beyond that might have taken the USA into periods of unprecedented peace, instead of numerous conflicts:

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.

In other words they advocate permanent war for permanent peace. Lessons that the author shows President Obama is clearly in the midst of learning, using a modified sacred trinity. Written in engaging prose, his book Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War is an excellent peace of research with sections that some may find very troubling. Here is the summary:

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). Andthe 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 "not retrenchment but reconfiguration" (147). The 

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.


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Apr 17, 2018] John Bolton In Search of Carthage by By Michael Shindler

Looks like Iran is Carnage for Bolton and neocon fellow travelers in Trump administration such as Haley and Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... In that vein, it is Bolton who merits historical comparison: to Cato the Elder, a conservative-yet-eccentric Roman statesman who, according to Plutarch, would often and invariably call for the destruction of Carthage, even though the Carthaginian threat was neither imminent nor apparent. Eventually, Cato's words wended their way into the ears of power and hundreds of thousands of Carthaginians were pointlessly slaughtered. According to the Greek historian Polybius, Scipio Aemilianus, the young Roman General who led the attack, at seeing the carnage of a great people, "shed tears and wept openly." ..."
"... Michael Shindler is an Advocate with Young Voices and a writer living in Washington, D.C. Follow him @MichaelShindler . ..."
Apr 17, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Last week, John Bolton ascended to the office of National Security Advisor, following in the hurried footsteps of Michael Flynn and H.R. McMaster. Two peculiar characteristics set Bolton apart from most folks in D.C.: an unabashedly luxurious mustache and an unmatched penchant for unjustified preemptive violence.

At the University of Chicago in 2009, Bolton warned , "Unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran's program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future." Thankfully, Israel didn't take Bolton's advice and, as most predicted, Iran never lived up to his expectations. Similarly, in a 2015 op-ed in the New York Times , Bolton opined , "The inescapable conclusion is that Iran will not negotiate away its nuclear program. Nor will sanctions block its building a broad and deep weapons infrastructure . Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed." Three short months later, a non-proliferation deal wherein Iran agreed to a 98 percent reduction in its enriched uranium stockpile and a 15-year pause in the development of key weapons infrastructure was negotiated.

More recently in February, Bolton advised in the Wall Street Journal that "Given the gaps in U.S. intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute . It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current 'necessity' posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."

By this point Bolton's record of calling for war in every possible situation had lost the ability to shock. Still, the Founding Fathers would probably be appalled.

A comparatively irenic vision pervades the philosophy of the founders. James Wilson, in his Lectures on Law, wrote that when a nation "is under an obligation to preserve itself and its members; it has a right to do everything" that it can "without injuring others." In Federalist 4, John Jay advised that the American people ought to support steps that would "put and keep them in such a situation as, instead of inviting war, will tend to repress and discourage it." And in his Farewell Address, George Washington asserted that the United States should be "always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence."

A preemptive nuclear strike justified on the flimsy basis of "gaps in U.S. intelligence" hardly seems concordant with such military restraint and "exalted justice." And lest it be thought these ideals were mere lofty notions, consider how, as American history proceeded, they became enshrined in American diplomacy.

In 1837, Canadian rebels sailing aboard the Caroline fled to an island in the Niagara River with the help of a few American citizens. British forces boarded their ship, killed an American member of the crew, and then set the Caroline ablaze before forcing it over Niagara Falls. Enraged, American and Canadian raiders destroyed a British ship. Several attacks followed until the crisis was at last ended in 1842 by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty. In the aftermath, the Caroline test was established, which stipulates that an attack made in self-defense is justifiable only when, in the words of Daniel Webster, the necessity is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This principle remains the international standard, though some like Bolton think it's outdated.

With the Caroline test in mind, Bolton wrote while arguing in favor of a preemptive strike against North Korea, "The case against preemption rests on the misinterpretation of a standard that derives from prenuclear, pre-ballistic-missile times." In other words, Bolton believes that we can no longer afford to wait for the situation to be "instant" and "overwhelming," and makes an offense out of abstaining from immediate preemptive action, regardless of the potential costs involved.

Relatedly, one of Bolton's most colorful jabs at President Obama involved likening him to Æthelred the Unready, a medieval Anglo-Saxon king remembered for his tragic indecisiveness. Yet given the costs of groundless preemption, indecisiveness is often a midwife to careful contemplation and peace. Had Prime Minister Netanyahu or Obama been persuaded by Bolton's retrospectively warrantless calls for preemption in Iran, tragedy would have followed.

In that vein, it is Bolton who merits historical comparison: to Cato the Elder, a conservative-yet-eccentric Roman statesman who, according to Plutarch, would often and invariably call for the destruction of Carthage, even though the Carthaginian threat was neither imminent nor apparent. Eventually, Cato's words wended their way into the ears of power and hundreds of thousands of Carthaginians were pointlessly slaughtered. According to the Greek historian Polybius, Scipio Aemilianus, the young Roman General who led the attack, at seeing the carnage of a great people, "shed tears and wept openly."

In order that we never find ourselves standing alongside Scipio knee-deep in unjustly spilt blood, Bolton should reconsider whether the flimsy merits of rash preemption truly outweigh the durable wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the lessons of history.

Michael Shindler is an Advocate with Young Voices and a writer living in Washington, D.C. Follow him @MichaelShindler .


Janwaar Bibi April 17, 2018 at 4:28 pm

From the Wikipedia article for Bolton:

During the 1969 Vietnam War draft lottery, Bolton drew number 185. (Draft numbers corresponded to birth dates.) As a result of the Johnson and Nixon administrations' decisions to rely largely on the draft rather than on the reserve forces, joining a Guard or Reserve unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War. Before graduating from Yale in 1970, Bolton enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard rather than wait to find out if his draft number would be called. (The highest number called to military service was 195.) He saw active duty for 18 weeks of training at Fort Polk, Louisiana, from July to November 1970.

After serving in the National Guard for four years, he served in the United States Army Reserve until the end of his enlistment two years later.[1]

He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost." In an interview, Bolton discussed his comment in the reunion book, explaining that he decided to avoid service in Vietnam because "by the time I was about to graduate in 1970, it was clear to me that opponents of the Vietnam War had made it certain we could not prevail, and that I had no great interest in going there to have Teddy Kennedy give it back to the people I might die to take it away from."

Why is it that the US leads the world in production of chicken-hawks? Even these mangy ex-colonial countries like the UK and France do not have as many chicken-hawks as we do.

connecticut farmer , says: April 17, 2018 at 4:53 pm
Cato the Elder: "Carthago dalenda est!" ("Carthage Must Be Destroyed!")

John Bolton: "Syria dalenda est!" "Iran dalenda est!" Russia dalenda est!" And etc etc.

Connecticut Farmer: "Bolton dalenda est!"

Kent , says: April 17, 2018 at 5:02 pm
"In order that we never find ourselves standing alongside Scipio knee-deep in unjustly spilt blood,"

That ship sailed awhile back.

JonF , says: April 17, 2018 at 5:08 pm
Comparing Obama to Athelred is absurd. Athelred's problem was not that he was indecisive, but rather that he refused to listen to advice from anyone (the moniker "Unready" actually meant "Uncounseled" in Old English) and that he was extremely impulsive and deeply bigoted. Hence he ordered a general massacre of the Danes in England. Luckily it was only carried out in a limited region, unluckily the victims included the King of Denmark's sister and her children, leading to an open blood feud war, and also cost Aethelred any support he might have had from his wife's kinsman, the Duke of Normandy. If anyone is a good match for old Aethelred, it's Donald Trump.

[Apr 17, 2018] Trump Prisoner of the War Party by Patrick J. Buchanan

Trump became a despicable warmonger. That true. And undisputable after the recent attack on Syria ("operation Stormy Daniels"). But was it War Party that coerced him or were other processes involved?
The main weakness of Buchanan hypothecs is that it is unclear wether Trump was coerced by War Party, or he was "Republican Obama" from the very beginning performing classic "bait and switch" operation on gullible electorate (as in "change we can believe in") . The second hypothesis is now strong then the fist and supported by more fact. just look at the "troika" of Haley-Bolton-Pompeo -- all three were voluntarily selected by the President and all three are rabid neocons. So it looks liek no or little coercion from the War Party was necessary.
Notable quotes:
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must proceed as it will." ..."
"... Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election. ..."
"... We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of nonexistent WMDs. ..."
"... The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands. ..."
"... As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post ..."
Apr 17, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
April 16, 2018, 9:55 PM "Ten days ago, President Trump was saying 'the United States should withdraw from Syria.' We convinced him it was necessary to stay."

Thus boasted French President Emmanuel Macron on Saturday, adding, "We convinced him it was necessary to stay for the long term."

Is the U.S. indeed in the Syrian Civil War "for the long term"?

If so, who made that fateful decision for this republic?

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley confirmed Sunday there would be no drawdown of the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria, until three objectives were reached. We must fully defeat ISIS, ensure chemical weapons will not again be used by Bashar al-Assad and maintain the ability to watch Iran.

Translation: whatever Trump says, America is not coming out of Syria. We are going deeper in. Trump's commitment to extricate us from these bankrupting and blood-soaked Middle East wars and to seek a new rapprochement with Russia is "inoperative."

The War Party that Trump routed in the primaries is capturing and crafting his foreign policy. Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial page fairly blossomed with war plans:

The better U.S. strategy is to turn Syria into the Ayatollah's Vietnam. Only when Russia and Iran began to pay a larger price in Syria will they have any incentive to negotiate an end to the war or even contemplate a peace based on dividing the country into ethnic-based enclaves.

Apparently, we are to bleed Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran until they cannot stand the pain and submit to subdividing Syria the way we want.

But suppose that, as in our Civil War of 1861-1865, the Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, and the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949, Assad and his Russian, Iranian, and Shiite militia allies go all out to win and reunite the nation.

Suppose they choose to fight to consolidate the victory they have won after seven years of war. Where do we find the troops to take back the territory our rebels lost? Or do we just bomb mercilessly?

The British and French say they will back us in future attacks if chemical weapons are used, but they are not plunging into Syria.

Defense Secretary James Mattis called the U.S.-British-French attack a "one-shot" deal. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appears to agree: "The rest of the Syrian war must proceed as it will."

The Journal 's op-ed page Monday was turned over to former U.S. ambassador to Syria Ryan Crocker and Brookings Institute senior fellow Michael O'Hanlon: "Next time the U.S. could up the ante, going after military command and control, political leadership, and perhaps even Assad himself. The U.S. could also pledge to take out much of his air force. Targets within Iran should not be off limits."

And when did Congress authorize U.S. acts of war against Syria, its air force, or political leadership? When did Congress authorize the killing of the president of Syria whose country has not attacked us?

Can the U.S. also attack Iran and kill the ayatollah without consulting Congress?

Clearly, with the U.S. fighting in six countries, Commander in Chief Trump does not want any new wars, or to widen any existing wars in the Middle East. But he is being pushed into becoming a war president to advance the agenda of foreign policy elites who, almost to a man, opposed his election.

We have a reluctant president being pushed into a war he does not want to fight. This is a formula for a strategic disaster not unlike Vietnam or George W. Bush's war to strip Iraq of nonexistent WMDs.

The assumption of the War Party seems to be that if we launch larger and more lethal strikes in Syria, inflicting casualties on Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Syrian army, they will yield to our demands.

But where is the evidence for this?

What reason is there to believe these forces will surrender what they have paid in blood to win? And if they choose to fight and widen the war to the larger Middle East, are we prepared for that?

As for Trump's statement Friday, "No amount of American blood and treasure can produce lasting peace in the Middle East," the Washington Post on Sunday dismissed this as "fatalistic" and "misguided." We have a vital interest, says the Post , in preventing Iran from establishing a "land corridor" across Syria.

Yet consider how Iran acquired this "land corridor." The Shiites in 1979 overthrew a shah our CIA installed in 1953. The Shiites control Iraq because President Bush invaded and overthrew Saddam and his Sunni Baath Party, disbanded his Sunni-led army, and let the Shiite majority take control of the country. The Shiites are dominant in Lebanon because they rose up and ran out the Israelis, who invaded in 1982 to run out the PLO.

How many American dead will it take to reverse this history?

How long will we have to stay in the Middle East to assure the permanent hegemony of Sunni over Shiite?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

[Apr 16, 2018] America's Fling With the Kurds Could Cause Turkey and NATO to Split by Mark Perry

Notable quotes:
"... "This is clientism," the senior military officer with whom I spoke explains. "All of these guys have served together and trust each other. And, you know, this is the way it works. The U.S. Central Command has the Middle East as a client and the European Command has the Europeans and Turkey as clients. But if you take a look at Mattis and the people around him, well, you know, it's all Centcom. ..."
"... Erdogan emphasized three growing concerns he has that America's temporary and "transactional" support for the YPG is becoming permanent. This same official went on to note that, in his opinion, it's not a coincidence that Trump floated the idea of withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria ("I want to get out," he said. "I want to bring our troops home") -- a suggestion that did not go over well with Centcom partisans at the Pentagon. ..."
Apr 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In fact, just how "ugly" the relationship has become is fast becoming a matter of public debate. During his March visit, Scaparrotti appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to give testimony on the challenges facing his command. While most members focused on Russia and cyberwar issues, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine explored the U.S.-Turkey dust-up, hinting that it might be time for the U.S. to dampen its YPG ties. Scaparrotti didn't disagree, while soft-pedaling the disagreements over the issue that he's had with Votel and Centcom. "Where do we want to be in a year, two years and five years?" he asked. "With a close NATO ally like Turkey, we know that we want to maintain and strengthen our relationship. So that's the long-term objective and if we look at the long-term objective, it can begin to inform what we're doing today with respect to NATO." The senior military officer with whom I spoke proved a willing translator: "What Scaparrotti is saying is that the real marriage here is between the U.S. and Turkey. The YPG is just a fling."

But convincing James Mattis of that is proving difficult, in part because Scaparrotti is outgunned. Every defense secretary surrounds himself with people he can count on and who he listens to. But for Mattis almost all of them have had experience in the Middle East -- and at Centcom. There's Mattis himself (a former Centcom commander), JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford (who served with Mattis in Iraq), Joint Staff Director Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, Jr. (a Marine who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq), retired Rear Admiral Kevin M. Sweeney (the former Centcom executive officer), Rear Admiral Craig S. Faller (a Mattis advisor, and a Navy commander during both the Afghan and Iraq wars), and current Centcom commander General Joseph Votel -- the former commander of the U.S. Special Operation Command ("a trigger puller," as he was described to me by a currently serving officer). Votel is the most outspoken YPG supporter of any of them, and because he's the combatant commander, his support carries weight.

"This is clientism," the senior military officer with whom I spoke explains. "All of these guys have served together and trust each other. And, you know, this is the way it works. The U.S. Central Command has the Middle East as a client and the European Command has the Europeans and Turkey as clients. But if you take a look at Mattis and the people around him, well, you know, it's all Centcom. So Scaparrotti is worried, and he ought to be. We don't want to be sitting around 30 years from now reading historical pieces with titles like 'Who Lost Turkey?'"

Even someone as careful in his public utterances as Admiral James Stavridis, who once held Scaparrotti's command and is now the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, is raising concerns. While he waves off the "who lost Turkey" formulation as "a trope that is moving around the Internet," he told me in an email exchange that "it would be a mistake of epic proportions to allow Turkey to drift out of the transatlantic orbit" -- a repeat of the warning issued by Scaparrotti to Mattis in March. But like Scaparrotti, Staviridis is slow-rolling his disagreement. "This is a distinction without a difference," the senior officer and NATO partisan with whom we spoke says. "By drifting out of NATO, Stavridis means leaving. He's as worried as anyone else."

Concerns over Turkey are probably a surprise in the White House, given its almost daily crisis over the looming Russia-gate investigation, but they shouldn't be. The president has had extended telephone exchanges with Turkish President Tayyip Erodogan twice in the last three weeks. While the White House has refused to give details of these conversations, the Turkish official with whom we spoke told TAC that in both conversations (on March 23 and again on April 11), Erdogan emphasized three growing concerns he has that America's temporary and "transactional" support for the YPG is becoming permanent. This same official went on to note that, in his opinion, it's not a coincidence that Trump floated the idea of withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria ("I want to get out," he said. "I want to bring our troops home") -- a suggestion that did not go over well with Centcom partisans at the Pentagon.

On April 3, the same day Trump issued his let's-get-out statement, Joseph Votel and Brett McGurk appeared at the U.S. Institute of Peace, arguing that the U.S. needed to stay in. "The hard part, I think, is in front of us," Votel said, "and that is stabilizing these areas, consolidating our gains, getting back to their homes. There is a military role in this," he went on to say. "Certainly in the stabilization phase."

The Votel appearance was exasperating for those worried about NATO's future, and for those concerned that the endless conflicts in the region are draining the defense budget of badly needed funds to rebuild U.S. military readiness. For them, a group that now includes a growing number of very senior and influential military officers, "stabilization" is not only a codeword for "nation building," it signals support for a mission that is endangering the future of NATO, the institution that has guaranteed peace in Europe for three generations.

"It's not worth it," the senior military commander who spoke with TAC concludes. "On top of everything else, it puts us on the wrong side of the political equation. This whole thing about how the enemy of my enemy is my friend is a bunch of bullshit. The enemy of my enemy is now making an enemy of our friend. I don't know who we think we're fooling, but it sure as hell isn't Turkey. And it isn't the American people either."

Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to The American Conservative, and the author of The Pentagon's Wars (2017).

[Apr 14, 2018] Airstrikes Against Syria Would Set Off a Powder Keg by Daniel Larison

"Monica styles"... Trump is fighting fore survival with Tomahawks trying to solve his problem with junfoism.
Notable quotes:
"... "[I]f this president can decide unilaterally to bomb Syria, I worry that he can make the same decision about North Korea or Iran or other nations. And these decisions are not supposed to be made without consultation and voting by Congress." Unfortunately, Congressional leaders have shown no signs of wanting to hold a debate or have a vote before the attack takes place. ..."
"... The Trump administration has not offered a public legal justification for last year's strikes, and it seems unlikely to offer one this time. That is probably because there is no plausible interpretation of the law that permits the president to initiate hostilities against foreign governments on his own when the U.S. has not been attacked. ..."
"... Daniel Larison is a senior editor at ..."
"... where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the ..."
"... Front Porch Republic, and ..."
"... . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago. Follow him on Twitter . ..."
Apr 14, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
It begins: Trump announces a series of joint air strikes on Syrian targets Friday. An explosion after an apparent US-led coalition airstrike on Kobane, Syria, as seen from the Turkish side of the border, near Suruc district, 24 October 2014, Sanliurfa, Turkey Shutterstock/orlok UPDATE 9 p.m.ET : President Trump announces joint air strikes with the UK and France against Syrian targets in retaliation for suspected chemical attack a week ago in Douma.

One year since the U.S. illegally launched 59 cruise missiles at Syrian government forces in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack, the Trump administration is preparing to take similar military action despite an increased risk of escalation that could lead to the start of a wider war.

The U.S., France, and Britain have been preparing to strike the Syrian government over the last several days, and Syria's Russian patron has threatened the "gravest consequences" in response to an attack. Russia didn't respond to last year's one-off airstrikes, but Moscow isn't likely to tolerate a larger U.S. attack carried out with other governments. Syria's government and its allies seem more willing to fight back than they were a year ago, and that should give the Trump administration and our European allies pause. There is a greater risk of great power conflict erupting in Syria than there has been at any time since the end of the Cold War, and if Russian military personnel are killed by U.S. or allied strikes there is no telling how quickly things could deteriorate there and in other parts of the world.

President Trump's public statements have strongly suggested that an attack will be happening soon, going so far as to taunt Russia on Twitter that they should "get ready" for the "new" and "smart" missiles that the U.S. would be using. Some members of Congress have insisted that the president lacks the legal authority to launch an attack on Syria without their authorization. As Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) put it , "[I]f this president can decide unilaterally to bomb Syria, I worry that he can make the same decision about North Korea or Iran or other nations. And these decisions are not supposed to be made without consultation and voting by Congress." Unfortunately, Congressional leaders have shown no signs of wanting to hold a debate or have a vote before the attack takes place.

The Trump administration has not offered a public legal justification for last year's strikes, and it seems unlikely to offer one this time. That is probably because there is no plausible interpretation of the law that permits the president to initiate hostilities against foreign governments on his own when the U.S. has not been attacked. There is no provision in international law that allows a U.S. attack on another government without explicit Security Council authorization, and we know that this authorization that will never be forthcoming in this case because of Russia's veto. While the attack is being sold as the enforcement of a norm against chemical weapons use, it isn't possible to uphold an international norm while violating the most fundamental rule of international law.

To date, the U.S. and its allies have presented no definitive evidence to support their claims against the Syrian government. It is entirely plausible that the Syrian government is guilty of using chlorine or sarin against its enemies and the civilian population, but there has been no real effort on the part of the U.S. and its allies to prove their accusation before deciding to act as executioners. Regardless, the U.S. and its allies have no authority to punish the Syrian government, and in doing so they may do significant harm to international peace and security.

A U.S.-led attack on the Syrian government could lead to war with Russia or Iran or both at once, and there is also a danger that it could help set off a war between Israel and Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said earlier this week that Israel would not "allow" an Iranian military presence to be established in Syria. The prime minister's threat came on the heels of Israeli strikes inside Syria that reportedly killed seven Iranians serving alongside the Syrian regime's forces. Iran has threatened retaliation for the attack, and it has the ability through Hizbullah to make good on that threat if Israel carries out additional strikes. Israel might use a U.S.-led attack on Iran's allies in Syria as an excuse to strike more Iranian targets, and Iran might then respond in kind with missile attacks on Israel. Lebanese, Syrian, and Israeli civilians would all suffer if that happened, and it would make an already chaotic international situation even worse.

It is a measure of how divorced from U.S. and allied security our Syria policy has become that our government is seriously preparing to launch another illegal attack on a government that hasn't attacked us and doesn't threaten us or our allies. Attacking the Syrian government won't make the U.S. or any other country more secure, and it will likely weaken the government just enough to prolong Syria's civil war and add to the suffering of the civilian population. It is a perfect example of a military intervention that is being done for its own sake with no connection to any discernible interests or strategy. No one stands to gain from such an attack except for the ideologues that have incessantly demanded deeper U.S. involvement in Syria for the last six years.

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, Front Porch Republic, and The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago. Follow him on Twitter .

[Apr 13, 2018] No, the FBI's Michael Cohen Raid Did Not Violate Attorney-Client Privilege by Bruce Fein

Notable quotes:
"... Cohen acknowledged that he paid porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance. ..."
"... The obvious purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to Mr. Trump vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700. ..."
"... Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be dangerous. ..."
Apr 13, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

So what of these charges against Cohen and could they really hurt the president?

Federal election laws define a campaign contribution as "anything of value given to influence a Federal election." It is common knowledge that Mr. Cohen acknowledged that he paid porn star "Stormy Daniels" $130,000 two weeks before the 2016 election in exchange for her staying silent about her 2006 affair with Trump. No one pays for silence unless there is something to hide. The payment was made 10 years after the alleged dalliance.

The obvious purpose was to influence the outcome of the election by concealing damaging information about Mr. Trump's character. That made Mr. Cohen's payment an undisclosed campaign "contribution" to Mr. Trump vastly exceeding the individual statutory limit of $2,700.

Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted (later acquitted) for soliciting and spending nearly $1 million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter, so this is not a crime normally brushed under the rug. The public record also establishes probable cause to believe Cohen was behind the payment of $150,000 to Playboy Bunny Karen McDougall to kill her story about a protracted extramarital relationship with Mr. Trump that could have torpedoed his presidential ambitions. The question remains, of course, how much this will implicate and hurt Trump, who has denied the affair with Daniels and any other "wrongdoing." Cohen said he paid Daniels out of his own pocket and was not reimbursed by Trump or the campaign.

JK April 13, 2018 at 1:52 pm

John Edwards was acquited on one charge and a mistrial on five others w/o retrial. So there was no conviction there, these actions are not business as usual, and the DOJ lesson from that case should have been to cease such abusive prosecutorial misconduct, not to repeat it. These examples show why campaign finance restrictions are an unconstitutional burden on freedom of association. Trump is a rich man, so could afford to pay the hush money if he believed it necessary without it being a crime. As it appears, Cohen believed it important to pay w/o asking Trump, thinking he's helping a friend. Now what of Edwards? Maybe Edwards couldn't afford to pay hush money, so he needed and solicited help from friends. By making it a crime for friends to help him, the law favors rich candidates like Trump that can afford to do things others can't without breaking the law.

There is zero chance of a jury conviction here, so DOJ shouldn't have pursued it given the incendiary effect of conducting raids on someone's attorney. Furthermore, there's zero chance of Muller getting jury convictions on the pile of horse manure prosecutions he's pursuing. The only convictions Muller is getting is from people buckling under the fiduciary extortion inherent in his tactics and copping a plea even though a jury would never convict them.

curri , says: April 13, 2018 at 2:05 pm
So who do we believe, Dershowitz or Fein?

Similarly, Democrat John Edwards was prosecuted for soliciting and spending nearly $1 million in his 2008 presidential campaign to conceal his affair with Rielle Hunter, so this is not a crime normally brushed under the rug.

Maybe you should have picked an example where the defendant wasn't acquitted. It's easy to see how an expansive definition of the term "campaign contribution" could be dangerous.

[Apr 11, 2018] Trump's Rush to Judgment on Syria Chemical Attack by Scott Ritter

Apr 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Defense Secretary Mattis. (DoD) On Sunday, President Trump announced his intention to make those responsible for an alleged chemical weapons attack on Douma, including the Syrian government and its Russian and Iranian allies, pay a "big price" for their continued disregard for international law. The next day U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley declared that "The United States is determined to see the monster who dropped chemical weapons on the Syrian people held to account."

President Trump reinforced his call for action on Monday, noting that the United States would not sit back in the face of the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria. "It will be met, and it will be met forcefully," the president said, adding that those responsible for the attack will be held accountable, whether it was Syria, Russia, Iran or "all of them together." Trump noted that a decision to use military force would be made "over the next 24 to 48 hours."

The pronouncements of imminent military action by the United States are not made in a vacuum. Russia, which has considerable military forces deployed inside Syria, including advanced military aircraft and anti-aircraft missile batteries, has rejected the allegations of chemical weapons use by Syria as a "fabrication," and promised that any attack on Syria would result in "serious repercussions." Russian forces inside Syria have reportedly been placed on "full alert" as American naval vessels capable of launching cruise missiles have arrived off the Syrian coast.

The United States and Russia appear to be heading toward a direct military confrontation that, depending on the level of force used and the number, if any, casualties incurred by either side, carries with it the risk of a broader conflict. While Russian (and Syrian) claims of innocence regarding the alleged chemical weapons attack cannot be accepted at face value, the fact that the United States has not backed up its own claims with anything other than a recitation of accusations made by rebel groups opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad is problematic insofar as it shows a rush to judgement on matters of war. Given the potentially devastating consequences of any U.S.-Russian military clash over Syria, it would be better for all parties involved to wait for a full and thorough investigation of the alleged attack before any final decision on the use of force in response is made.

There are two versions of what happened in Douma, a suburb of Damascus home to between 80,000 and 150,000 people. The one relied upon by the United States is provided by rebel forces opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. According to the Violations Documentation Center (VDC), a non-profit organization comprised of various Syrian opposition groups funded by the Asfari Foundation and George Soros' Open Societies Foundation , at approximately 12 p.m. the Syrian Air Force attacked the vicinity of the Saada Bakery using munitions believed to contain "poisonous gas." The VDC cited eyewitness accounts from members of the Syrian Civil Defense, or "White Helmets," who described the smell of chlorine and the presence of numerous bodies assessed to have succumbed from gas sourced to a Syrian "rocket." Later, at 7 p.m., a second air strike struck an area near Martyr's Square, again using munitions assessed by eyewitnesses to contain "poisonous gas." Doctors from the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) described symptoms that indicated that a nerve agent had been used. Images of victims in the locations allegedly attacked were released by a rebel-affiliated social media entity known as the "Douma Revolution" and the "White Helmets."

Douma is part of a larger district known as Eastern Ghouta which has, since 2012, been under the control of various militant organizations opposed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In early February 2018, the Syrian Army, supported by the Russian Air Force, began operations to recapture the Eastern Ghouta district. The joint Syrian-Russian offensive was as brutal as it was effective -- by March, Eastern Ghouta had been split into three pockets of resistance at a cost of more than 1,600 civilian dead. Two of the pockets capitulated under terms which had the opposition fighters and their families evacuated to rebel-held territory in the northern Syrian province of Idlib. Only Douma held out, where Salafist fighters from the "Army of Islam" (Jaish al-Islam) refused to surrender. On April 5, the situation had deteriorated inside Douma to the point that the rebel defenders had agreed to negotiations that would lead to their evacuation of Douma; the very next day, however, these discussions had broken down, and the Syrian military resumed its offensive. The air attacks described by the VDC occurred on the second day of the resumption of hostilities.

There is a competing narrative , however, provided by the Russian government and those sympathetic to its position. After the breakdown of negotiations between the Douma rebels and the Russian government on April 6, the story goes, the Syrian government offensive to liberate Douma resumed. The Douma rebels, faced with imminent defeat, fabricated the allegations of a chemical attack. Russia had warned of such a provocation back in March 2018, claiming the rebels were working in coordination with the United States to create the conditions for a massive American air attack against Syrian government infrastructure.

Shortly after the Syrian government resumed its offensive against Douma (and after the opposition forces publicized their allegations of Syrian government chemical weapons attacks), the rebel resistance inside Douma collapsed, with the fighters agreeing to be evacuated to Idlib. The Russian military was able to dispatch units to the sites of the alleged chemical weapons attacks and conduct a survey. According to the state-run Russian news, no evidence of a chemical weapons attack was discovered. Representatives of the Syrian Red Crescent who claim to have worked in Douma stated that they have seen no evidence of any chemical weapons use there, either.

Beyond providing a competing narrative, however, Russia has offered to open up Douma to inspectors from the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons , or OPCW, for a full investigation. This offer was echoed by the Syrian government , which extended an official invitation for the OPCW to come to Douma. On April 10, the OPCW announced that it would be dispatching an inspection team "shortly" to carry out this work. The forensic technical investigatory capabilities of an OPCW inspection team are such that it would be able to detect the presence of any chemical agent used in Douma. While the investigation itself would take days to conduct and weeks to process, its conclusions would, under these circumstances, be conclusive as to the presence of any prohibited substance.

One major drawback to any OPCW investigation is its inability to assess responsibility for the presence of any banned substances detected. In prior investigations inside Syria, the OPCW was able to operate as part of the United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) , an entity specifically empowered by Security Council resolution to make such determinations. The mandate of the JIM was not extended , however, after Russia expressed its displeasure over what it deemed to be the inaccurate and politicized findings regarding previous allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government. The United States has submitted a resolution to the Security Council demanding that a new investigatory body be formed that would be able to provide attribution for any chemical weapons attack inside Syria; whether Russia would veto such a resolution or allow it to be passed has yet to be seen.

The bottom line, however, is that the United States is threatening to go to war in Syria over allegations of chemical weapons usage for which no factual evidence has been provided. This act is occurring even as the possibility remains that verifiable forensic investigations would, at a minimum, confirm the presence of chemical weapons (thereby contradicting the Russian claims that no such evidence was detected by its troops), and if the Security Council passes a resolution allowing for a properly mandated investigation team, actual attribution could be assigned.

Moreover, President Trump's rush to judgment on Syrian guilt is being done in a highly politicized environment, coming as it does on the heels of an FBI raid on the offices of the president's personal attorney . In times such as this, a president is often attracted by the prospect of "looking presidential" in order to offset personal problems (one only need to look at President Clinton's decision in August 1998 , at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, to launch cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan.)

If America is to place its military in harm's way, it needs to be in support of a cause worthy of the sacrifice being asked of those who serve. Giving the OPCW time to carry out its investigation in Syria would allow a fact-based case to be made whether military force was justified or not, as well as support a determination of whether or not the risks associated with the use of force were warranted. Pulling the trigger void of such information, especially when Trump is distracted by personal political issues, is not something the American people, nor their representatives in Congress, should tolerate.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War .

[Apr 09, 2018] ISIS is Finished So We Should Leave Syria Now by Gil Barndollar

Apr 06, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Instead Donald Trump's team is inflating the threat, worried he'll rush away from war.

President Trump's unexpected pledge last week to pull U.S. troops out of Syria "very soon" has occasioned predictable wailing in predictable places .

The president also faced unsurprising pushback from his national security team, forcing him to clarify this week that the 2,000 troops there now will stay only until the mission to defeat ISIS, which is "coming to a rapid end," is finished. Of course his military advisors and many of his aides disagree.

A Pentagon spokesman has warned that ISIS is looking for " any opportunity to regain momentum ." Anonymous military officers speak of fumbling the ball " on the two yard line ." Officials tell reporters that while the group is "almost completely defeated," a string of renewed ISIS attacks could signal a resurgence.

Regardless of the outcome in Washington, Trump's instincts on Syria deserve discussion.

Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, the operation in Syria has cost us very little blood and treasure, at least so far. Special operations forces (SOF) and "other government agencies" ably partnered with our largely Kurdish proxies to break the back of ISIS's nascent state. The group's conventional military power has been destroyed. Howev er menacing officials make it sound, it's been estimated that the Islamic State has fewer than 1,000 fighters left on the battlefield. Mosul, its largest city, was retaken by Iraqi security forces, while its de facto capital Raqqa was conquered by the Kurds. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor are back in government hands. Areas of ISIS control are tough to even find on a map of the Syrian conflict.

For all these successes, however, we have been walking a knife's edge in Syria ever since openly intervening there in 2014. Deconfliction with Russia has not been flawless: Turkey shot down a Russian plane in 2015 and U.S. firepower reportedly killed hundreds of Russian mercenaries earlier this year. That knife's edge has only gotten sharper over the past two months, as Turkish troops invaded the Afrin region of northern Syria. Turkey's "Operation Olive Branch" exposed the elephant in the room: America's only successful proxy, the Syrian Kurds, are linked to Turkey's PKK, which Turkey, the European Union, and the U.S. have declared a terrorist group. Our NATO ally is now openly at war with our Kurdish partner, as American advisors do their best to stay off the frontline. In 2008, Vice President-Elect Joe Biden bluntly told Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai: "Pakistan is 50 times more important for the United States than Afghanistan." The same obvious wisdom applies in spades to Turkey and Syria respectively.

What of the Kurds? If recent reports are to be believed, American Special Forces are incensed they are being told to abandon a valiant, reliable battlefield ally. Squeezed between a revanchist Turkey and a stabilized Syrian state, Syria's Kurds are not likely to keep their independent project of Rojava. The United States declined to intervene to protect Iraq's Kurds last year, when Iraqi forces quickly seized the Kurdish "Jerusalem," oil-rich Kirkuk, after an abortive independence referendum. To pretend we have a greater will or ability to protect Syria's Kurds is folly.

The Kurds should ask Vietnam's Montagnards how they fared as an American proxy, or question the Palestinians about what they've gained from an American mediator . Loathe though we may be to admit it, America has been a fickle friend for the majority of small nations and peoples that have looked to her as a protector. Even many of our Afghan interpreters who served in American uniforms and cashed American paychecks have been abandoned to their enemies . Like a serial philanderer we can pretend that this time will be different, but the reality is that America seldom has the patience or stomach for sustained non-existential military intervention outside our hemisphere, particularly when casualties mount. The victims of pretending otherwise are seldom Americans; they are Vietnamese, Somalis, Iraqi Marsh Arabs, and many others. The current state of political polarization in Washington and the primacy of the 24-hour news cycle have only hardened this long-standing reality.

Left to their own devices, Syria's Kurds can probably work out a modus vivendi with Assad's government, which has other battles to fight and foreign backers of its own who would like to draw down their commitments. Battles between the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces and Assad's Syrian Arab Army have been few. Turkey has tolerated a Kurdish autonomous region on its border with Iraq -- but it will not do so with Kurds who remain affiliated with the PKK.

Regardless of Rojava's fate, ISIS may well regenerate. It already has the local ties and financial network to thrive as an insurgency in western Iraq. That, however, is a governance and security problem for Iraqis and Syrians, not Americans. The United States maintains an unparalleled ability to project military power and destroy targets around the world, both with standoff firepower and by putting troops into battle via air and sea. Should ISIS or another Salafist successor build any real base of power again in the Levant we can rapidly deploy combat power to destroy it. But staying there any longer remains a fool's errand.

Gil Barndollar served as a Marine infantry officer from 2009 to 2016. His writing has appeared in the Marine Corps Gazette , the Journal of Military Operations , and the Michigan War Studies Review .

Wheeling philosophe April 7, 2018 at 7:46 pm

"I don't like "abandoning an ally" like this, but that alliance was never going to be long lasting, and the Kurds have to have known that."

Yes. As a parting gesture, we could round up some of the louder-mouthed neocons and ship them over to "independent Kurdistan" to spend a few quiet hours with their erstwhile heroes. Let the Kurds vent their entirely understandable anger out on those who lied to and manipulated them with the same glib ease that they once lied to America about Iraq's WMDs.

SteveK9 , says: April 8, 2018 at 9:02 am
'Mosul, its largest city, was retaken by Iraqi security forces, while its de facto capital Raqqa was conquered by the Kurds. Palmyra and Deir ez-Zor are back in government hands.'

I'd like to correct a couple of things, ISIS was destroyed in Syria, by the Syrian Arab Army, and by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Mosuls and Raqqa were not 'retaken' or 'conquered'. They were utterly destroyed by aerial bombardment, which is about the only thing we are good at doing.

[Apr 09, 2018] Trump's Saber-Rattling on Syria by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's statement is a particularly stupid piece of revisionism on his part. Trump was opposed to Obama's threatened attack in 2013 , and then as president Trump ordered an illegal military attack on the Syrian government one year ago to punish it for an alleged chemical weapons attack. ..."
"... The danger in having an ongoing illegal military presence in Syria is that it exposes U.S. forces to unacceptable and unnecessary risks and creates the possibility of escalation with the Syrian government and its allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack on the Syrian government or the forces of any of its supporters, it could easily trigger a larger conflict. Russia has given an explicit warning against a U.S. attack this time, saying that it could trigger "the gravest consequences." Even if it doesn't lead to a larger conflict with a nuclear-armed major power, it isn't worth taking the risk for the sake of policing the conduct of a foreign civil war. ..."
"... If Trump were really interested in extricating the U.S. from war in Syria, he would not be engaged in mindless saber-rattling against the Syrian government and its allies. Unfortunately, Trump's bellicosity always seems to take over in these situations. That is what we get from Trump's anti-restraint foreign policy. ..."
"... But the odd thing is, the most stable and invested country in the region is Iran. Crazy as it might sound to an Iran-hater-dead-ender, the country we should be chatting with about Syria is Iran. If we genuinely cared about anything humanitarian. The two countries with the most likely influence over Bashar with the aim of mitigating his violence would likely be Iran and Russia. If we wanted to actually accomplish something we could quietly and diplomatically arrange that chat and encourage some beneficial influence there. ..."
"... If Assad is really the brute that the West portrays him to be he would have been toppled by now. That the Syrian population by and large has stood by him in 6 years of war should tell you something. I make a point to get most of the news about Syria from Christian organisations who live there – and they are all unequivocal. They are now beyond livid of what the US and its allies has allowed and even facilitated to happen there. Tthankfully for them they still have the Syrian Arab Army and Russia to protect them unlike their brethren in Iraq, one of the oldest Christian communities in existence which has been practically wiped out thanks to America's intervention. ..."
"... Clinton ignored the Russian objections to the West's unilateral recognition of Balkan breakaways. Bush, Saakashvili and the usual entourage of the neocon meddler travelling circus that nowadays haunts the Ukraine dismissed both the Russian warnings and the Russian military response. The result was utter failure. ..."
"... Putin might never see an opportunity for a similarly deadly and promising "play" in the circle jerk of Syria free-for-all invasions – Gulf states, Turkey, US, Israel – but if he should ever see an opening, I would expect him to seek another object lesson. His hand might not be strong, but he appears to play it well. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Kurdish YPG and Syrian government troops ally against NATO partner Turkey, and the US military has repeatedly attacked Syrian regular military and boasts – by leak – about massacring Russian "private military contractors". ..."
"... Iran demonstrated in Iraq that US ineptitude combined with impunitivism provides many openings to stabilize, in a sense, the region. ..."
Apr 09, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The president tweeted this out this morning in response to reports of a new chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government:

If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2018

Trump's statement is a particularly stupid piece of revisionism on his part. Trump was opposed to Obama's threatened attack in 2013 , and then as president Trump ordered an illegal military attack on the Syrian government one year ago to punish it for an alleged chemical weapons attack. He had no authority to do this, the attack was a flagrant breach of the U.N. Charter, and it apparently failed to discourage the Syrian government from carrying out similar attacks later on. The president ordered the "unbelievably small attack" that Obama administration threatened to launch in 2013, and it made no meaningful difference to the course of the war or the regime's behavior.

Trump tweeted out earlier in the day that "President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay." He didn't say what that "big price" was or how it will be "paid," but the fact that he thinks it is a good idea to make threats against the Syrian government's patrons bodes ill for the future of U.S. policy in Syria. The foreign policy establishment was beside itself last week when they thought that Trump wanted to withdraw from Syria, but they should be much more worried that he will launch an illegal attack and plunge the U.S. in even deeper.

The danger in having an ongoing illegal military presence in Syria is that it exposes U.S. forces to unacceptable and unnecessary risks and creates the possibility of escalation with the Syrian government and its allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack on the Syrian government or the forces of any of its supporters, it could easily trigger a larger conflict. Russia has given an explicit warning against a U.S. attack this time, saying that it could trigger "the gravest consequences." Even if it doesn't lead to a larger conflict with a nuclear-armed major power, it isn't worth taking the risk for the sake of policing the conduct of a foreign civil war.

If Trump were really interested in extricating the U.S. from war in Syria, he would not be engaged in mindless saber-rattling against the Syrian government and its allies. Unfortunately, Trump's bellicosity always seems to take over in these situations. That is what we get from Trump's anti-restraint foreign policy.


rayray April 8, 2018 at 2:32 pm

It's true that I'm no genius, but after reading as much as I can and thinking it over I still don't know who is the right horse to back, or what is the right side to be on in Syria. Assad is a brute, Isis are brutes, the other parties of opposition are useless, and etc., and none of it has anything to do with us anyway. To Daniel's point, we're keeping an army hanging around in a volatile and illegal situation for no discernible point.

Except to hate Iran.

The longterm on Syria doesn't look good for anyone. I'm guessing, because of his long history of ignorance and incoherence, Trump has no plan.

But the odd thing is, the most stable and invested country in the region is Iran. Crazy as it might sound to an Iran-hater-dead-ender, the country we should be chatting with about Syria is Iran. If we genuinely cared about anything humanitarian. The two countries with the most likely influence over Bashar with the aim of mitigating his violence would likely be Iran and Russia. If we wanted to actually accomplish something we could quietly and diplomatically arrange that chat and encourage some beneficial influence there.

romegas , says: April 8, 2018 at 3:36 pm
@rayray

If Assad is really the brute that the West portrays him to be he would have been toppled by now. That the Syrian population by and large has stood by him in 6 years of war should tell you something. I make a point to get most of the news about Syria from Christian organisations who live there – and they are all unequivocal. They are now beyond livid of what the US and its allies has allowed and even facilitated to happen there. Tthankfully for them they still have the Syrian Arab Army and Russia to protect them unlike their brethren in Iraq, one of the oldest Christian communities in existence which has been practically wiped out thanks to America's intervention.

b. , says: April 8, 2018 at 3:42 pm
"If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line "

Interesting view. Obama imagined he drew a "red line" that Assad was not to cross, and allegedly did. Trump's tongue apparently wore a Freudian slip when he rubi-conned this phrase into twitter.

To make this a turn worthy of Croesumpus, let us just say that if Trump crosses that red line of his own, a great war criminal will be destroyed.

b. , says: April 8, 2018 at 4:00 pm

"In early March 2008, Abkhazia and South Ossetia submitted formal requests for their recognition to Russia's parliament shortly after the West's recognition of Kosovo to which Russia was opposed. [The] Russian ambassador to NATO, warned that Georgia's NATO membership aspirations would cause Russia to support the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia."

Clinton ignored the Russian objections to the West's unilateral recognition of Balkan breakaways. Bush, Saakashvili and the usual entourage of the neocon meddler travelling circus that nowadays haunts the Ukraine dismissed both the Russian warnings and the Russian military response. The result was utter failure.

Putin might never see an opportunity for a similarly deadly and promising "play" in the circle jerk of Syria free-for-all invasions – Gulf states, Turkey, US, Israel – but if he should ever see an opening, I would expect him to seek another object lesson. His hand might not be strong, but he appears to play it well.

Meanwhile, the Kurdish YPG and Syrian government troops ally against NATO partner Turkey, and the US military has repeatedly attacked Syrian regular military and boasts – by leak – about massacring Russian "private military contractors".

Iran demonstrated in Iraq that US ineptitude combined with impunitivism provides many openings to stabilize, in a sense, the region.

[Apr 07, 2018] Syria Showdown Trump Versus the Generals

Apr 07, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

GOP is done April 6, 2018 at 12:20 am

Why are you giving trump so much credit ? Trump is Pro-Israel and will do their evil bidding
polistra , says: April 6, 2018 at 4:15 am
Trump doesn't have any instincts. He's just playing the old DC game. Pretend that you want to do something, then act shocked after you didn't do it. Each party plays the game against the other party, each house of Congress plays the game against the other house, Presidents play it against Congress and the "courts".

===

This game wouldn't work in real life.

Example:

I shout to everyone in the house, "I'm going to the store to get groceries."

One hour later, after sitting in the living room watching TV, making no move toward the car, I shout again:

"See what happens? I tried, but these evil other-party spirits wouldn't let me. You need to vote these evil other-party spirits out of the house so we can have food!"

balconesfault , says: April 6, 2018 at 6:14 am
Huh you elect someone who says his military strategy will always be "listen to the Generals", and are then surprised when the Generals want to keep fighting?

Of course Trump will accede. He has no coherent and consistent policy just Fox News buzzwords spinning in his head. Now add John Bolton as his guiding light.

Stephen J. , says: April 6, 2018 at 7:25 am
Mr. Buchanan is correct the U.S. is: "in a country where we have no right to be "
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
The U.S. is in Syria illegally, and what is even worse it is reportedly supporting terrorists.
This is surely a crime, yet no charges have been laid. Why?

"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Much more evidence on this and other matters at link below.
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html

Michael Kenny , says: April 6, 2018 at 8:41 am
The important point in Syria is that Putin is irreversibly bogged down there. He sinks or swims with Assad, which means, sooner or later, sinks. He's a sitting duck who can do nothing but sit there and wait until the US chooses to attack him. So there's no harm in leaving him to stew. John Bolton's bête noire has always been Iran, which is supposed to be Putin's ally. Going after Iran will put Putin on the spot. He has to decide whether to back his "ally" or leave Iran in the lurch. Thus, putting Syria on the back burner and concentrating on Iran forces Putin either to discredit himself by abandoning his "ally" or to bog himself down in yet another conflict. Heads, Ukraine wins, tails, Putin loses!
Dan Green , says: April 6, 2018 at 9:59 am
Our military complex is very key to our security. With that said they plan and like war.
b. , says: April 6, 2018 at 10:00 am
On such hollow reed the imperial presidency, uneasily, rests.

The triad's synthesis: ISIS will never be "defeated".

Hubris, catharsis over is.

Stephen J. , says: April 6, 2018 at 11:25 am
More info on the treachery and criminality being enacted in Syria
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –

"Our ally Kuwait has become the epicenter of fundraising for terrorist groups in Syria."
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2308.aspx
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

"Yes, folks, your tax dollars are going to support Islamist crazies in Syria. The same people who attacked Paris are being aided and abetted by the US – and if that isn't a criminal act, then there is no justice in this world." Justin Raimondo, November 25, 2015
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/11/24/turkeys-stab-in-the-back/
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

And much more info at the link below.
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/05/the-war-gangs-and-war-criminals-of-nato.html

Anthony Ferrara , says: April 6, 2018 at 12:02 pm
The military industrial complex is nearly impossible to go up against in this country.
One Guy , says: April 6, 2018 at 1:03 pm
The USA has hundreds of military bases overseas. We should close most of them. Trump is saying the right thing, unfortunately, we all know he doesn't follow through (that NRA thing, that DACA thing, that wall thing, that coal thing, that lock-her-up thing, etc. etc).

Nothing will change.

Cynthia McLean , says: April 6, 2018 at 1:27 pm
The War Party is intent on building a permanent military base in Syria to fulfill US aspirations of full-spectrum dominance.
Fred Bowman , says: April 6, 2018 at 1:54 pm
Rest assure Pat that when "push comes to shove" that Trump will let the Generals have their way. To believe otherwise is foolishness.
Patrick , says: April 6, 2018 at 3:16 pm
It seems that the failure in Syria is related to the classical policy verse strategy conflict. The military is once again put in a difficult position when the civilian leadership tries to use a military solution to solve a diplomatic problem. The military was given the task to destroy ISIS but that goal will be impossible without Turkey's cooperation and the leader of that country has chosen a path toward appeasement by the United States or confrontation.

There seems to be credible evidence of Turkey's support for ISIS in the flow of combatants and military logistics into Syria as well as profiting from the sale and transport of ISIS controlled Syrian oil through Turkey. Now we are seeing Turkey invading Syria and ethnically cleansing our Kurdish allies from Syria's Northern Boarder. We still don't know what the Obama/Clinton CIA and State Department was up to in Benghazi, but it did seem to involve the flow of arms from Libya, and I have read reports that members of the Turkish government were meeting with the killed ambassador before the attack.

In Syria is appears that the Assad, Iranian and Russian alliance was more focused upon the rebels attempting to overthrow the government; rather than destroying ISIS. Once the United States leaves there may be greater tolerance for ISIS as long as the government is not threatened and ISIS may even be allowed to join that alliance to get some revenge against the Kurds who were allied with the U.S.

We saw the recent Russian test of US resolve using mercenaries with disastrous consequences. As long as the US remains in Syria there will be similar tests and what if is Turkey decides to test the resolve of US forces?

Our NATO partner Turkey seems to have become more of an enemy than a friend, and also more of a liability than an asset. Removing U.S. military assets from Turkey may be prudent, followed by its expulsion from NATO. Expelling Turkish citizens from other NATO countries and economic sanctions may be another strategy to make Turkey reconsider its continued belligerence.

JK , says: April 6, 2018 at 4:05 pm
I don't recall anyone forcing Trump to appoint to top positions people who flat out refuse his orders and block him from carrying out policy he campaigned on. There is a limit on how much sincerity you can attribute to a man who says one thing, does the exact opposite, and defend him as fighting some Don Quixotic struggle tilting at windmills.

[Apr 05, 2018] Steve Coll's Directorate S is Disturbing Account of U.S. Mistakes After 9/11 by Mark Perry

Notable quotes:
"... Directorate S: The C.I.A. and America's Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Steve Coll, Penguin Press, 784 pages ..."
Apr 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

'Ghost Wars' author on the secret war behind the war in Afghanistan

U.S-trained Afghan Army troops. Credit: USMC Cpl. John Scott Rafoss/public domain Directorate S: The C.I.A. and America's Secret Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Steve Coll, Penguin Press, 784 pages

Twelve days after 9/11, on the night of September 23, 2001, the CIA's Islamabad station chief, Robert Grenier, received a telephone call from his boss, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet. "Listen, Bob," Tenet said, "we're meeting tomorrow at Camp David to discuss our war strategy in Afghanistan. How should we begin? What targets do we hit? How do we sequence our actions?"

Grenier later wrote in his book, 88 Days to Kandahar , that while he was surprised by the call he'd been thinking about these same questions -- "mulling them over and over and over," as he later told me -- so he was ready. President George Bush's address to the U.S. Congress just a few days before, Grenier told Tenet, was a good start: demand that Afghanistan's Taliban ruler, Mullah Omar, turn bin Laden over to the United States. If he refused, the U.S. should launch a campaign to oust him. Grenier had thought through the plan, but before going into its details with Tenet he abruptly stopped the conversation. "Mr. Director," he said, "this isn't going to work. I need to write this all down clearly." Tenet agreed.

Grenier set to work, and over the next three hours he laid out the battle for Afghanistan. Included in the paper was a detailed program of how the CIA could deploy undercover teams to recruit bin Laden's enemies among Afghanistan's northern Tajik and Uzbek tribes (an uneasy coalition of ethnic militias operating as the Northern Alliance), supply them with cash and weapons, and use them in a rolling offensive that would oust the Taliban in Kabul. With U.S. help, which included deploying American Special Forces teams (under CIA leadership) coupled with American airpower, the Northern Alliance (more properly, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan) would start from its Panjshir Valley enclave in Afghanistan's far northeast and, recruiting support from anti-Taliban forces along the way, roll all the way into Kabul.

Grenier gave the eight-page draft paper to his staff to review, then sent it to Tenet in Washington, who passed it through the deputies committee (the second-in-command of each of the major national security agencies), then presented it to Bush. "I regard that cable," Grenier wrote, "as the best three hours of work I ever did in my twenty-seven-year career."

Three days after the Tenet-Grenier telephone conversation, on September 26, the CIA landed a covert-operations team in Afghanistan to recruit local allies in the hunt for bin Laden. The quick action was impressive, but then events slowed to a crawl. It wasn't until October 20 that the first U.S. Special Forces team linked up with anti-Taliban rebels, and it took another week for U.S. units to land in strength. But by early November al Qaeda was on the run and the Taliban's grip on the country was slipping away. On November 13, militias of the Northern Alliance seized Kabul. The Taliban was defeated, its badly mauled units fleeing south and east (its last bastion, in the south, fell on December 6), and into nearby Pakistan, while what remained of al Qaeda holed up in a series of cave complexes in the Spin Ghar mountain range of eastern Afghanistan.

By almost any measure, the CIA-led anti-al Qaeda and anti-Taliban offensive (dubbed Operation Enduring Freedom by George Bush) marked a decisive victory in the war on terror. The U.S. had set out a plan, marshaled the forces to carry it out, and then seen it to completion.

But this triumph came with problems. The first was that the offensive was hampered by Washington infighting that pitted the CIA against a puzzlingly recalcitrant U.S. military and a carping Donald Rumsfeld, who questioned George Tenet's leadership of the effort. This bureaucratic squabbling, focused on just who was responsible for what (and who exactly was running the Afghanistan war), would remain a hallmark of American efforts well into the Obama administration. The second problem was that Afghanistan's southern Pashtun tribes were only marginally included in the effort, and they remained suspicious of their northern non-Pashtun counterparts. The mistrust, CIA officers believed, would almost certainly plant the seeds of an endless inter-tribal Afghan conflict, embroiling the United States in an effort to prop up an unpopular Kabul government. The third problem was Pakistan -- or, more precisely, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, the ISI, and the ISI's "Directorate S," responsible for covertly supplying, training, and arming Pakistan's Islamist allies, including the Pashtun-dominated Taliban.

♦♦♦

The intractability of these variables, and America's 17-year effort (sometimes focused but often feckless) to resolve them, form the basis of Steve Coll's Directorate S , a thick but eminently readable account of America's Afghanistan misadventure. While Directorate S stands alone as a comprehensive exposition of the Afghanistan conflict dating from 9/11, it's actually a follow-on of Ghost Wars , Coll's Pulitzer Prize-winning 2004 narrative of America's efforts to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan following their invasion in December 1979. Given the breadth of Coll's dual treatments and the depth of his research, it's likely that these books will remain the standard exposition of the period for years to come.

While the focus of Directorate S is on Pakistan and its shady intelligence services, each of the obstacles that confronted the United States in Afghanistan from the moment the Taliban abandoned Kabul is embraced in detail. These obstacles included America's post-9/11 attention deficit disorder (the pivot away from al Qaeda to Iraq was being considered in Washington even as the Northern Alliance cleared the Afghan capital) and the deeply embedded antipathy toward the new Kabul government among Pakistani-supported southern tribesman. Thus, after the United States ousted al Qaeda and its Taliban supporters, it embarked on a program to strengthen the new Kabul government, anointing Hamid Karzai as Afghanistan's president and pledging billions in reconstruction aid. And so, or so it seemed, everything had gone as planned. The Taliban was routed; al Qaeda was on the run; a new anti-terrorism government was in place in Kabul; and the United States had signed Pakistan on as a willing accomplice. On May 1, 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld declared an end to major combat operations in Afghanistan. The war was over. Won.

But of course it wasn't.

Coll's account provides a disturbing catalogue of the U.S. mistakes in the wake of the Taliban defeat. Almost all of them are well known: Hamid Karzai, the consensus choice of a grand assembly (a loya jirga) as Afghanistan's interim president, proved to be a weak leader. The monies appropriated for Afghanistan's postwar reconstruction were woefully inadequate for the task -- "laughable," as one U.S. official put it. American soldiers responsible for countering the Taliban's return (and hunting al Qaeda terrorist cells) were thinly and poorly deployed (and, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, of secondary importance in the Pentagon). Tentative Taliban efforts to engage the United States in political talks were summarily and unwisely spurned. Allegations of prisoner abuse at U.S. detention facilities consistently undermined U.S. legitimacy. American funds were funneled into Afghan ministries laced with corrupt officials. Afghani poppy production increased, despite faint-hearted U.S. eradication efforts. And U.S. counter-terrorism actions proved ham-handed and caused preventable civilian casualties, pushing Afghanis into a resurgent anti-Kabul resistance.

More crucially, Pakistan's unstinting support for America's Afghanistan efforts proved to be anything but unstinting. The reason for this was not only entirely predictable but was actually the unintended result of the American victory. When the Northern Alliance and U.S. airpower pushed what remained of the Taliban (along with the remnants of al Qaeda) out of Afghanistan, they pushed them into Pakistan, creating conditions that, as Coll tells us, "deepened resentment among Pakistan's generals, who would come to see their country's rising violence as a price of American folly . . ." Put simply, for the United States to seal the Operation Enduring Freedom victory, it had to ensure that its effects did not spill over into the one nation that could ensure that its victory would, in fact, be enduring. That didn't happen. The result was that the Taliban was able to rebuild and rearm its networks not only in Pakistan, and under the eyes of the ISI, but also in Afghanistan.

It might have been otherwise. During a series of discussions I had about America's intervention in Afghanistan in the months immediately following 9/11, a number of currently serving and former senior U.S. officials told me they believed that, given enough time, the Taliban might well have handed bin Laden over to the Americans, obviating the need for a full-on invasion. One of these officials was Milton Bearden, a famed CIA officer (his close friends refer to him as "Uncle Milty") who, during his time as a station chief in Pakistan, had helped to head up the CIA's war against the Soviets in the mid 1980s.

♦♦♦

After 9/11, Bearden recharged his Pakistan and Afghanistan networks in an effort to convince the Taliban that turning bin Laden over to the Americans was a better option than the one they were facing. All the while, Bearden kept senior U.S. officials apprised of what he was doing, even as he was attempting to head off their rush to war. Bearden told me that, while his efforts had not reached fruition by the time the Bush White House had decided on a course of action, he believes the United States had not fully explored all of its options -- or thought through the long-term impact of its intervention. "I don't know what would have happened, I don't know," he says wistfully, "but I think we have a handhold in history. We should have seen what was coming." He notes that Alexander the Great "took one look at Afghanistan's mountains and decided against it. He thought his whole army could get swallowed up in there, and he wasn't going to take that chance. So, well, you tell me if I'm wrong, but Alexander was no slouch, right?"

Not everyone agrees with this, of course. The dissenters include Robert Grenier, the first drafter of what became the American war plan. Taliban leader Mullah Omar, he told me, was committed to his pledge to protect Osama bin Laden; he viewed it as a blood oath that could not be broken. Moreover, argues Grenier, "Omar viewed himself as a kind of world historical figure, a person on whom the axis of history would turn." One result was that he believed his fight against the Americans would be epochal.

That said, Grenier believes America's foray into Afghanistan, and the mistakes that followed, might at least have been dampened by a more diligent focus on the inherent divisions of Afghan society. "We [at the CIA]," he told me several months ago, "were very aware that the march of the Northern Alliance into Kabul would likely create real difficulties in the south. And we tried to slow it, precisely for this reason. But events overtook us, and it just wasn't possible. So, yes, things might have been otherwise, but in truth we just don't know."

The value in Coll's Directorate S comes not from the elegant telling of a story not fully known, but from the dawning realization that Afghanistan is the kind of lock for which there is no key. There is no reason to believe that a different outcome would have ensued if other events had intruded -- for example, more personnel, money, focused diplomacy, or robust and disciplined enemy-defeating and nation building; or that our war there and the occupation that followed would have yielded the same results that we realized in, say, Japan after 1945. The real hubris here is not that we tried and failed but that we thought we could actually succeed. Afghanistan is simply not that kind of place.

There is a term of art for this in the military, which found its first usage in Iraq in 2009, when U.S. commanders adopted it as an appreciation of what could and could not be accomplished. Instead of focusing on defeating corruption, inefficiency, disunity, and poor leadership, the focus shifted almost exclusively to dampening violence, to keeping the doors to Iraq open even as its factions battled for its control. More importantly, the adoption of the phrase marked the abandonment of high expectations and an embrace of realism. The United States would have to yield the business of replicating a Western-style democracy on the banks of the Euphrates. That goal, if it was going to be accomplished at all, would have to be realized by the Iraqis.

Analyst Anthony Cordesman, one of America's premier military thinkers, adopted the phrase and applied to Afghanistan in 2012 in an essay he entitled, "Time to Focus on 'Afghan Good Enough.'" His plan was simply stated but had all the elegance of actually working: keep the Taliban out of Kabul and the major cities, preserve the central and provincial government even in the face of endemic corruption, and work to provide security to large numbers of Afghanis. Cordesman conceded that this was not the kind of victory that Americans had hoped for on September 12. And it was difficult to describe the outcome as even vaguely passable -- or "good." But it was far better than adopting goals that could not be realized or embracing an illusion that disappeared even as it was grasped. For the time being at least, it would have to be "good enough."

Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst, a contributing editor to The American Conservative and the author of The Pentagon's Wars .

[Apr 05, 2018] Why the US Fails to Understand Its Adversaries

Apr 05, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Robert Jervis and Mira Rapp-Hooper warn about the dangers that come from misperception on both sides of the standoff with North Korea:

If any U.S. strategy toward North Korea is to have a chance of succeeding (or even of just averting catastrophe), it must be guided by an accurate sense of how Kim's regime thinks, what it values, and how it judges its options. Washington must understand not just North Korean objectives but also how North Korean officials understand U.S. objectives and whether they consider U.S. statements credible.

Unfortunately, the U.S. is remarkably bad at understanding these things accurately. This is not just a Trump administration failing. Most American politicians and policymakers routinely misjudge the intentions and goals of our adversaries, and they often invent a fantasy version of the regime in question that leads them astray again and again. One reason for this is that it is simply easier to project our assumptions about what a regime must want than it is to make the effort to see things as they do. Another reason is that many of our politicians and policymakers mistakenly think that if they try to understand an adversary's views that must somehow mean that they sympathize with the adversary or condone its behavior. Instead of trying to know their enemy, our leaders would prefer not to for fear of being "tainted" by the experience. This lack of knowledge is compounded in some cases by the absence of normal diplomatic relations with the adversary. Our leaders are encouraged to take this self-defeating approach to international problems by a political culture that rewards the people that strike tough-sounding-but-ignorant poses about a problem and marginalizes those that seek to understand it as fully as possible.

The first step in correcting these failings is to accept that some of these regimes regard the U.S. as an "existential threat" and therefore view all U.S. actions with at least much suspicion and fear as our government views theirs. The next step would be to recognize that the main goal of any regime is its own preservation. We should be very wary of any explanation of their actions that claims that an adversary is irrationally suicidal. Another step would be to acknowledge that regime behavior that we regard as purely aggressive is very often the result of the adversary's belief that it needs to deter our aggression against them. Our politicians often talk about North Korea threatening the entire world with its nuclear weapons, but this misses that in their relative isolation and paranoia the North Korean regime sees the rest of the world, and especially the U.S., as a threat that needs to be defended against. Recognizing these things doesn't make their acquisition of nuclear weapons desirable and it doesn't mean that we approve of it, but it does make it understandable.

Our government's frequent inability to understand how an adversary thinks and what an adversary wants is usually bound up with our government's overestimation of its own power and a denial of the other state's agency. If many of our policymakers invent a fantasy version of the regime to serve as a foil, they come up with unrealistic demands that they think the U.S. can force the adversary to accept. Because we fail to understand what the adversary is trying to do, we make demands that we ought to know will never be accepted. Because our government fails to take the other side's agency into account, our policies are often crafted solely to punish and compel and rarely to give them an incentive to cooperate or compromise. We then claim to be surprised when this approach yields only intransigence and more of the behavior that we want the other state to stop.


Fran Macadam April 5, 2018 at 11:40 am

As long as official policy is Full Spectrum Dominance, nothing can change.
Kent , says: April 5, 2018 at 11:47 am
I really believe it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that ignorant.
Will Harrington , says: April 5, 2018 at 1:07 pm
Kent

Why do you think it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that ignorant? Did our Presidents, who never have to prove merit, only popularity, ever appoint people based on reliably tested knowledge of their field? No. They tend to appoint their cabinet based on political calculation. Sometimes political calculation will raise up knowledgeable people, more often not.

grumpy realist , says: April 5, 2018 at 1:20 pm
Welp, this is certainly a different kettle of fish from WWII, where the US government hired ethnologists like Ruth Benedict to analyze Japanese culture and thought patterns (resulting in her book "The Chrysanthemum and the Sword.")

We HAVE turned into a country of lazy bastards.

Tyro , says: April 5, 2018 at 1:47 pm
I really believe it would be absurd to think our highest government officials are that ignorant

Our highest officials are by design more ignorant than the rank and file. During the Iraq war aftermath, Arabic speakers were actively rejected from jobs within the Coalition Provisional Authority, because it was assumed their knowledge of the region would prejudice them against the W adninistration's vision for the Middle East, and they didn't want nay sayers telling them what they didn't want to hear.

This mindset is persistent, especially in republican administrations, and mirrors the Soviet Union -- people are selected on the basis of their willingness to toe the ideological line rather than their expertise.

Dee , says: April 5, 2018 at 2:54 pm
They are not ignorant, the politicians support these policies because their donors benefit.. They have sold out to greed over country.. I assume that some do it for the easy wealth that can be had, some of the wealthy ones for fame and never losing elections, but they have their reasons, our country is not high on that list.
KXB , says: April 5, 2018 at 3:39 pm
The one exception to this would be Obama's approach to Iran. He had no illusions about the mullahs and IRGC, but he knew that it was simply impossible to perpetually diplomatically isolate and militarily surround a nation of 80 million in its own region. The nuke deal was a tradeoff – Iran gives up its nukes in exchange for being reintegrated with the world. Of course, this is the last thing that Israel or Saudi Arabia want.
Fran Macadam , says: April 5, 2018 at 4:09 pm
"The nuke deal was a tradeoff – Iran gives up its nukes in exchange for being reintegrated with the world."

It must have been a bad deal, since the benefits to the other side never actually happened.

It was de facto over from the moment it was signed.

Fran Macadam , says: April 5, 2018 at 4:11 pm
"The nuke deal was a tradeoff – Iran gives up its nukes in exchange for being reintegrated with the world."

Which nukes were those? Unlike North Korea, they didn't actually have any.

They didn't give anything up, and we didn't remove the sanctions. Sounds about equitable, nothing for nothing.

Cynthia McLean , says: April 5, 2018 at 6:14 pm
Knowledge of History and Language would help enormously, but the US is so arrogant it expects other countries to merely accept US assertions and to speak in English, on the basis of its supposed Exceptionalism.

[Apr 02, 2018] The Third Bush Presidency

Notable quotes:
"... whatever crony wants, crony gets. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War motion-pictures ..."
Apr 02, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Never Trump cabal can now claim total victory. Unsuccessful at preventing Trump from winning the nomination or the general election, they have instead co-opted his presidency for their own policies and programs.

With the nomination of John Bolton, Never Trump interventionists have installed one of the unrepentant architects of the catastrophic Iraq War to head the National Security Council.

In recent months, ignoring and rejecting his own party's convention platform, Trump has agreed to send lethal weapons to Ukraine. Besides accelerating the deaths of Ukrainians and ethnic Russians while laying waste to the civilian population of the Donbas, what advantage to the people of the United States does this military escalation provide?

Last summer, in one of the strangest speeches in American history, President Trump announced he would surge troop levels in Afghanistan -- and then in the same breath admitted it was a mistake and something he didn't really want to do. That should show the conflict here: Trump's instincts versus the establishment sorts around him.

Never Trumpers are not so secretly celebrating. They got the president they thought they didn't want. And now, pretending they still don't want him, they can hardly believe their good fortune.

Achieving their foreign policy goals is just the icing on the cake. They also got the president to implement the entire Wall Street agenda: lowering taxes on the super rich; advancing huge subsidies to the medical insurance industry; keeping the Export-Import Bank funded; re-authorizing the ivory trade; shrinking the size of national monuments so that multi-national corporations can turn our wilderness areas into strip mines and clear-cut wastelands.

Then, just this week, in a reckless act of generational theft, Trump endorsed the second biggest budget in U.S. history, caving in to every demand and desire of the UniParty and the K Street lobbyists whom they serve.

In the 18th century, the cry went "Millions for defense, but not one penny for tribute!" Trump's cry is "Billions for defense, but not one penny for a wall!"

Trump justifies his signature on the omnibus bill by claiming it was necessary for national security. But that claim rings hollow when comparatively little is allocated for the protection of America's own borders and the defense of its homeland. Americans intuitively know that the real danger to their safety is not along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border; it's along the U.S.-Mexico border. But Trump's own laudable instincts have been neutered by the globalist, interventionist generals and policy wonks who now populate powerful positions at the White House and the departments of State and Defense.

Many reading this might now protest: what's wrong with passing the omnibus? Isn't it providing the funds necessary for making America great again? But Donald Trump did not run for office on a platform of bloating spending; he ran on opposition to massive debt increases and specifically to many of the programs they pay for. The budget can be summed up in a paraphrase of a Broadway musical hit tune: whatever crony wants, crony gets.

Has there been a fiercer critic of the Iraq war than Donald Trump? Yet he promotes to the head of the NSC perhaps that conflict's most vociferous apologist. Trump promised he would end the wars of choice, that he would refrain from taking sides in other nation's internal conflicts. He called for a reasonable rapprochement with Russia with the goal of making America and Americans safer. He specifically said he would wind down the military commitment in Afghanistan as quickly and safely as possible.

His only bellicose pledge concerned ISIS, which he promised to destroy. As we have seen, that was one of the few promises he kept. In most other policy areas he has reversed his campaign pledges. His foreign policy is no longer America First; it's evolved into the same, old, dangerous, meddling, interventionist program of the last quarter century. Trump has deepened U.S. involvement in Yemen, Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan without clearly defining the missions, the goals, and the risks. If voters had wanted this, they would have elected Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.

Yet of all the betrayals, the war on nature is the most grievous and shocking. As someone who supported Trump from day one in June 2015, who has seen virtually every one of his speeches, interviews, and tweets, I cannot recall a single word about the national parks or monuments.

Had Trump forecast during the campaign how he would govern on environmental issues, would he have been elected? Could those narrow margins of victory in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa have gone the other way? With his appointment of Ryan Zinke to the Department of the Interior, Trump needlessly and recklessly alienated tens of thousands of voters who might otherwise have supported him and who may indeed have voted for him in 2016. Although its hard to discern exactly why the president's poll numbers are as low as they are, it would be a mistake to discount the animus engendered by the unexpected assault on wilderness, open space, endangered species, and America's magnificent national monuments.

The only national monument that Trump has failed to shrink is the Beltway swamp. In fact, judging from the continuing spread of McMansions in Potomac, Maryland and Falls Church, Virginia, he has effectively widened its borders. It's as if the chants from all those packed stadiums during that long ago presidential campaign were "Fill that swamp! Fill that swamp!"

It is now abundantly clear why the Never Trumpers are tittering over their cocktails. Trump has staffed most departments of his government with establishment cronies and neoconservative zealots. He now presides over the implementation of their agenda. In effect, we're getting a variation on what could be called the third Bush presidency -- minus the decorum.

Trump's is also the all-talk presidency: talk tough on illegal immigration, but fail to build the wall; talk tough on sanctuary cities, but fail to cut federal subsidies; talk tough on illegal immigration, then push for the biggest amnesty since 1986; talk tough against the Export-Import Bank, then fund it; talk tough on Obamacare, then fund big insurance to keep the subsidies flowing; talk tough on reducing taxes, then screw millions of homeowners across America by actually raising their taxes; talk tough on trade, then tiptoe around Mexico and Canada on everything that really matters; talk tough on the deficit, then sign the second biggest boondoggle spending bill in U.S. history.

Still, it cannot be denied: President Trump has accomplished much -- for the establishment and their K Street lobbyists. They write the bills, Paul Ryan guides them through the House amendment-free, and Trump signs them in to law.

For those who packed those campaign rallies, who wore those red "Make America Great Again" caps, and for the rest of us mere plebs, Donald Trump's presidency is best summed up by The Bard: "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War motion-pictures Gettysburg , Gods & Generals , and Copperhead .

[Mar 30, 2018] Bolton Is the Opposite of an 'Honest Broker' The American Conservative

Mar 30, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Sebastian Rotella reports on how many of the people that worked with Bolton remember his tendency to distort intelligence and ignore facts that contradicted his assumptions:

"Anyone who is so cavalier not just with intelligence, but with facts, and so ideologically driven, is unfit to be national security adviser," said Robert Hutchings, who dealt extensively with Bolton as head of the National Intelligence Council, a high-level agency that synthesizes analysis from across the intelligence community to produce strategic assessments for policymakers. "He's impervious to information that goes against his preconceived ideological views." [bold mine-DL]

That assessment lines up with what I understood about Bolton, and it points to one of the biggest problems with his appointment. I wrote this shortly before Trump announced that he was choosing Bolton:

The real danger is that he is such an ideologue that he would keep information from the president that contradicts his views and prevent Trump from getting the best available advice. Trump is poorly informed to begin with, and having Bolton as his main adviser on matters of national security and foreign policy would make sure that he stays that way.

Trump is especially susceptible to being manipulated by his advisers into endorsing the policies they want because he knows so little and responds so favorably to flattery, and he has shown that he is already more than willing to select a more aggressive option when he is told that it is the "presidential" thing to do. We should expect that Bolton will feed Trump bad or incomplete information, present aggressive options in the most favorable light while dismissing alternatives, and praise Trump's leadership to get him to go along with the hard-line policies Bolton wants. Bolton will run a very distorted policy process and he will be the opposite of an honest broker. That won't serve Trump well, and it will be terrible for our foreign policy.

[Mar 29, 2018] The Anti-Liberty Boomerang of US Militarism

Notable quotes:
"... Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall, Stanford University Press 2018, 280 pages ..."
Mar 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Chad Zuber/Shutterstock Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, Christopher J. Coyne and Abigail R. Hall, Stanford University Press 2018, 280 pages

Millennials and members of Generation Z have spent much of if not their entire lives at war. As I've noted in these pages and elsewhere , the Afghan conflict is now in its 17th year, with more than 6,000 days having gone by, making it the longest war in American history. I was 12 years old when that war began in 2001; I'm now a month out from my 29th birthday. Beginning next year, the newly enlisted 18-year-olds who are deployed to Afghanistan will be younger than the war they are fighting.

The Iraq war began in 2003, saw a major troop withdrawal in 2011, and then was re-escalated by former President Obama in 2014. American forces remain there today to aid in the fight against the Islamic State, despite an agreement with the Iraqis that was supposed to begin a troop drawdown. An American-led regime change intervention turned Libya into a failed state. And we have blanketed countries such as Pakistan and Yemen with drone warfare, so much so that drones now haunt their citizens' dreams . U.S. Special Forces were on the ground conducting activities in 149 countries as of 2017.

This kind of foreign policy adventurism is hardly unique to the present day. America has been aggressively deploying its military on foreign soil since the late 19th century. As Stephen Kinzer shows in his book Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq , we got our foot in the door of the regime change business all the way back in 1893 with our acquisition of Hawaii.

Living in a post-9/11 world has shattered any inclination to view domestic life as separate from and unaffected by foreign policy, particularly since the 2013 publication of classified NSA documents leaked to the press by Edward Snowden. Snowden's revelations threw back the curtain on an omnipresent surveillance apparatus under which very few aspects of our digital lives were left unmonitored -- all in the name of national security and the global war on terror.

The Snowden leaks demonstrate how an adventurous foreign policy can have negative consequences for liberty at home. Now, political economists Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall have documented this phenomenon in their important new book, Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism . In their words, "coercive foreign intervention creates opportunities to develop and refine methods and technologies of social control."

Coyne and Hall, economists at George Mason University and the University of Tampa respectively, introduce a concept for understanding this phenomenon called the "boomerang effect." It works like this: the constraints on the activities of the U.S. government in the realm of foreign policy are generally weak, which enables those involved in foreign interventions to engage in practices abroad that would meet some institutional resistance on the home front. Eventually, though, interventions end, the interveners come home, and the practices employed on foreign soil are imported for use against the domestic population.

This importation happens along three separate channels. First, there is the development of human capital -- the skills, knowledge, and other characteristics that contribute to one's productive capacity. All companies, organizations, and agencies have goals they seek to accomplish, so they hire people with the right kind of human capital to execute said goals. Foreign intervention is no different.

Among the characteristics necessary for interveners include extreme confidence in their ability to solve complex problems in other countries, a sense of superiority and righteousness, comfort with pushing the ethical envelope, limited compassion and sympathy for the targeted population, and the association of state order with control. Interventionists, as Coyne and Hall put it, treat "society as a grand science project that can be rationalized and improved on by enlightened and well-intentioned engineers."

The second phase occurs when the interventionists come home. Some may retire, but many go to work in various public- and private-sector jobs. The skills and mentalities that served them well abroad don't disappear, so they begin employing their unique human capital domestically. Those who land in the public sector are able to influence domestic policy, where they see threats to liberty becoming manifest. Because of the relative lack of constraints when operating in a foreign theater, tactics that would otherwise cross the line domestically are seen as standard operating procedure.

Finally, physical capital plays a significant role in bringing methods of foreign intervention back home. Technological innovation "allows governments to use lower-cost methods of social control with a greater reach." The federal government spends billions annually on research and development, which buys a variety of different capabilities. These technologies, many originally intended for foreign populations, can be used domestically. One example the authors point to are the surveillance methods originally used in the Iraq war that found their way to the Baltimore Police Department for routine use.

The implication of the boomerang effect for policing doesn't end with surveillance. It can also help explain police militarization, the origins of which lie in the foreign interventions of the Progressive Era, specifically in the Philippines.

In the wake of the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded its colonial territories to the United States. This led to the Philippine-American War, a bloody conflict that directly and indirectly caused the deaths of 200,000 Filipino civilians, and which ended in 1902.

As veterans returned home from the Philippines, many sought careers in law enforcement where they were able to implement practices inspired by their days in the military. The effect of this was to "establish precedents whereby military personnel and tactics not only would be considered legitimate but welcomed" by police administrations. Police militarization wouldn't kick into high gear until the latter half of the 20th century, with the introduction of SWAT teams and the federalization of law enforcement during the LBJ and Nixon years. The men behind the development of SWAT were veterans of the Vietnam War.

What ultimately creates the conditions for this boomerang effect to take place? One factor, Coyne and Hall argue, is fear. Fear and crisis, both perceived and real, creates "space for government to expand the scope of its powers and adopt the techniques of state-produced social control that it has developed and honed abroad." Fear can lead people to seek assurances from authorities, which goads them into tolerating and even demanding expansions of state powers -- powers that in less fearful times they would not accept.

Once accumulated, that power becomes a normal part of life, and isn't easily given up, as the great economic historian Robert Higgs shows in his classic work Crisis and Leviathan . Anyone who has gone through airport security over the last 17 years understands this, as the fear of terror attacks after 9/11 has led to ratcheted up airline security measures by the TSA. This has resulted in some fairly egregious violations of person and privacy, despite very little evidence that they work.

Coyne's and Hall's book is a great, conceptually holistic investigation into how the state can threaten our liberty. Economists regularly recognize the unintended consequences of domestic policy; Coyne and Hall have explained the unintended consequences of foreign policy, and their costs. It's particularly timely, as President Trump's tenure has seen decision-making authority at the Pentagon pushed down the chain of command, leaving the United States' war-making capabilities even less accountable and transparent. This book is an incisive elucidation of what writer Randolph Bourne recognized a century ago and of which we could use a perpetual reminder: war truly is the health of the state.

Jerrod A. Laber is a writer and Free Society Fellow with Young Voices. He is a contributor to the Washington Examiner , and his work has appeared in Real Clear Defense , Quillette , and the Columbus Dispatch , among others.

[Mar 29, 2018] Giving Up the Ghost of Objective Journalism by Telly Davidson

Highly recommended!
Journalists are always "soldiers of the party". You just need to understand what party.
Notable quotes:
"... 'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times. ..."
"... The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name. ..."
"... To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism" was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. ..."
"... the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition. ..."
"... And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased." ..."
Mar 29, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

'Fair and balanced' was a mid-20th century marketing tool and really, a confabulation of the times.

"The Yellow Press", by L. M. Glackens, portrays newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst as a jester distributing sensational stories in 1910. (Library of Congress/Public Domain) What the Greatest, Silent, and Boomer generations always regarded as the ideal of "objective journalism" was actually the exception, not the rule. That was true from the time of Gutenberg until that of Franklin Roosevelt.

The great Joseph Pulitzer largely founded his namesake prize for the same motives as Alfred Nobel, when the latter tried to make up for the incalculable injuries and deaths caused by the explosives he invented by endowing a Peace Prize. Pulitzer was attempting to atone for the "yellow journalism" sins of his own papers -- and even more, those of his arch rival, William Randolph "Citizen Kane" Hearst -- when he launched the prize that bears his name.

And if Pulitzer repented of his past, Hearst never did -- he went full speed ahead well into the 1920s and beyond, normalizing Nazi science, openly endorsing eugenics and white superiority, and promoting "Birth of a Nation"-like racism against African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans. His dehumanizing attacks against so-called sneaking and treacherous "Japs" and "Chinks" -- well before Pearl Harbor, the Korean War, and communist China -- were even uglier.

To put it bluntly, as Frances McDormand's professor-mother in Almost Famous might have said, "Objective Journalism" was as much a marketing tool as anything else. It took off not because news neutrality was always enshrined in American journalistic ethics, but because of how rare it actually was. High-minded notions of "fairness" and "objective journalism" came to the print media largely because the visionary first families of the papers that finally succeeded the Hearsts and Pulitzers in clout and cache -- the Ochs-Sulzbergers of New York, the Meyer-Grahams of Washington, and the Chandlers of Los Angeles -- made a conscious decision to brand their newspapers as being truly fair and balanced to differentiate them from the competition.

Meanwhile, the broadcast media (which didn't exist until the rise of radio and "talking pictures" in the late 1920s, followed by TV after World War II) labored under the New Deal's famed Fairness Doctrine.

And even then, "objectivity" only went as far as the eyes and ears of the beholder. The fairness flag was fraying when Spiro Agnew and Pat Buchanan took "liberal media elites" to task a generation ago during the Vietnam and civil rights era, while Tom Wolfe made good, unclean fun out of the "radical chic" conceits of Manhattan and Hollywood limousine liberals.

What today's controversies illustrate is that a so-called "Fairness Doctrine" and "objective" newspaper reporting could only have existed in a conformist Mad Men world where societal norms of what was (and wasn't) acceptable in the postwar Great Society operated by consensus. That is to say, an America where moderate, respectable, white male centrist Republicans like Thomas Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, and Gerald Ford "debated" moderate, respectable, white male centrist Democrats like Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, and Jimmy Carter.

Now contrast that with today. On November 25, the New York Times made a now-notorious attempt to understand the Nazi next door, running a profile of young suburban white supremacist, Tony Hovater. Transgender social media superstar Charlotte Clymer spoke for her fellow liberals when she savagely satirized the Times with a tweet-storm that included things like:

Bob is a vegan. He believes we should protect the environment. He likes "Big Bang Theory". He pays taxes. He served in the military.

He's a serial killer who has tortured and murdered 14 people. He dissolved their bodies in acid at a remote site. He made them beg for their lives as he tortured them.

He attends PTA meetings. He DVR's episodes of his wife's fave shows when she's late at work.

The moral of the fable being (as Miss Clymer put it): "Bob is a mass-murdering f***head. STOP GIVING BOB NUANCE!"

When the Times followed their neo-Nazi profile by turning an entire op-ed column over to Donald Trump supporters in mid-January, the Resistance went to red alert. And after Ross Douthat penned a column in defense of (Jewish) anti-immigration hardliner Stephen Miller on Holocaust Memorial Day in January, they went full DEFCON.

"F*** you @nytimes for publishing this article on #HolocaustMemorialDay from me & from those in my family whose voices were silenced during the Holocaust. Shame on you!" said Nadine Vander Velde on Twitter. London left-wing journalist Sarah Kendzior agreed that "The NYT is now a white supremacist paper. The multiple Nazi puff pieces, constant pro-Trump PR, and praise for Miller on today of all days is not exceptional – it's [now] the guiding ideology of the paper."

And the current furor over The Atlantic 's hiring of National Review firebrand Kevin D. Williamson only underscores that it isn't just campus leftists or Tea Partiers who are hitting the censor button.

But revealingly, it wasn't just the usual left-wing snowflakes who have needed a trigger warning of late. Just six weeks into the new year, the Washington Post and CNN ran a series of tabloidy, Inside Edition -style stories glamorizing Kim Yo-jong, the sister of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The Washington Post even went so far as to call Ms. Yo-jong North Korea's answer to Ivanka Trump (just ignore the fact she is the DPRK's assistant head of the Ministry of Propaganda and Agitation). That led Bethany Mandel of the New York Post to wonder what was up with all the "perverse fawning over brutal Kim Jong-un's sister at the Olympics?"

Additionally, some of the most provocative critiques of "journalistic objectivity" have come from liberal polemicists like Matt Taibbi and Sam Adler-Bell, who argue that before we go on blathering about untrammeled First Amendment freedom and "objectivity," the first question that must be asked is who has the balance of power and whose hands are on deck in the editing room. (And they're not wrong to ask that question -- it was the same one that Pat Buchanan asked 50 years ago and Ann Coulter asked 20 years ago from the opposite side of the newsroom.)

Whether it's MSNBC on the left or Fox News on the right, the editorial decisions of how to spin a piece, where and how often to broadcast it, what kind of panelists you invite to "debate" a story, which anchors should be promoted and which ones will forever remain mere worker bees -- all these decisions are anything but "objective" or "unbiased."

Let's face it: the supposedly more civilized, serious ecosystem of the pre-social media past would come across to identity-conscious Millennials today as nothing more than stale white bread dominated by stale white men. Even among the campus leftists who protest and violently riot to shut down and silence "hate speech," most of them would probably rather live in a world where Steve Bannon and Richard Spencer anchored the nightly news on one channel -- so long as there was a hijab-wearing Muslim or a transgendered man on another, equally highly-rated one.

What would be totally unacceptable to today's young consumer is any kind of return to the mid-century world where "the news" was whatever Ben Bradlee, Johnny Apple, Robert Novak, and The Chancellor/Brinkley Nightly News said it was -- in essence, the world where Punch Sulzberger, Otis Chandler, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw white-mansplained "facts" through their own elite establishment filters, de facto ignoring everyone else.

Meanwhile, the beat goes on. From the left, conservative Sinclair Media is accused of "forcing" its local anchors to read "pro-Trump propaganda." The Nation stalwart Eric Alterman says that "When one side is fascist, there's no need to show Both Sides." As for the right -- just ask your Fox-watching or Limbaugh-listening friends and families what they think of the "mainstream media," the "Communist News Network," or the "opinion cartel."

The great Joan Didion once said "We tell ourselves stories in order to live." Maybe "objective journalism" was always just a little social white lie we in the media told ourselves to make ourselves feel better -- fairer, kinder, gentler, more "professional." But if there's one lesson that Barack Obama, the Tea Party, Bernie Sanders, Antifa, Donald Trump, and the Great Recession have taught us over the past decade, it isn't just that the mythical "center" will no longer hold. It's that there may no longer be a center for any of us to hold on to.

Telly Davidson is the author of a new book on the politics and pop culture of the '90s, Culture War : How the 90's Made Us Who We Are Today (Like it Or Not) . He has written on culture for ATTN, FrumForum, All About Jazz, FilmStew, and Guitar Player , and worked on the Emmy-nominated PBS series "Pioneers of Television."

[Mar 28, 2018] The Consequences of Blowing Up the Nuclear Deal

Mar 28, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz spells out what the nuclear deal with Iran does and what withdrawing from it would mean:

Conversely, if Trump withdraws the United States from the agreement, with Iran complying and with our allies clearly committed to its continuation, he will have compromised the most stringent nuclear verification standard ever achieved, with no credible prospect for restoring or improving it [bold mine-DL]. Such a move would hand Iran a political "wedge" dividing the international community, and undercut vital arguments for verification of any agreement reached with North Korea.

Opponents of the deal often claim to be against it because it isn't "tough" enough, but as Moniz explains the deal contains the "most robust verification measures the world has ever known." Withdrawing from the deal means throwing that away for no good reason. If Trump follows through on his threat to withdraw, he will confirm that his complaints about the agreement were made in bad faith. Reneging on the deal just because some of its restrictions expire after a decade or more gives the game away. It gives Iran the excuse to ignore some or all of the deal's restrictions immediately instead of having some of them lifted in the 2020s or 2030s. We're supposed to believe that the gradual expiration of some restrictions is so intolerable that we should throw away all of the restrictions right away. It's a completely irrational position, and so it's obviously just a bad excuse for killing an agreement that Iran hawks never wanted.

If Iran is supposed to ratify the Additional Protocol that it is currently implementing voluntarily. Ratification will make these verification measures permanent, and that will make ensuring that Iran abides by its NPT obligations much easier. Blowing up the deal now would give Iran an excuse to stop voluntarily complying with the Additional Protocol years before they have to ratify it. Sina Azodi suggests that this is how Iran might respond to a U.S. withdrawal:

One possible response to a US withdrawal would be for Iran to declare that it will no longer implement the Additional Protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This supplementary protocol significantly enhances the ability of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor and verify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA.

Under the agreement, Iran is required to implement the protocol and to ratify it within eight years of the January 2016 implementation of the JCPOA. If the deal collapses, Iran will no longer feel obliged to allow the intrusive inspections required by the protocol or to ratify it. This would significantly reduce the IAEA's ability to monitor Iran's nuclear activities. However, this seems to be a relatively safe option for Iran, since implementation of the protocol is on a voluntary basis.

As Azodi explains, this is the least provocative response available to Iran, and it allows Iran to further divide the U.S. and our European allies, who remain committed to honoring the agreement. It's also quite possible that Iran will follow the U.S. out of the deal to protest the resumption of U.S. sanctions. Either way, the verification measures that make the JCPOA such a strong nonproliferation agreement will be lost.

The verification measures in the deal were so stringent because of the fear that Iran wouldn't keep its side of the bargain, but if the deal dies it won't be because of Iranian cheating. Opponents of the deal have shown that the one truly fatal flaw of the deal was that it contained no provision to make sure that the U.S. fulfills its obligations. Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged Iran , IAEA , Donald Trump , JCPOA , Sina Azodi , Ernest Moniz .

[Mar 25, 2018] Trump impulsive, ignorant incompetence can be just as dangerous as sinister purpose -- but it represents a different set of threats

Notable quotes:
"... The Right Man ..."
Mar 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

For the time being, Trump's lack of impulse control and self-discipline may frustrate his strongman tendencies at home, but that's cold comfort, given the damage he can do with U.S. military might. In "the most powerful office in the world," impulsive, ignorant incompetence can be just as dangerous as sinister purpose -- but it represents a different set of threats than the ones that most concern Frum.

"Trumpocracy has left Americans less safe against foreign dangers," Frum charges, by which he seems to mean mainly Russian cybermeddling. He spends an order of magnitude more time on that subject than on the foreign dangers Trump has gratuitously stoked with brinksmanship on North Korea.

In the near term, what's to be most feared is the president lumbering into a major conflict with either (or both?) of the two remaining "Axis of Evil" members. Uncertain plans for a North Korean summit aside, that risk may be increasing. As the New York Times 's Maggie Haberman recently explained , Trump "was terrified of the job the first six months, and now feels like he has a command of it" -- a terrifying thought in itself. Newly emboldened, the president wants unrepentant uber-hawks John Bolton and Mike Pompeo for national security advisor and secretary of state, respectively. "Let Trump be Trump" looks a lot like letting Trump be Bush-era Frum .

In fairness, Frum does seem queasy about all this, but he's awkwardly positioned to sound the alarm. The author who declared that it's "victory or holocaust" in the war on terror and lauded George W. Bush as The Right Man may not be the right man to guide us through the particular dangers of this moment in history.

We may yet avoid a disaster on the scale of the Iraq war, aided by what Frum terms "the surge in civic spirit that has moved Americans since the ominous night of November 8, 2016" -- or God's special affection for fools, drunks, and the United States of America. Perhaps, in hindsight, the Trump years will look more like a Great Beclowning than a Long National Nightmare. If so, we may look back on this period and say, as "43" apparently did of Trump's First Inaugural: "that was some weird shit " -- and give thanks that Trump wasn't as competent as Bush.

Gene Healy is a vice president of the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency .

[Mar 25, 2018] Hawks Always Fail Upwards by Daniel Larison

This is about American Imperialism and MIC. Neocons are just well-laid MIC lobbyists. Some like Bolton are pretty talented guys. Some like Max Boot are simply stupid.
Notable quotes:
"... What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL] ..."
"... So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again. ..."
"... National Review ..."
Mar 25, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The conclusion of Stephen Walt's column on John Bolton is exactly right:

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to "normalize" this appointment or suggest that it shouldn't concern you. Rather, I'm suggesting that if you are worried about Bolton, you should ask yourself the following question: What sort of political system allows someone with his views to serve in high office, where he helps talk the country into a disastrous war, never expresses a moment's regret for his errors, continues to advocate for more of the same for the next decade, and then gets a second chance to make the same mistakes again? [bold mine-DL]

So by all means worry. But the real problem isn't Bolton -- it's a system that permits people like him to screw up and move up again and again.

There is a strong bias in our foreign policy debates in favor of "action," no matter how stupid or destructive that action proves to be. That is one reason why reflexive supporters of an activist foreign policy will never have to face the consequences of the policies they support. Bolton has thrived as an advocate of hard-line policies precisely because he fills the assigned role of the fanatical warmonger, and there is always a demand for someone to fill that role. His fanaticism doesn't discredit him, because it is eminently useful to his somewhat less fanatical colleagues. That is how he can hang around long enough until there is a president ignorant enough to think that he is qualified to be a top adviser.

Bolton will also have reliable supporters in the conservative movement that will make excuses for the inexcusable. National Review recently published an article by David French in defense of Bolton whose conclusion was that we should "give a hawk a chance." Besides being evasive and dishonest about just how fanatical Bolton is, the article was an effort to pretend that Iraq war supporters should be given another chance to wreck U.S. foreign policy again. It may be true that Bolton's views are "in the mainstream of conservative foreign-policy thought," but that is an indictment of the so-called "mainstream" that is being represented. Bolton has been wrong about every major foreign policy issue of the last twenty years. If that doesn't disqualify you from holding a high-ranking government position, what does?

Hawks have been given a chance to run our foreign policy every day for decades on end, and they have failed numerous times at exorbitant cost. Generic hawks don't deserve a second chance after the last sixteen-plus years of failure and disaster, and fanatical hard-liners like Bolton never deserved a first chance.

French asserts that Bolton is "not extreme," but that raises the obvious question: compared to what?Bolton has publicly, repeatedly urged the U.S. government to launch illegal preventive wars against Iran and North Korea, and that just scratches the surface of his fanaticism. That strikes me as rather extreme, and that is why so many people are disturbed by the Bolton appointment. If he isn't "extreme" even by contemporary movement conservative standards, who is? How psychopathic would one need to be to be considered extreme in French's eyes? If movement conservatives can't see why Bolton is an unacceptable and outrageous choice for National Security Advisor, they are so far gone that there is nothing to be done for them and no point in listening to anything they have to say.

[Mar 23, 2018] Was Destructive 'Slingshot' Malware Deployed by the Pentagon

The rule No.1: do not buy cheap routers. Do not use routers which are supplied for free by your ISP. Buy only from proven companies with good security record. To use your own firewall (a small linux server is OK) is a must in the current circumstances
There is no special value in Kaspersky anti-virus software. all such products can be used as a backdoor in your computer (for example via update mechanism). Using complex and opaque software actually makes Windows less secure not more secure. Periodic (say, daily) reinstallation from trusted image is probably a better way, especially if Windows is really minimized and does not contain third party software that has it's own update mechanisms or such mechanism are blocked.
But attacks on routers is a new fashion and should be taken very seriously as most people pay no attention to this crucial part of their business or home network. In any case a separate firmware is needed after Internet router which now is not that expensive (a decent box can be bought for around $300. For those who know Unix/Linux see for example Firewall Micro Appliance or QOTOM (both can be used of pfSense or your custom Linux solution) For those who don't see, for example, Zyxel [USG40] ZyWALL (USG) UTM Firewall
Notable quotes:
"... Further findings suggest that Slingshot had common code with only two other known pieces of software, both malwares, which were attributed to the NSA and CIA, respectively, by analysts. Though various U.S. agencies are all denying comment, things are clearly pointing uncomfortably in their direction. ..."
"... Malware is not a precision munition, it hits wide targets and spreads out to bystanders. This is particularly disturbing to note if, as some reports are indicating, this malware was Pentagon in origin. ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Slingshot . The malware targeted Latvian-made Internet routers popular in the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia.

Kaspersky's reports reveal that the malware had been active since at least 2012, and speculates that it was government-made, owing to its sophistication and its use of novel techniques rarely seen elsewhere.

Those investigating the matter further have drawn the conclusion that Slingshot was developed by the U.S. government, with some reports quoting former officials as connecting it to the Pentagon's JSOC special forces. For those following the cyber security and malware sphere, this is a huge revelation, putting the U.S. government in the hot seat for deploying cyber attacks that harm a much greater range of innocent users beyond their intended targets.

Kaspersky's own findings note that the code was written in English, using a driver flaw to allow the implanting of various types of spyware. Among those mentioned by Moscow-based Kaspersky was an implant named "GOLLUM," which notably was mentioned in one of the leaked Edward Snowden documents .

Further findings suggest that Slingshot had common code with only two other known pieces of software, both malwares, which were attributed to the NSA and CIA, respectively, by analysts. Though various U.S. agencies are all denying comment, things are clearly pointing uncomfortably in their direction.

Cyberscoop , one of the first news outlets to break the story, reported a mixed reaction among officials. Some noted that Kaspersky Labs was simply doing what a security company is supposed to do. Others, however, were less agreeable, suggesting it was an intentional attempt by Kaspersky to undermine U.S. security.

The argument, as far as it goes, is that given the ostensible target areas -- the Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan -- Kaspersky should have concluded it was related to the War on Terror and sat on their findings. The Trump administration already views Kaspersky as a sort of hostile actor -- banning the use of Kaspersky products by any government or civilian federal contractor in December, citing Kremlin influence (a charge that has been vehemently denied by the company). This just gives them more justification for seeing Kaspersky as an adversary in the space.

Unfortunately for the Russian company, some American retailers have even followed suit, pulling the software from the shelves on the grounds that it's Russian, and that therefore suspect.

There has been no clear evidence that Kaspersky's software was serving as a backdoor for Russian intelligence, though it was reported last fall that sensitive documents were stolen from a National Security Agency (NSA) contractor's laptop via its Kaspersky-made antivirus software . In a statement at the time, the company said, "Kaspersky Lab has never helped, nor will help, any government in the world with its cyberespionage efforts." Turns out that Israeli spies, spying on the Russian spies, disclosed the intrusion to U.S. officials.

Kaspersky has consistently ranked near the top of antivirus ratings from virtually all third-party reviewers. The company has sold its products to nearly 400 million users worldwide, with 60 percent in the U.S. and Western Europe. Until now, Kaspersky was being used by several major agencies in the federal government, including the State Department and Department of Defense.

Ironically, this new Slingshot issue itself appears just to be a testament to how well the company's security works at digging up extremely dangerous malware. It also underscores the uneasy reality that the U.S. has been engaging in its own brand of cyber warfare all along.

Any claims that a specific piece of U.S. malware -- in this case, Slingshot -- was targeting only al-Qaeda or ISIS bad guys is disingenuous as well. The exploit on routers is hitting an entire region, infecting an untold number of innocent people . Internet cafés are said to have been hit in this, meaning everyone going into the cafes is at risk.

Malware is not a precision munition, it hits wide targets and spreads out to bystanders. This is particularly disturbing to note if, as some reports are indicating, this malware was Pentagon in origin.

U.S. civilian government surveillance is already doing great harm to general Internet security, and does so by remaining in denial about the balance of good to harm that is being done. The U.S. military, by contrast, has shown its willingness to inflict major harm on innocents in pursuit of any war goal. As they start hitting regions with malware, all bets are off on how far it will spread.

Security companies like Kaspersky Labs only afford the private user limited protection from all of this malware, because they're constantly playing catch-up, finding new variants and new exploits that the various pieces of software are using. Slingshot, for instance, went undetected for six solid years .

The discovery means fixes can finally be implemented for the routers and the computers. Novel exploits like this are rarely a one-time fix, however, as a slew of similar exploits from other sources tend to crop up after one gets taken out. It's a never-ending battle.

In August, President Trump made U.S. Cyber Command a formal military command , reflecting the growing view of the Internet as a military objective. Much as America's other battlefields result in collateral damage on the ground, the cyberwar is going to have a deleterious impact on day-to-day life in cyberspace. The big questions are how bad things will get, and how quickly.

Jason Ditz is news editor at Antiwar.com , a nonprofit organization dedicated to the cause of non-interventionism. In addition to TAC, his work has appeared in Forbes, Toronto Star, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Providence Journal, Daily Caller, Washington Times and Detroit Free Press.

[Mar 23, 2018] Will the Deep State Break Trump The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
Mar 23, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

Consider. To cut through the Russophobia rampant here, Trump decided to make a direct phone call to Vladimir Putin. And in that call, Trump, like Angela Merkel, congratulated Putin on his re-election victory.

Instantly, the briefing paper for the president's call was leaked to the Post . In bold letters it read "DO NOT CONGRATULATE."

Whereupon the Beltway went ballistic.

How could Trump congratulate Putin, whose election was a sham? Why did he not charge Putin with the Salisbury poisoning? Why did he not denounce Putin for interfering with "our democracy"?

Amazing. A disloyal White House staffer betrays his trust and leaks a confidential paper to sabotage the foreign policy of a duly elected president, and he is celebrated in this capital city.

If you wish to see the deep state at work, this is it: anti-Trump journalists using First Amendment immunities to collude with and cover up the identities of bureaucratic snakes out to damage or destroy a president they despise. No wonder democracy is a declining stock worldwide.

And, yes, they give out Pulitzers for criminal collusion like this.

The New York Times got a Pulitzer and the Post got a Hollywood movie starring Meryl Streep for publishing stolen secret papers from the Pentagon of JFK and LBJ -- to sabotage the Vietnam War policy of Richard Nixon.

Why? Because the hated Nixon was succeeding in extricating us with honor from a war that the presidents for whom the Times and Post hauled water could not win or end.

Not only have journalists given up any pretense of neutrality in this campaign to bring down the president, ex-national security officers of the highest rank are starting to sound like resisters.

Ex-CIA director John Brennan openly speculated Tuesday that the president may have been compromised by Moscow and become an asset of the Kremlin.

"I think he's afraid of the president of Russia," Brennan said of Trump and Putin. "The Russians, I think, have had long experience with Mr. Trump and may have things they could expose."

If Brennan has evidence Trump is compromised, he should relay it to Robert Mueller. If he does not, this is speculation of an especially ugly variety for someone once entrusted with America's highest secrets.

What's going on in this city is an American version of the "color revolutions" we have employed to knock over governments in places like Georgia and Ukraine.

The goal is to break Trump's presidency, remove him, discredit his election as contaminated by Kremlin collusion, upend the democratic verdict of 2016, and ash-can Trump's agenda of populist conservatism. Then America can return to the open borders, free trade, democracy-crusading Bushite globalism beloved by our Beltway elites.

Trump, in a way, is the indispensable man of the populist right.

In the 2016 primaries, no other Republican candidate shared his determination to secure the border, bring back manufacturing, or end the endless wars in the Middle East that have so bled and bankrupted our nation.

Whether the Assads rule in Damascus, the Chinese fortify Scarborough Shoal, or the Taliban return to Kabul, none are existential threats to the United States.

But if the borders of our country are not secured, as Reagan warned, in a generation, America will not even be a country.

Trump seems now to recognize that the special counsel's office of Robert Mueller, which this city sees as the instrument of its deliverance, is a mortal threat to his presidency.

Mueller's team wishes to do to Trump what Archibald Cox's team sought to do to Nixon: drive him out of office or set him up for the kill by a Democratic Congress in 2019.

Trump appears to recognize that the struggle with Mueller is now a political struggle -- to the death.

Hence Trump's hiring of Joe diGenova and the departure of John Dowd from his legal team. In the elegant phrase of Michael Corleone, diGenova is a wartime consigliere.

He believes Trump is the target of a conspiracy, under which Jim Comey's FBI put in the fix to prevent Hillary's prosecution and then fabricated a crime of collusion with Russia to take down the new president the American people had elected.

The Trump White House is behaving as if it were the prospective target of a coup d'etat. And it is not wrong for them to think so.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

[Mar 22, 2018] The Untold Story of John Bolton's Campaign for War With Iran by Gareth Porter

Another chickenhawk in Trump administration. Sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs. ..."
"... During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran. ..."
"... Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days. ..."
"... Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia. ..."
"... So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce. ..."
"... Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences. ..."
"... I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling". ..."
"... I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor. ..."
"... But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq. ..."
"... Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons ..."
"... Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry. ..."
"... Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to ..."
"... . He is also the author of ..."
"... Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter . ..."
Mar 22, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Everyone knows Bolton is a hawk. Less understood is how he labored in secret to drive Washington and Tehran apart. By Gareth Porter March 22, 2018

John Bolton (Gage Skidmore/Flikr) In my reporting on U.S.-Israeli policy, I have tracked numerous episodes in which the United States and/or Israel made moves that seemed to indicate preparations for war against Iran. Each time -- in 2007 , in 2008, and again in 2011 -- those moves, presented in corporate media as presaging attacks on Tehran, were actually bluffs aimed at putting pressure on the Iranian government.

But the strong likelihood that Donald Trump will now choose John Bolton as his next national security advisor creates a prospect of war with Iran that is very real. Bolton is no ordinary neoconservative hawk. He has been obsessed for many years with going to war against the Islamic Republic, calling repeatedly for bombing Iran in his regular appearances on Fox News, without the slightest indication that he understands the consequences of such a policy.

His is not merely a rhetorical stance: Bolton actively conspired during his tenure as the Bush administration's policymaker on Iran from 2002 through 2004 to establish the political conditions necessary for the administration to carry out military action.

More than anyone else inside or outside the Trump administration, Bolton has already influenced Trump to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. Bolton parlayed his connection with the primary financier behind both Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump himself -- the militantly Zionist casino magnate Sheldon Adelson -- to get Trump's ear last October, just as the president was preparing to announce his policy on the Iran nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He spoke with Trump by phone from Las Vegas after meeting with Adelson .

It was Bolton who persuaded Trump to commit to specific language pledging to pull out of the JCPOA if Congress and America's European allies did not go along with demands for major changes that were clearly calculated to ensure the deal would fall apart.

Although Bolton was passed over for the job of secretary of state, he now appears to have had the inside track for national security advisor. Trump met with Bolton on March 6 and told him, "We need you here, John," according to a Bolton associate. Bolton said he would only take secretary of state or national security advisor, whereupon Trump promised, "I'll call you really soon." Trump then replaced Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with former CIA director Mike Pompeo, after which White House sources leaked to the media Trump's intention to replace H.R. McMaster within a matter of weeks.

The only other possible candidate for the position mentioned in media accounts is Keith Kellogg, a retired lieutenant general who was acting national security advisor after General Michael Flynn was ousted in February 2017.

Bolton's high-profile advocacy of war with Iran is well known. What is not at all well known is that, when he was under secretary of state for arms control and international security, he executed a complex and devious strategy aimed at creating the justification for a U.S. attack on Iran. Bolton sought to convict the Islamic Republic in the court of international public opinion of having a covert nuclear weapons program using a combination of diplomatic pressure, crude propaganda, and fabricated evidence.

Despite the fact that Bolton was technically under the supervision of Secretary of State Colin Powell, his actual boss in devising and carrying out that strategy was Vice President Dick Cheney. Bolton was also the administration's main point of contact with the Israeli government, and with Cheney's backing, he was able to flout normal State Department rules by taking a series of trips to Israel in 2003 and 2004 without having the required clearance from the State Department's Bureau for Near Eastern Affairs.

Thus, at the very moment that Powell was saying administration policy was not to attack Iran, Bolton was working with the Israelis to lay the groundwork for just such a war. During a February 2003 visit, Bolton assured Israeli officials in private meetings that he had no doubt the United States would attack Iraq, and that after taking down Saddam, it would deal with Iran, too, as well as Syria.

During multiple trips to Israel, Bolton had unannounced meetings, including with the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, without the usual reporting cable to the secretary of state and other relevant offices. Judging from that report on an early Bolton visit, those meetings clearly dealt with a joint strategy on how to bring about political conditions for an eventual U.S. strike against Iran.

Mossad played a very aggressive role in influencing world opinion on the Iranian nuclear program. In the summer of 2003, according to journalists Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins in their book The Nuclear Jihadist , Meir Dagan created a new Mossad office tasked with briefing the world's press on alleged Iranian efforts to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. The new unit's responsibilities included circulating documents from inside Iran as well from outside, according to Frantz and Collins.

Bolton's role in a joint U.S.-Israeli strategy, as he outlines in his own 2007 memoir , was to ensure that the Iran nuclear issue would be moved out of the International Atomic Energy Agency and into the United Nations Security Council. He was determined to prevent IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei from reaching an agreement with Iran that would make it more difficult for the Bush administration to demonize Tehran as posing a nuclear weapons threat. Bolton began accusing Iran of having a covert nuclear weapons program in mid-2003, but encountered resistance not only from ElBaradei and non-aligned states, but from Britain, France, and Germany as well.

Bolton's strategy was based on the claim that Iran was hiding its military nuclear program from the IAEA, and in early 2004, he came up with a dramatic propaganda ploy: he sent a set of satellite images to the IAEA showing sites at the Iranian military reservation at Parchin that he claimed were being used for tests to simulate nuclear weapons. Bolton demanded that the IAEA request access to inspect those sites and leaked his demand to the Associated Press in September 2004. In fact, the satellite images showed nothing more than bunkers and buildings for conventional explosives testing.

Bolton was apparently hoping the Iranian military would not agree to any IAEA inspections based on such bogus claims, thus playing into his propaganda theme of Iran's "intransigence" in refusing to answer questions about its nuclear program. But in 2005 Iran allowed the inspectors into those sites and even let them choose several more sites to inspect. The inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear-related activities.

The U.S.-Israeli strategy would later hit the jackpot, however, when a large cache of documents supposedly from a covert source within Iran's nuclear weapons program surfaced in autumn 2004. The documents, allegedly found on the laptop computer of one of the participants, included technical drawings of a series of efforts to redesign Iran's Shahab-3 missile to carry what appeared to be a nuclear weapon.

But the whole story of the so-called "laptop documents" was a fabrication. In 2013, a former senior German official revealed the true story to this writer: the documents had been given to German intelligence by the Mujahedin E Khalq, the anti-Iran armed group that was well known to have been used by Mossad to "launder" information the Israelis did not want attributed to themselves. Furthermore, the drawings showing the redesign that were cited as proof of a nuclear weapons program were clearly done by someone who didn't know that Iran had already abandoned the Shahab-3's nose cone for an entirely different design.

Mossad had clearly been working on those documents in 2003 and 2004 when Bolton was meeting with Meir Dagan. Whether Bolton knew the Israelis were preparing fake documents or not, it was the Israeli contribution towards establishing the political basis for an American attack on Iran for which he was the point man. Bolton reveals in his memoirs that this Cheney-directed strategy took its cues from the Israelis, who told Bolton that the Iranians were getting close to "the point of no return." That was point, Bolton wrote, at which "we could not stop their progress without using force."

Cheney and Bolton based their war strategy on the premise that the U.S. military would be able to consolidate control over Iraq quickly. Instead the U.S. occupation bogged down and never fully recovered. Cheney proposed taking advantage of a high-casualty event in Iraq that could be blamed on Iran to attack an IRGC base in Iran in the summer of 2007. But the risk that pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq would retaliate against U.S. troops was a key argument against the proposal.

The Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also well aware that Iran had the capability to retaliate directly against U.S. forces in the region, including against warships in the Strait of Hormuz. They had no patience for Cheney's wild ideas about more war.

That Pentagon caution remains unchanged. But two minds in the White House unhinged from reality could challenge that wariness -- and push the United States closer towards a dangerous war with Iran.



Stephen J. March 21, 2018 at 10:37 pm

I believe "War With Iran" is on the agenda. I wrote the article below some time ago. "Will There Be War With Iran"? Is it now Iran's turn to be subjected to the planned and hellish wars that have already engulfed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan and other countries? Will, the gates of hell be further opened to include an attack on Iran?

[read more at link below]

http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-there-be-war-with-iran.html

See also: Will the War Agenda of the War Criminals Result in Nuclear War? http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-war-agenda-of-war-criminals-result.html

Clyde Schechter , , says: March 21, 2018 at 11:37 pm
Unfortunately, John Bolton is not just your typical neocon pathological liar and warmonger. Even by their abysmal standards he's pretty unhinged. He is one of the most dangerous people around these days.
Procivic , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:35 am
The re-emergence of Bolton is the result of Trump's electoral victory, a phenomenon that resembles the upheavals that followed when an unhinged hereditary ruler would take the reins of power in bygone empires.
Duglarri , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:16 am
There's a big difference between the wars with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia, and a war with Iran. The difference is, this is a war the United States could lose. And lose very, very badly. As Pompeo remarked, it would take "only" 2000 airstrikes to eliminate the Iranian nuclear facilities. But what will it take to land 20,000 marines on the northern coast of the Persian Gulf to secure the straits, and there fend off 1.7 million Iranian regulars and militia on the ground? How will the navy cope with hundreds and hundreds of supersonic cruise missiles fired in volleys? What about the S-300 missiles that are by now fully operational in Iran?

A look at the map shows that this is a war that the US simply cannot win.

Unless it uses nuclear weapons and simply sets out to kill every last man, woman, and child in Iran, all 80 million of them.

Which I suppose is not out of the question. As all options are sure to be on the table.

Minnesota Mary , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:54 am
"Everyone worshipped the dragon because he had given his authority to the beast. They worshipped the beast also, saying, 'Who is like the beast? Who can fight against it?'" Revelation 13:4

Who can fight against the U.S/NATO? Bolton, Gen. Jack Keane, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the whole warmongering crowd that frequent the air waves at FOX will not rest until they have us at war with Iran and Russia.

wrap , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:43 am
So Trump is thinking of hiring a loudmouthed incompetent who is a known conduit for botched Israeli spy service forgeries used to gin up war with Iran. What a sick farce.
Hanson , , says: March 22, 2018 at 4:58 am
The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start.
Julien , , says: March 22, 2018 at 5:54 am
Bolton is a cancer for the US. As a warmonger, he thrives in hostile environnements so no wonder Bolton wants to create them with no regards for consequences.
EliteCommInc. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 9:03 am
Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required. But I don't need background to know that advocating for wars that serve little in the way of US interests because we simply are not in any "clear and present danger".

Odd that so many "old schoolers" have abandoned some general cliche's that serve as sound guide.

the freakshow (cont'd) , , says: March 22, 2018 at 9:41 am
Just when you think you've heard the last of the various catastrophes, blunders, and odd capering about involving Bolton, you hear that voice from the old late night gadget commercials barking "wait, there's more !!"

I doubt anyone will be surprised to learn that Bolton was duped by Israeli forgers (very droll story, by the way). You'd think that no serious person would consider giving him a National Security Council post, particularly given the current level of concern about "foreign meddling".

rta , , says: March 22, 2018 at 10:25 am
I wonder if people will finally realize that Trump was only draining the swamp so he could replace it with a cesspool.
Chris Mallory , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:16 am
"The Boltons, Frums, and Boots of the world never have to fight the wars they start."

Hey now, Bolton's service in the Maryland National Guard made sure the North Vietnamese never landed in Baltimore. Can you imagine the horror if the Russians had captured our supply of soft shell crab?

Esther Haman , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:27 am
John Bolton a 75 year old loser, a has Never-been, which is the mouth piece of the Zionists who keep him on the pay roll. He likes to hear his own voice and to feel important because he wants war with Iran or all the Middle East. He's actions and speeches are all emotional and lack logic and reasoning. So, what is he good for?!
Egypt Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 11:29 am
Re: "Well, we need the John Bolton's of this world for times in which a uncompromising use of force is required."

Not sure about that. We definitely need Roosevelts and Lincolns, Grants and Shermans and Eisenhowers and Pattons. I'm not clear on what function the likes of Bolton serve.

Kent , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:16 pm
This article fails to address the why. Why does Bolton want war with Iran?
Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:38 pm
I do not agree that Iran could prevent a conventional bombing/invasion of their country. But they could make it sooo expensive, the dollar ceases to be the world reserve currency, and if they do that, they will have done mankind a favor.

But after the conquest, imagine the guerrilla war! The US basically had to fight an insurgency from amongst 5 million Sunni Arabs in Iraq. Iran is much more ethnically homogeneous. So even if you get some minorities to turncoat and work for the occupiers, you are still left with about 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites. That is a 12 times larger insurgency than what you had in Iraq.

And if the Iranians had any sense RIGHT NOW, they would make sure every family had a stock of 10 powerful anti-vehicle mines, REALLY powerful mines. Make sure all are safely buried with locations memorized. And make sure everyone had the training to use them, even older children (who will be the front-line guerrillas in 5 years).

So if that devil Bolton gets his way, his own country will pay a price too, and deservedly too. I want my country to be peaceful and friendly to the world like the Germans are now. But it may take the same type of "WWII treatment" to get my hateful war-loving countrymen to walk away from their sin.

Steve , , says: March 22, 2018 at 12:47 pm
The guerrilla war in Iraq was fought against only 5 million Sunni Arabs, the US occupiers having successfully pealed away the Kurds and Shia to be collaborators, or at least stay uninvolved with the insurgency.

But Iran is not just bigger than Iraq, but much more ethnically and religiously homogeneous. Imagine what kind of insurgency you might get from 60 million ethnically Persian Shiites?

My advice to the Iranians RIGHT NOW is to mass-produce the most lethal anti-vehicle mines possible and distribute them to the entire civilian population. Train everyone how to use them, then once trained, bury maybe 20 mines per family, all in known but hidden locations.

THAT will stop the Bolton/Zionist plan dead in its tracks.

b. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 1:46 pm
"Why does Bolton want war with Iran?"

Maybe it was a career-enhancing move. It is a legitimate question, along with "follow the money"? Regardless of why sociopaths like Keith Payne or John Bolton become obsessed with "winning nuclear war" or "bombing Iran" . How do they make a living? Who would bankroll somebody – over many decades – to not just consider or plan, but actively provoke illegal acts of aggressive war, against declared policy of the government and the demands of the Constitution they have sworn an oath to uphold?

It is also educational to see that the fabrications and other "war-program related activities" in regards to Iran resemble the same stovepipelines that provide the Iraq 2003 pretexts – with Powell reprising his role as useful idiot – which clashes badly with the "blunder" narrative that anybody in the US government actually believed Iraq had WMD – was beyond "the point of no return".

This also bodes ill for a Bolton-formulated policy on Korea, and any "National Security Advice" he would see fit to fabricate and feed to the Bomber In Chief.

Furthermore, we learn just how unhinged Cheney et.al. really were – expecting Iraq to be a mere stepping stone along their adventures on the "Axis of Evil" trail. If these are our gamblers, nobody would suspect them of counting cards.

b. , , says: March 22, 2018 at 2:04 pm
Bolton and Cheney must have been livid about Stuxnet, for all the wrong reasons
PAX , , says: March 22, 2018 at 2:49 pm
We must look into our very national soul and ask why are we entertaining a war with Iran? The answer is clear. It is to further the goals of a fanatical, right-wing, group of Zionists. When a truthful history is written about this era of endless wars, the errant and disgraceful behavior of this group will be clearly identified and they will not have anywhere to hide. You may fool some of the folks, some of the time, but not all the folks, all of the time.
Buzz Man , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:21 pm
Hiring a ghoul like Bolton will mark a new low even for the Trump administration. And that's saying something. These chickenhawk bastards should all be required to fight on the front lines of the wars they push. That was true, I'll guarantee you Bolton would shut up in a hurry.
marvin , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:32 pm
John "FIVE DEFERMENTS" Bolton is a filthy yellow bellied coward. Drag her/him to Afghanistan amd make IT serve in the Front Lines for the duration.
Tulsa Ron , , says: March 22, 2018 at 3:43 pm
Israel and the Zionists are exactly the "foreign entanglements" that George Washington warned us about. Bolton is a neocon-Zionist who wants the United States blood and taxes to ensure Israel's dominance of the Middle East.
Jeeves , , says: March 22, 2018 at 5:14 pm
So Gareth Porter cites his own Truthout article as authority for the assertion that the "laptop documents" are fabrications. Most of the cited article seems to be devoted to "Curveball", the impeached source of Iraqi intelligence, in order to prop up the bona fides of the German who claims the Iranian intelligence is a forgery. Any other sourcing for this allegation available?

Judging from a quick look at what else Truthout has on offer, I'm not sure about the credibility of Mr. Porter.

pirouz moghaddam , , says: March 22, 2018 at 7:41 pm
Thank you Mr. Porter for your insightful and intelligent articles, being that I am from Iran Originally brings tears to my eyes to even imagine such tragedy, I pray this will never happen. Having lived in America more than half of my life and having children that are Americans makes these thoughts even more horrifying . I am however thankful to read all the comments from so many intelligent , decent and true Americans and that gives me hope that such disaster will not take place. The people of Iran are decent and kind and cultured , I am hopeful that they will find their way and bring about a true democracy soon and again become a positive force to the humanity.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to TAC . He is also the author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter .

[Mar 21, 2018] It's strange that British police did not find balalaika on the scene. Replay of Iraq WDM hoax on a new level

First of all British did have the poison they detected. Otherwise they would be unable to detect "Novichok" (if there was such substance and this is not just a myth).
Notable quotes:
"... Pat asks, Cui bono? I would say rogue players in the deep state right here in the US along with their brethren in the military/industrial/intelligence complex. ..."
"... Of course, that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I actually saw war as a young man based upon lies. By the way, in the lead-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I told people at work that this war would eventually rival the military blunder in Vietnam. The propaganda reminded me so much of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all laughed at me and essentially said I was an old Vietnam veteran living in the past. They aren't laughing now. ..."
Mar 21, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

g e hoeflinger March 20, 2018 at 6:40 pm

"We went to war in Iraq in 2003 to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction we later discovered Saddam Hussein did not really have."

Which was known at the time, but was trumped up to give GWB and excuse foir a fast war at election time.

George Hoffman , , March 21, 2018 at 8:27 am
I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam and ever since then I have been a card-carrying skeptic of my own country. But I saw the human face of a war based upon lies and propaganda that became the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history. If we would get into a shooting war over this affair, we would have to bring back the draft to prosecute this war against Russia. Then the proverbial "merde" would definitely hit the fan.

And when Kim Sung Un assassinated his half-brother in Malaysia, the VX nerve agent was used. The UK invented this agent in the 1950s at its government laboratory. But not one nation blamed Great Britain as the culprit.

Pat asks, Cui bono? I would say rogue players in the deep state right here in the US along with their brethren in the military/industrial/intelligence complex.

Of course, that makes me a conspiracy theorist. But I actually saw war as a young man based upon lies. By the way, in the lead-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, I told people at work that this war would eventually rival the military blunder in Vietnam. The propaganda reminded me so much of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. They all laughed at me and essentially said I was an old Vietnam veteran living in the past. They aren't laughing now.

[Mar 20, 2018] American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism.

Notable quotes:
"... It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
Mar 20, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Banger , March 19, 2018 at 9:09 am

American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."

At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the United States in international affairs. When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b) a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human. Few readers, even of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in even being in the neighborhood of following international law.

[Mar 19, 2018] Gina Haspel As If Nuremberg Never Happened

Notable quotes:
"... I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation. Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. ..."
"... Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of Power. ..."
"... American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government. ..."
"... If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!" ..."
"... I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them. ..."
"... She was put in charge there not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect. ..."
"... furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states " For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition? ..."
"... Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be considered in the contexts of these words. ..."
Mar 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Nothing will say more about who we are, across three American administrations -- one that demanded torture, one that covered it up, and one that seeks to promote its bloody participants -- than whether Gina Haspel becomes director of the CIA.

Haspel oversaw the torture of human beings in Thailand as the chief of a CIA black site in 2002. Since then, she's worked her way up to deputy director at the CIA. With current director Mike Pompeo slated to move to Foggy Bottom, President Donald Trump has proposed Haspel as the Agency's new head.

Haspel's victims waiting for death in Guantanamo cannot speak to us, though they no doubt remember their own screams as they were waterboarded. And we can still hear former CIA officer John Kiriakou say : "We did call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information."

It was Kiriakou who exposed the obsessive debate over the effectiveness of torture as false. The real purpose of torture conducted by those like Gina Haspel was to seek vengeance, humiliation, and power. We're just slapping you now, she would have said in that Thai prison, but we control you, and who knows what will happen next, what we're capable of? The torture victim is left to imagine what form the hurt will take and just how severe it will be, creating his own terror.

Haspel won't be asked at her confirmation hearing to explain how torture works, but those who were waterboarded under her stewardship certainly could.

I met my first torture victim in Korea, where I was adjudicating visas for the State Department. Persons with serious criminal records are ineligible to travel to the United States, with an exception for dissidents who have committed political crimes. The man I spoke with said that under the U.S.-supported military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee he was tortured for writing anti-government verse. He was taken to a small underground cell. Two men arrived and beat him repeatedly on his testicles and sodomized him with one of the tools they had used for the beating. They asked no questions. They barely spoke to him at all.

Though the pain was beyond his ability to describe, he said the subsequent humiliation of being left so utterly helpless was what really affected his life. It destroyed his marriage, sent him to the repeated empty comfort of alcohol, and kept him from ever putting pen to paper again. The men who destroyed him, he told me, did their work, and then departed, as if they had others to visit and needed to get on with things. He was released a few days later and driven back to his apartment by the police. A forward-looking gesture.

The second torture victim I met was while I was stationed in Iraq. The prison that had held him was under the control of shadowy U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. Inside, masked men bound him at the wrists and ankles and hung him upside-down. He said they neither asked him questions nor demanded information. They did whip his testicles with a leather strap, then beat the bottoms of his feet and the area around his kidneys. They slapped him. They broke the bones in his right foot with a steel rod, a piece of rebar ordinarily used to reinforce concrete.

It was painful, he told me, but he had felt pain before. What destroyed him was the feeling of utter helplessness, the inability to control things around him as he once had. He showed me the caved-in portion of his foot, which still bore a rod-like indentation with faint signs of metal grooves.

Gina Haspel is the same as those who were in the room with the Korean. She is no different than those who tormented the Iraqi.

As head of a black site, Haspel had sole authority to halt the questioning of suspects, but she allowed torture to continue. New information and a redaction of earlier reporting that said Haspel was present for the waterboarding and torture of Abu Zubaydah (she was actually the station chief at the black site after those sessions) makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture of all of the prisoners there, but pay it little mind. The confusion arises from the government's refusal to tell us what Haspel actually did as a torturer. So many records have yet to be released and those that have been are heavily redacted. Then there are the tapes of Zubaydah's waterboarding, which Haspel later pushed to have destroyed.

Arguing over just how much blood she has in her hands is a distraction from the fact that she indeed has blood on her hands.

Gina Haspel is now eligible for the CIA directorship because Barack Obama did not prosecute anyone for torture; he merely signed an executive order banning it in the future. He did not hold any truth commissions, and ensured that almost all government documents on the torture program remained classified. He did not prosecute the CIA officials who destroyed videotapes of the torture scenes.

Obama ignored the truth that sees former Nazis continue to be hunted some 70 years after the Holocaust: that those who do evil on behalf of a government are individually responsible. "I was only following orders" is not a defense of inhuman acts. The purpose of tracking down the guilty is to punish them, to discourage the next person from doing evil, and to morally immunize a nation-state.

To punish Gina Haspel "more than 15 years later for doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told were lawful orders, would be a travesty and a disgrace," claims one of her supporters. "Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well," said Michael Hayden, who headed the CIA during the height of the Iraq war from 2006-2009.

Influential people in Congress agree. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which will soon review Haspel's nomination, said , "I know Gina personally and she has the right skill set, experience, and judgment to lead one of our nation's most critical agencies."

"She'll have to answer for that period of time, but I think she's a highly qualified person," offered Senator Lindsey Graham. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson defended Haspel's actions, saying they were "the accepted practice of the day" and shouldn't disqualify her.

His fellow Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, signaled her likely acceptance, saying , "Since my concerns were raised over the torture situation, I have met with her extensively, talked with her She has been, I believe, a good deputy director." Senator Susan Collins added that Haspel "certainly has the expertise and experience as a 30-year employee of the agency." John McCain, a victim of torture during the Vietnam War, mumbled only that Haspel would have to explain her role.

Nearly alone at present, Republican Senator Rand Paul says he will oppose Haspel's nomination. Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats, have told Trump she is unsuitable and will likely also vote no.

Following World War II, the United States could have easily executed those Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, or thrown them into some forever jail on an island military base. It would have been hard to find anyone who wouldn't have supported brutally torturing them at a black site. Instead, they were put on public trial at Nuremberg and made to defend their actions as the evidence against them was laid bare. The point was to demonstrate that We were better than Them.

Today we refuse to understand what Haspel's victims, and the Korean writer, and the Iraqi insurgent, already know on our behalf: unless Congress awakens to confront this nightmare and deny Gina Haspel's nomination as director of the CIA, torture will have transformed us and so it will consume us. Gina Haspel is a torturer. We are torturers. It is as if Nuremberg never happened.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets @WeMeantWell.


Douglas K. March 19, 2018 at 3:19 am

Covering up torture is quite possibly the worst thing Obama did. (I'd put it neck-and-neck with targeted killing.) This nation desperately needs a president who will expose all of these horrors, and appoint an attorney general who will prosecute these acts as war crimes.
I Don't Matter , says: March 19, 2018 at 4:49 am
Trump likes waterboarding. He said so himself. One assumes he meant, being a whimpering coward himself, when someone else does it to someone else. But who knows? Enjoy judge Gorsuch.
Mark Thomason , says: March 19, 2018 at 4:49 am
"doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told were lawful orders"

To complete the parallel, we would need to prosecute and punish those who asked her to do it, and those who told her those orders were lawful. Instead, some are doing paintings of their toes, some are promoted to be Federal judges, and some are influential professors at "liberal" law schools. Why punish *only* her?

Peter Hopkins , says: March 19, 2018 at 6:52 am
Those who forget the past are destined to repeat it.
Ian , says: March 19, 2018 at 7:10 am
As we've proved, we're not better than them. Any of them.
Bagby , says: March 19, 2018 at 8:00 am
I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation. Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. I am in full support of Mr. Van Buren's thesis. However, Pro Publica, which seems to have been the source of much reporting of Haspel's torture record, has retracted the claim that Haspel had tortured in Thailand. Mr. Van Buren quotes another source from his blog that supports the thesis that Haspel is a torturer. How does one know what to believe? Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of Power.
Centralist , says: March 19, 2018 at 8:19 am
Its because we lost our sense of what makes us who we are. We are an empire that dances for private interests. In Rome they were called families and led by patricians, they had money private guards, gladiators, and even street people supporting them. In the Modern USA they are called Interest Groups and/or Corporations. They are lead by CEOs and instead of gladiators they have Lawyers. Our being better matters less then their own squabbles which is why a torturer could reach the highest seat in intel. The majority of Americans have lost their sense of being Americans instead they are Republicans, Democrats, etc, etc. Things that once use to be part of an American have come to define us.
Banger , says: March 19, 2018 at 9:09 am
American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."

At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the United States in international affairs. When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b) a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human. Few readers, even of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in even being in the neighborhood of following international law.

Peter Van Buren , says: March 19, 2018 at 9:31 am
CIA has purposefully refused to disclose Haspel's role for a decade+ They have selectively released information last week to discredit those criticizing her. I don't think we should play their game, letting them set the agenda. Instead, I declaim torture itself and any role she played in it, whether she poured the water or kept the books.
Kurt Gayle , says: March 19, 2018 at 9:34 am
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?

In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie (Martine McCutcheon):

"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? –
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do – the SAS are absolutely charming – ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."

It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that – in reality – the security services have the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.

Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.

Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against Trump:

"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America will triumph over you."

Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this:

"Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."

When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.

After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.

Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?

Peter Van Buren , says: March 19, 2018 at 9:35 am
New information makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture of all of the prisoners at her black site, but pay it little mind. The confusion is because the government refuses to tell us what Haspel actually did as a torturer. Arguing over just how much blood she has on her hands is a distraction when she indeed has blood on her hands.

The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient to disqualify her from heading the Agency. If the Agency wishes to clarify her role, as was done via trial for the various Nazis at Nuremberg, we can deal with her actions more granularly.

Wilfred , says: March 19, 2018 at 10:25 am
Since we have not had any more successful attacks on the scale of 9-11, it is very easy to be scrupulous regarding rough treatment of terrorists.

But if we had suffered a dozen or more such attacks, of increasing magnitude and maybe involving nuclear weapons, how many of you would still be condemning Mrs Haspel et al.? Or would you then be complaining they had not used water-boarding enough?

The 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, was caught weeks before 9-11. Investigators figured out he was up to no good, tried to get permission to search his computer, but were denied. The U.S. Government carefully protected his privacy rights. So are you pleased with the outcome, Mr van Buren?

furbo , says: March 19, 2018 at 10:45 am
I'm sorry – this whole piece is a massive non sequitur. Ms. Haspel has no 'blood' on her hands as US extreme interrogation techniques (sleep deprivation, uncomfortable positions, waterboarding) didn't draw any. They are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones. US techniques might have been bad policy – won't argue – but lets not fall for a false equivalency.

Ms. Haspel was an agent of her government, acting on it's orders under it's policies and guidelines. Which leads to

Nuremberg. The Nuremberg tribunals (they were military tribunals – not trials) were conducted by a victorious military force against a defeated military force. They were widely criticized as vengeance even by such august people as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Stone and associate Justice Douglas. There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government.

And lastly there's this from a comment of the authors: "The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient to disqualify her from heading the Agency." Utter nonsense. That was the mission of the Agency at that time. It's like saying a 33yr old Drone Pilot who takes out an ISIS/Al Qaida operative as well as 15 civilians is disqualified to be the Sec Def 2 decades later.

Just stop.

Sid Finster , says: March 19, 2018 at 10:59 am

If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!"

We demonize Russia at every opportunity, but I don't see Russia rewarding torturers by appointing them to high office.

Sally Stewart , says: March 19, 2018 at 11:11 am
Douglas K. What are you talking about? Covered up? You mean Bush http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/175/end-the-use-of-torture/
Stephen J. , says: March 19, 2018 at 11:12 am
A lot of info below on the War criminals at large.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –
May 26, 2015 Do We Need Present Day Nuremberg Trials? http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2015/05/do-we-need-present-day-nuremberg-trials.html

And

March 9, 2018 Are We Seeing Government By Gangsters? http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2018/03/are-we-seeing-government-by-gangsters.html

connecticut farmer , says: March 19, 2018 at 11:49 am
I didn't know too much about this woman's background until I read that Rand Paul opposes her nomination. I tend to take notice whenever Rand Paul holds forth on any subject. All I can say is that if her actual record even approximates what has been alleged, then this woman is unfit for the post–Nuremberg or no Nuremberg.
Winston , says: March 19, 2018 at 11:54 am
"As we've proved, we're not better than them. Any of them." Oh, -PLEASE-, spare us the hyperbole! WE burn alive captives held in cages? WE saw off their heads?

Thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs.

Lex Talionis , says: March 19, 2018 at 12:00 pm
All of the torturers should be brought to justice. So should all of the officials who ordered or authorized torture.

There is no statute of limitations on capital Federal crimes. For a U.S. citizen to kill via torture is a capital Federal crime, no matter where the torture took place. If statutes of limitations make it too late to prosecute some acts of torture, it is not too late to bring about some measure of justice by making torturers pariahs. As many sexual harassers have recently learned, there is no statute of limitations in the court of public opinion.

bob sykes , says: March 19, 2018 at 12:16 pm
The story linking her to torture has been formally retracted. She had nothing to do with torture anywhere. How about a retraction of this story and an apology.
Youknowho , says: March 19, 2018 at 12:30 pm
I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them.

Personally, I prefer that the cruelty should be, as Lincoln once put it, "unalloyed by the base metal of hypocrisy"

Tyrone Slothrop , says: March 19, 2018 at 1:07 pm
bob sykes: you should read Pro Publica's retraction ( https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture ) of the claim that Haspel was in charge of the Thai black site when Abu Zubaydeh was tortured. She was put in charge there not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect.

Winston: why do you suppose "thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs"? Is it not to prepare them for the possibility of what we call torture when used by our adversaries?

furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states " For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition?

Near Rockaway , says: March 19, 2018 at 1:31 pm
"Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence?"

Evil stuff. And we're still paying for it. Keeping Haspel out of the Director's chair is a basic step toward avoiding more such needless, stupid evil.

Chris Mallory , says: March 19, 2018 at 1:47 pm
Wilfred, the problem was not that the Feds protected Zacarias Moussaoui's right to privacy. The problem is that it let any of the 20 Arab Muslims into the US in the first place. Closing our borders and mass deportations would have been the best thing to do in the aftermath of 9/11, not torture and invasions.
b. , says: March 19, 2018 at 1:58 pm
Very well put. Lest we forget: Bush also delivered the stern warning that "war crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished, and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'."

Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be considered in the contexts of these words.

Wilfred , says: March 19, 2018 at 4:28 pm
Chris Mallory (Mar 19 @1:47 p.m.), I agree with you. We shouldn't be letting them in.

But if someone had sneaked-a-peek at Moussaoui's laptop during the 3 weeks they had him before 9-11, we might have been able to thwart the attack altogether. (And the Press has been strangely incurious about investigating whoever it was who issued the injunction protecting Moussie's precious computer). This type of hand-wringing cost us 3,000 lives. Even more, considering the Afghan & 2nd Iraq wars would never have been launched, were it not for 9-11.

[Mar 18, 2018] Pompeo's All-or-Nothing View of Diplomacy by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Uri Friedman reviews Mike Pompeo's hard-line foreign policy views. Here he quotes Pompeo's criticism of the negotiations leading up to the nuclear deal with Iran:

The Obama administration failed to take "advantage of crushing economic sanctions to end Iran's nuclear program," he declared when the deal was struck. "That's not foreign policy; it's surrender."

Pompeo's statement is ridiculous, but it does provide us with a useful window into how he understands foreign policy issues. Like many other Iran hawks, he opposes the nuclear deal because it "failed" to bring an end to Iran's nuclear program. He dubs Iran's major concessions on the nuclear issue as "surrender" by the U.S. because they were not forced to give up absolutely everything. That reflects the absurd all-or-nothing view of diplomacy that prevails among hard-line critics of the JCPOA.

Iran yielded a great deal, but they were never going to give up their entire nuclear program. That is not just because Iran is permitted to have such a program under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but also because Iran had already invested so many resources at significant cost that retaining some part of it was a matter of national pride. If the Obama administration had insisted on the elimination of Iran's nuclear program, the negotiations would have failed and the restrictions on that problem that are now in place would not exist. There would have been no nuclear deal if the U.S. had insisted on maximalist demands. What Pompeo calls surrender is what sane people call compromise. Putting someone so inflexible and allergic to compromise in charge of the State Department is the act of a president who has nothing but disdain for diplomacy, and Pompeo's all-or-nothing view of the nuclear deal bodes ill for talks with North Korea.

Procivic March 18, 2018 at 3:10 pm

Zero sum games are for the infantile and the Trump administration is infested with them.

[Mar 18, 2018] Mattis' Weak Case for Supporting the War on Yemen by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... "Mattis' Weak Case for Supporting the War on Yemen" ..."
Mar 18, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Secretary of Defense has written to Congressional leaders to express his opposition to S.J.Res. 54, the resolution that would end U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen:

In a letter sent to congressional leaders Wednesday and obtained by The Washington Post, Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis."

He urged Congress not to impose restrictions on the "noncombat," "limited U.S. military support" being provided to Saudi Arabia, which is "engaging in operations in its legitimate exercise of self-defense."

The Pentagon has been putting forward very weak legal arguments against S.J.Res. 54, and Mattis' statement of the policy arguments against the resolution are not any better. The Saudi-led coalition would have great difficulty continuing their war without U.S. military assistance. U.S. refueling allows coalition planes to carry out more attacks than they otherwise could, so it is extremely unlikely that ending it could possibly result in more civilian casualties than the bombing campaign causes now. Mattis is taking for granted that U.S. military assistance somehow makes coalition bombing more accurate and less likely to result in civilian casualties, but that is hard to credit when coalition forces routinely target civilian structures on purpose and when the military admits that it doesn't keep track of what happens after it refuels coalition planes.

Secretary Mattis says that cutting off support could jeopardize cooperation on counter-terrorism, but the flip side of this is that continuing to enable the Saudi-led war creates the conditions for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the local ISIS affiliate to flourish. The coalition's war has made AQAP stronger than it was before, and AQAP members have sometimes even fought alongside coalition forces on the ground. Instead of worrying about whether the U.S. is jeopardizing cooperation with these states, we should be asking whether that cooperation is worth very much in Yemen.

He claims that the Saudis and their allies are engaged in "a legitimate exercise of self-defense," and this is simply not true. The Saudis and their allies were not attacked and were not threatened with attack prior to their intervention. Saudi territory now comes under attack because the coalition has been bombing Yemen for years, but that doesn't make continuing the war self-defense. If an aggressor launches an attack against a neighboring country, it is the neighbor that is engaged in self-defense against the state(s) attacking them.

Mattis also warns that ending support for the Saudi-led coalition would have other undesirable consequences:

As Mattis put it in his letter to congressional leaders Wednesday, "withdrawing U.S. support would embolden Iran to increase its support to the Houthis, enabling further ballistic missile strikes on Saudi Arabia and threatening vital shipping lanes in the Red Sea, thereby raising the risk of a regional conflict."

These claims also don't hold water. Iranian support for the Houthis remains limited, but it has increased as a direct result of the war. The longer that the war goes on, the greater the incentive the Houthis and Iran will have to cooperate. The absurdity of this intervention is that it was dishonestly sold as a war against Iranian "expansionism" and yet it has done more to aid Iran than anything Iran's government could have done on its own. Missile strikes on Saudi Arabia wouldn't be happening if the Saudis and their allies weren't regularly bombing Yemeni cities. If the coalition halted its bombing, the missile strikes would almost certainly cease as well. Continuing the war is a guarantee that those attacks will continue, and U.S. military assistance ensures that the war will continue. Every reason Mattis gives here for continuing U.S. support for the war is actually a reason to end it.

Shipping lanes weren't threatened before the intervention and won't be threatened after it ends. Yemenis have every incentive to leave shipping lanes alone, since these are their country's lifeline. Meanwhile, the cruel coalition blockade is slowly starving millions of Yemenis to death by keeping out essential commercial goods from the main ports that serve the vast majority of the population. Mattis is warning about potential threats to shipping from Yemen while completely ignoring that the main cause of the humanitarian disaster is the interruption of commercial shipping into Yemen by the Saudi-led blockade. The regional conflict that Mattis warns about is already here. It is called the Saudi-led war on Yemen. If one wants to prevent the region from being destabilized further, one would want to put an end to that war as quickly as possible.

Mattis mentions that the U.S. role in the war is a "noncombat" and "limited" one, but for the purposes of the debate on Sanders-Lee resolution that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that the military assistance the U.S. is providing doesn't put Americans in combat. That is not the only way that U.S. forces can be introduced into hostilities. According to the War Powers Resolution , the U.S. has introduced its armed forces into hostilities under these circumstances:

For purposes of this joint resolution, the term "introduction of United States Armed Forces" includes the assignment of member of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany [bold mine-DL] the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

Any fair reading of this definition has to apply to the regular U.S. refueling of coalition planes that are engaged in an ongoing bombing campaign. The U.S. is obviously participating in the "movement" of coalition forces when it provides their planes with fuel. Indeed, our forces are making the movement of their forces possible through refueling. U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen clearly counts as introducing U.S. forces into hostilities under the WPR, and neither administration has sought or received authorization to do this. No president is permitted to do this unless there is "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." There has obviously been no action from Congress that authorizes this, and there is certainly no emergency or attack that justifies it. U.S. involvement in the war on Yemen is illegal, and the Senate should pass S.J.Res. 54 to end it.


so it's blackmail March 15, 2018 at 11:00 am

"Mattis wrote that restricting military support the United States is providing to the Saudi-led coalition "could increase civilian casualties, jeopardize cooperation with our partners on counterterrorism, and reduce our influence with the Saudis -- all of which would further exacerbate the situation and humanitarian crisis.""

Wow. So MBS is blackmailing us. He's threatening to kill more civilians, to stop anti-terror cooperation, and to shut us out of other Saudi regional security decisions if we don't help him starve and wreck Yemen.

Maybe the situation is a little clearer, but how can anyone take Trump seriously after this embarrassing confession by Mattis?

We may assume that Trump has no self-respect, but doesn't he have any respect for his office? Is he really going to let this disgusting little torture freak jerk him around like this? When it implicates all Americans in Saudi war crimes?

SteveM , says: March 15, 2018 at 2:14 pm
Re: "Mattis' Weak Case for Supporting the War on Yemen"

Unfortunately, in this day of warped Military Exceptionalism as the civic religion, a 4-Star pedigree fronting weak arguments makes them essentially unassailable. No matter how immoral, idiotic or costly to the taxpayers.

Mad Dog Mattis got a free ride with his logically incoherent, hyper-belligerent pronouncements related to the National Security Strategy. Expect no different response to his perverse rationalizations of the Yemen catastrophe.

Generals and Admirals now pop off stupid and dangerous opinions right and left and are never challenged by an MSM that is bedazzled by anyone wearing stars on their shoulders.

Mattis' case for Yemen is not only weak, it's pathetic. Too bad the co-opted and seduced MSM will never suggest that to the public at large deluded by the omnipresent propaganda of the National Security State.

Nothing will change until the undeserved fawning adoration of the War Machine Elite is substantially attenuated.

Alex Ingrum , says: March 15, 2018 at 3:12 pm
The neocons will stop at nothing to bring down anyone they suspect of threatening Israel or U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East.

First, they lied about WMDs in Iraq and started a completely illegal war, killing millions and devastating that country for generations. That led directly to the creation of ISIS and the havoc it has wrought on both Iraq and Syria (and increasingly in other countries).

Then under Obama and Sec. Clinton, they allowed the military takeover of Egypt by the murderous and oppressive El-Sisi and launched an aggressive war of regime change in Libya, throwing both North African countries into turmoil.

Then they supported the brutal and savage ongoing Saudi war against Yemen to curb non-existent Iranian influence, followed by politically isolating Qatar for its supposed chumminess with Iran.

The neocons will do absolutely anything to bring down the Iranian regime, no matter how many foreign and American lives and destroyed to achieve that end.

b. , says: March 15, 2018 at 3:38 pm
The details of Mattis' letter of indulgence do not matter as much as the fact that he is willing to defend the indefensible. Even if his professed concerns were not only genuine, but actually reflected reality, he also has to know better than anybody else within the administration about the consequences of the US-backed Saudi/UAE invasion of Yemen.

Mattis has joined Graham and Albright in the "worth it" campaign to sustain and extend perfectly predictable atrocities.

If he wants to make the case that we cannot accept uncertainty with respect to an alleged Iranian aggression towards Saudi Arabia – and with even more unlikely acquiescence by the Houthi to let Iran use them the way the US uses the Kurds – or even assuming that Mattis wants to misrepresent possible Houthi blowback against Saudi Arabia as "Iranian" just for convenience – then it should be clear that he is claimng we can easily accept uncertainty with respect to Yemeni blowback against the US – blowback that he also uses to justify the US campaign inside Yemen, and that fueled Obama's pathological obsession with ideological cleansing in Yemen and other prospective "safe harbors".

Mattis is proving the validity of the actual Powell Doctrine – if you join it, you own it – both with respect to US co-belligerence in Yemen, and with respect to Mattis personally. He is also proving the observation that anybody who is willing to join an administration as criminal as that of Bush, Obama or Trump is unlikely to do any good – by their voluntary association they have irredeemably tainted themselves.

Uncle Billy , says: March 15, 2018 at 7:54 pm
We do not want to get in the middle of this Sunni vs. Shiite war. The Saudis want to destroy the Shiites in Yemen and we are fools at best and criminals at worst to help them. The people of Yemen are no threat to the US and for theAmerican Government to cooperate with the Saudis in the murderof Yemeni women and children is revolting.
Sisera , says: March 16, 2018 at 6:06 pm
Americans have heard for years that supporting "democracy" and popular uprisings throughout the Middle East are in our national interests, the basis being that oppressed people are more likely to resort to terrorism.

Yet in the cases of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and now Yemen popular revolutions of Shias demanding equal rights are actually deemed a threat to our national security.

The neocons have gotten so deep in the Gulf/Israel v. Iran conflict that they're not even keeping to the ostensible reasons for interventionism.

[Feb 11, 2018] Whodunit Who "Meddled" With "Our Democracy" by Ilana Mercer

Feb 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Republicans have revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) treats Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on. I'd expect nothing less from a Court created and perpetuated by George W. Bush and his Republicans.

But, what do you know? Following Barack Obama's lead, President Donald Trump and his Republicans have renewed FISA Section 702, which, in fact, has facilitated the usurpations the same representatives are currently denouncing.

Also in contravention of a quaint constitutional relic called the Fourth Amendment is Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller has taken possession of "many tens of thousands of emails from President Donald Trump's transition team." There is no limit, seemingly, to the power of the special counsel.

Look, we're living in a post-Constitutional America. Complaints about the damage done to our "democracy" by outsiders are worse than silly. Such damage pales compared to what we Americans have done to a compact rooted in the consent of the governed and the drastically limited and delimited powers of those who govern.

In other words, a republic. Ours was never a country conceived as a democracy.

To arrive at a democracy, we Americans destroyed a republic.

The destruction is on display daily.

Pray tell where-oh-where in the US Constitution does it say that anyone crossing over into the US may demand and get an abortion? But apparently, this is settled law -- a universally upheld right, irrespective of whose property and territory it impinges.

The only aspect our clodhopper media -- left and right -- deign to debate in such abortion-tourism cases is the interloper's global reproductive rights. So, if abortion is a service Americans must render to the world, why not the right to a colonoscopy or a facelift?

Cannabis: The reason it's notin the Constitution is because letting states and individuals decide is in the Constitution. That thing of beauty is called the Tenth Amendment:

" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That's right. In American federalism, the rights of the individual were meant to be secured through strict limits imposed on the power of the central government by a Bill of Rights and the division of authority between autonomous states and a federal government. Yet on cannabis, the meager constitutional devolution of power away from the Federales and to states and individuals Republicans have reversed. Some are even prattling about a constitutional cannabis amendment, as if there's a need for further "constitutional" centralization of authority.

After 230 years of just such "constitutional" consolidation, it's safe to say that the original Constitution is a dead letter; that the natural- and common law traditions, once lodestars for lawmakers, have been buried under the rubble of legislation and statute that would fill an entire building floor. However much one shovels the muck of lawmaking aside, natural justice and the Founders' original intent remain buried too deep to exhume.

Consider: America's Constitution makers bequeathed a central government of delegated and enumerated powers. The Constitution gives Congress only some eighteen specific legislative powers. Nowhere among these powers is Social Security, civil rights (predicated as they are on grotesque violations of property rights), Medicare, Medicaid, and the elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses.

The welfare clause stipulates that "Congress will have the power to provide for the general welfare." And even though the general clause is followed by a detailed enumeration of the limited powers so delegated; our overlords, over decades of dirigisme , have taken Article I, Section 8 to mean that government can pick The People's pockets for any perceivable purpose and project. Witness a judiciary of scurrilous statists that had even found in the Constitution a mandate to compel commerce by forcing individual Americans to purchase health insurance on pains of a fine, an act of force President Trump has mercifully repealed.

anonymous Disclaimer , February 9, 2018 at 10:30 am GMT

A few more observations, with which Ms. Mercer should agree:

The invertebrate Congress has been a weak link in the Constitutional system, deferring in the last 50 years to the judiciary in matters of domestic policy and to the executive in matters of foreign policy, most obviously war.

Turning the Constitution into a mystical, living document speaking through robed priests has served to trash it.

The loss of the States' authority was gradual, but amending the Constitution to have voters directly elect senators looks in retrospect like a key step in the national government's arrogation of authority.

The world's gaudiest whorehouse is also wide open for business with foreign interests. And why not? If Uncle Sam is trying to run the world, then shouldn't everyone in the Empire be allowed to participate in the democracy?

The Alarmist , February 10, 2018 at 8:22 pm GMT

" treats Americans not as citizens, but as subjects to spy on."

To be correct, the US government considers its subjects to be chattels property. For my part, the US is my crazy ex-girlfriend, who always wants to know where I'm going, who I'm seeing, what I'm doing, and who annually wants a full accounting of every Dollar, Pound, Euro and ounce I earn, spend or hold.

[Jan 06, 2018] Washington Is Out to Get Steve Bannon

Looks like Bannon self-immolated himself by his cooperation with Wolff
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Feb 15, 2017 | www.unz.com
... ... ..

Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.

The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.

Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."

Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.

Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."

Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated."

I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.

It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."

Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.

I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.

But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.

- John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent . https://twitter.com/@JohnFund

[Dec 20, 2017] Trump's 'National Security Strategy' Is the Opposite of National Security by Thomas Knapp

Dec 20, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

The Goldwater-Nichols Act requires the president to submit a "National Security Strategy" report each year. Every president since Ronald Reagan has failed to comply with the law in one or more years of his administration, but on December 17 Donald Trump issued his report .

Unfortunately, Trump's offering is of a piece with his prior displays of economic illiteracy and foreign policy jingoism. It's a dog's breakfast of policy pronouncements that couldn't be more opposed to real "national security" if that had been the author's intention.

The document reiterates Trump's commitment to economic protectionism in the guise of "fair and reciprocal" trade, rattles sabers at Russia, China, and North Korea, and commits to extending decades of disastrous US military adventurism in the Middle East.

Trump's distant predecessors showed us what a real "National Security Strategy" would look like.

At the end of his two terms as president, George Washington warned in his farewell address that "[t]he great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."

Thomas Jefferson echoed that sentiment in his first inaugural address, announcing a doctrine of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none."

While serving as US Secretary of State, future president John Quincy Adams observed that America "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

Those principles served the US well to the extent that they were followed – with a few exceptions, throughout the 19th century. But since the Spanish-American War of 1898, the US has increasingly styled itself an imperial power, attempting to dictate to the world at a cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions more abroad, as well as trillions of dollars redirected from productive endeavors to paying the butcher's bill. The 20th century was a near-continuous orgy of bloodshed which, for the US, was entirely optional.

A real "National Security Strategy" comes down to two things: Free trade, and minding our own business.

Early in his presidential campaign, Trump hinted at the latter, but quickly reverted to business as usual. He's clearly never grasped the former at all. Unfortunate, as the two are also the elements of a great presidency, if such a thing is even possible.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

[Aug 30, 2017] Will the Real GOP Non-Interventionists Stand up

Aug 30, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Jonathan Tkachuk

Today's struggle for 'America First' foreign policy on Capitol Hill.

Before the tragic events in Charlottesville on August 12th, President Donald Trump had received a deserved amount of scrutiny for his heated rhetoric pertaining to the North Korean nuclear issue. This recent swing in media coverage is regrettable, given that Trump's foreign policy statements and actions matter more, or should matter more, to Americans.

More Americans (not to mention foreign civilians ) have been killed or wounded by American foreign policy interventionism since September 11, 2001, than by foreign-born terrorists white nationalists , and hate crimes combined. Sadly, underplaying the consequences of war overseas may be a good thing these days, since over-exposure has often yielded perverse incentives for interventionism, to which Trump has shown himself quite susceptible.

The need for new political incentives that reinforce President Trump's "America First" instincts has not been lost on his non-interventionist supporters. In an article for The American Conservative on June 26th, William Lind called for the creation of an "America First Caucus" to serve as a non-interventionist beachhead on Capitol Hill similar to how the "Military Reform Caucus" of the 1980s served as a congressional pressure point for effectiveness and efficiency in the defense budget. According to Lind, this caucus would provide support for the President when he took a non-interventionist course and criticize the President when he erred on the side of intervention. By adopting "America First" in its name, the caucus would insulate itself from neoconservative charges of being "weak" while simultaneously shielding itself ( in theory at least ) from criticism by the President.

So what would an America First Caucus on Capitol Hill look like? Unlike the "Military Reform Caucus" of the 1980s, which boasted a bipartisan membership of more than 130 at its height, Lind argues that an America First Caucus would need to be explicitly partisan (a "Republican anti-intervention caucus") and confined to non-interventionist conservatives on the grounds that a bipartisan caucus would be impractical in the current political climate. Although he did not identify specific congressmen, Lind presumably had Senator Rand Paul and Representatives Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, Walter Jones, and John "Jimmy" Duncan in mind as prime candidates for this caucus.

Which America First?

One immediate problem that the new America First Caucus would face would be how to define which brand of 'America First' anti-interventionism they would want to espouse. Would it mirror the philosophy of the namesake of the America First Committee (AFC) of 1940-1941? Or would it use the updated version used by the Trump Administration? Given that the current administration has adopted policies , and is considering additional policies that conflict with its own definition of 'America First,' it might be wiser for the new caucus to look to the original AFC for inspiration.

Founded on September 4,1940, the AFC was a bipartisan anti-interventionist movement opposed to American involvement in Europe during World War II which they saw as a continuation of the mindless bloodletting of World War I. In America First: The Battle Against Intervention 1940-1941 (1953), Wayne Cole identified four founding principles and four objectives of the AFC (listed below).

Principles:

The United States must build an impregnable defense for America. No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America. American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European war. "Aid short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.

Objectives:

To bring together all Americans, regardless of possible differences on other matters, who see eye-to-eye on these principles. (This does not include Nazists, Fascists, Communists, or members of other groups that place the interest of any other nation above those of our own country.) To urge Americans to keep their heads amid rising hysteria in times of crisis. To provide sane national leadership for the majority of the American people who want to keep out of the European war. To register this opinion with the President and with the Congress.

What is perhaps most striking about the principles and objectives of the AFC is the extent to which it, with a minimal amount of updating, can be borrowed by non-interventionists today. Below is a modified list of these principles and objectives that an America First Caucus could use as a guiding charter.

Principles:

The United States must maintain an impregnable defense for America. No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America without incurring an unacceptably high cost for such an attack on itself. American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the next undeclared war of choice. "Meddling short of war" weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad." The only way to neutralize the threat Al-Qaeda and Daesh (ISIL) pose to the United States is through smart and effective diplomacy. This diplomacy must contain the following features: A withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Islamic countries over the next three years, prioritizing cooperation with all foreign governments in lawfully undermining these organizations, and aggressively promoting nuclear non-proliferation in accordance to international law (i.e. without resorting to the use of military force or implying the use of military force).

Objectives:

To bring together all Americans, regardless of possible differences on other matters, who see eye-to-eye on these principles. To urge Americans to keep their heads amid rising hysteria in times of crisis. To provide sane national leadership for the majority of the American people who want to keep out of the next undeclared war of choice. To register this opinion with the President and with the rest of our colleagues in Congress.

What can realistically be accomplished?

What could an America First Caucus realistically accomplish? At first glance, not much. Its small size (initially no more than five or so members expected), partisan make up (all Republicans), and declining membership (Rep. Jimmy Duncan will not seek re-election in 2018) would make it difficult for its voice to be heard amid the cacophony of voices on Capitol Hill.

That said there are reasons to be optimistic. It would contain a former presidential candidate and prominent conservative U.S. Senator who occupies a seat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Sen. Rand Paul), two House members on the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security (Rep. Justin Amash and Rep. Jimmy Duncan), two House members with military service (Rep. Walter Jones and Rep. Jimmy Duncan), one House member on the Committee on Armed Services (Rep. Walter Jones), one House member that is not up for re-election and thus has nothing to lose (Rep. Jimmy Duncan), and one House member who is an all-around non-interventionist anchor (Rep. Thomas Massie).

Another reason for optimism is that it would be the only caucus of its kind on the Hill pushing this message. That message, that the lives of American service members are not cheap and that America should practice nation-building at home instead of intervening abroad, is popular. The voters who bore the human cost of American interventionism put Trump in the White House.

There are several courses of action the caucus could take that would stand a reasonable chance of succeeding. These actions could also create new political incentives in Washington that discourage interventionism.

The first would be to introduce or support existing legislation that would repeal both the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (AUMFs). Support for repealing the 2001 AUMF is growing within the 115th Congress and the 2002 AUMF has its share of bipartisan critics . Yet these congressional misgivings have not translated into an organized opposition. An America First Caucus would provide this while also lending a distinctly non-interventionist voice to those who simply wish to replace these AUMFs with new ones that are not necessary to protect the country (i.e. let Syria, Iran, Russia, and Turkey fight ISIL in Syria and let Iraq and Iran fight ISIL in Iraq).

The second would be to introduce a resolution in the House re-establishing the tradition of reading George Washington's Farewell Address in the House at the beginning of every new session of Congress. Unlike the Senate, which currently holds to this tradition, the House discarded this tradition in 1979. Although a symbolic move, it would nevertheless bring attention to the broader non-interventionist message by making the America First Caucus the public voice responsible for bringing back this otherwise uncontroversial and bipartisan tradition.

A third course of action would be to introduce legislation amending the National Security Act of 1947 and renaming the Department of Defense as the Department of War. In his inaugural address Trump noted that the U.S. "defended other nation's borders while refusing to defend our own." By pushing for this name change, the America First Caucus would force a public conversation regarding whether our foreign and defense policy is really "defensive" in nature.

Lastly, the America First Caucus would provide a congressional forum where deviant foreign policy views such as non-interventionism and intelligent diplomacy can be heard, expressed, and debated. This would include providing a congressional audience to like-minded advocates, policy practitioners, and scholars.

Challenges

Carrying the non-interventionist banner and keeping Trump accountable would not be easy. Republicans railed against the Obama Administration's foreign policy for eight years on the grounds that it was not sufficiently belligerent in rhetoric or in action. Trump shares this sentiment and seems intent on conducting his foreign policy in a way that highlights the contrast in bellicosity between himself and Obama. Although this bellicosity has been largely confined to the diplomatic sphere, the president's announcement last week regarding Afghanistan, along with his ordered attacks on the Syrian government back in April, shows that he is willing to convert these sentiments into action.

Where this bellicosity could turn into a real shooting war would be with Iran. Trump seems intent on undermining the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama Administration. His hostility to the agreement, and to Iran in general, is shared by both parties, particularly his "never Trump" Republican detractors. Terminating the Iran deal would accomplish three things. First, it would immediately unite an otherwise fractured GOP in Congress behind the president. Second, it would immediately isolate the U.S. from the rest of the international community and expose American non-proliferation efforts as having been conducted in bad faith. Lastly, it would pave the way for a shooting war with Iran which a GOP-controlled Congress would support.

Compounding this problem further is that none of the individual members of an America First Caucus supported the Iran nuclear deal (albeit for different and less belligerent reasons). An America First Caucus might not be able to alter the political incentives for Trump regarding the Iran nuclear deal. Then again, it might not have to. If the caucus can highlight an issue where Trump can both secure a political "win" and pivot back to his domestic agenda!such as withdrawing U.S. military personnel from most of its overseas bases and using the savings to pass a Trump-endorsed transportation bill!it might be sufficient to redirect the president's attention away from Iran. This would give those who are more favorably disposed to the Iran nuclear deal in the administration Capitol Hill , and the Beltway time to convince the president that undoing the deal is more work than it is worth.

Given the lack of major legislative accomplishments, and the likelihood that tax and immigration reform proposals would meet the same fate as the recent healthcare bill, Trump is more likely to secure a political "win" in the realm that past presidents have retreated to when their domestic agendas are stymied by Congress: foreign policy. These perverse political incentives towards interventionism, particularly as they pertain to Iran, will be the most difficult challenge facing an America First Caucus.

With the departure of Steve Bannon from the White House and the administration opting to deploy more American forces to Afghanistan, the need for a new set of political incentives towards non-interventionism has never been greater. Trump was elected because the American electorate believed he, and not Hillary Clinton, would put the well-being of Americans first. It is time members of Congress stand up and hold him to that promise.

Jonathan Tkachuk is a former congressional staffer for a House Republican. He has a M.A. in Diplomacy (Counter-Terrorism) from Norwich University.

[Aug 08, 2017] The US political system is designed to prevent real populists from ever gaining office. Use of the terms "Isolationist" and "Isolationism" within the context of US History differs little from the use of the term Conspiracy Theory

Aug 08, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit | Aug 6, 2017 1:46:45 PM | 33

The sanctions are a smart play for world domination by the cabal that controls the Empire. that the rest of the world suffers while this plays out is of no concern to them.

Those wringing their hands over Trump's failure to confront Congress are foolish. His caving was entirely predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him. Isn't it clear by now that "America First" is as much as lie as "Change You Can Believe In"?

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Russia is more susceptible than China to being politically undermined by both overt and covert means.

As the economic cost of conflict with the US mounts, so too does the potential benefits of restoring ties. The potential for a HUGE economic boost by restoring ties with the West will play a big part in post-Putin politics.

If US can disrupt energy trade with China and new Silk-Road transport links (via proxies like ISIS) , the Russian economy will sink and pro-Western candidates will gain much support.

Seamus Padraig | Aug 6, 2017 2:27:41 PM | 35
The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were shaped by domestic U.S. policy issues.

Yeah, sure. (((Domestic U.S. policy issues.)))

Seriously though, as a committed isolationist, I'm actually overjoyed that our congress is idiotic enough to start up a trade war with the EU. The notion that the Germans are going to import overpriced fracked gas all the way from the US is a total fantasy. No: these sanctions will accelerate the coming break-up of NATO ... an outcome I very much welcome. And even if the Germans were to cave and cancel Nordstream, the Russians would simply sell all that extra gas to Asia anyway. So this isn't going to have any real effect on them either.

chet380 | Aug 6, 2017 2:49:08 PM | 39
Grieved --

If Trump and Tillerson are quietly able to have the Europeans to raise a constant hue and cry about the bill's negative impact on their ability to conduct international trade, an excellent groundwork would be laid for Trump to go to the US SC to attack the constitutionality of the bill.

h | Aug 6, 2017 2:54:20 PM | 40
Grieved @36 - I appreciate your most thoughtful comment. When I read Mercouris' article I immediately thought - Whoa, if this turns out to be the correct analysis, my God man the U.S. government is in way more trouble than I understood. Navigating a soft coup takes a great deal of skill to avoid, but if the globalists continue to escalate their warmongering demands from the White House and Trump/Team continue to form their own path, the people of the U.S. should be warned a hard coup isn't far behind...Antifa and others are being readied for just such an event.

Gives me a chill...

james | Aug 6, 2017 2:59:51 PM | 42
t@36 grieved.. if i could just paraphrase you in my own words... the usa system is fucked...
Temporarily Sane | Aug 6, 2017 4:34:15 PM | 47
b writes:
That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will lead to?

When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep in mind the deep state goal of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous delusion of the highest order but it is one that is actively being put into practice. The actions taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to one thing: war.

frances | Aug 6, 2017 4:46:10 PM | 48
my apologies, this is a bit long but...On Trump's perceived option of signing vs not signing; I think he knew that the Congress/DNC/MSM would have tarred and feathered him as a RUSSIAN PAWN (RP) till the cows come home if he didn't sign.

However by signing the bill with notations stating its flaws and forwarding it the the SC for their review, he blocked this latest RP label attempt and attendant witch hunt.

And assuming the SC thinks as little of the two bills legislative incursions into the exec domain as I do, it can be tossed back to both houses of Congress (with a 2018 election cycle staring them in the face)with a statement from Trump saying something to the effect of "Merciful God, how can you represent your constituents when you clearly don't have a grasp of your own job description??

Now I have to fund Trump supporting candidates to run against every single one of you." Remember he has already raised 75 million and he raised 250 million plus 66 million of his own and beat a 1.3 billion DNC machine. I do not see him as a great candidate but I do see that every single current congressional seat is held by people who are bought and paid for by business/MIC interests opposed to mine. I believe this latest attack on him via these bills will give him the opportunity to "drain the swamp" some of it anyway, in the upcoming election cycle and I will contribute to his effort to wipe them out of office and I suspect others will as well. There will be no coup on my watch if I can help it by helping him.

heath | Aug 6, 2017 4:50:46 PM | 49
rather than press China directly in the south China Sea, it seems DC keeps on pressing the North Koreans to do something rash and the Chinese having to invade to forestall the rash attack then being stuck in a long Guerrilla war against Korean resistance.

the US strategy seems to be to create a problem and force other nations to choose "the Axis of Evil" or "the Free World"

karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 5:03:32 PM | 51
b--would you check the spam grabber and rescue my links-filled post from @4pm blog time? Thanks!!
ben | Aug 6, 2017 5:04:51 PM | 52
The following, is for all you folks that believe voting in the U$A can make a difference.

https://www.rt.com/usa/397907-defcon-first-voting-village/

Until we trash the e-voting systems, our voting means nothing..

karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 5:06:39 PM | 53
Grieved @36--

If you haven't yet, you'll want to read my several posts related to yours a few threads ago beginning here, http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/07/countdown-to-war-on-venezuela.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b8d29b37ca970c

Anonymous | Aug 6, 2017 5:25:41 PM | 54
LawrenceSmith @1

There are two faces to Europe - the ordinary elected representatives and business people see the futility and danger of the sanctions. The bought Eurocrat and high political placemen will repeat what they are paid to say as the waters rise above their lips.

fast freddy | Aug 6, 2017 5:26:57 PM | 55
Trump can go on TV anytime and appeal to the Public with some creative truth. Why not? Afraid of the PTB? or he's a fraud like Obama going along with the PTB?

Mostly from Trump we get boilerplate global terror war bullshit, immigrant and gay bashing - gruel for the knuckleheads.

There is no question that Pence would gladly run the bus over Trump and be a real warmonger for Zion. The "real" Republicans (and the "business-friendly New Democrats") would love President Pence. Everything (media) would quiet down.

karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 5:35:50 PM | 56
Regarding the Mercouris article myself and others have linked to and discussed, one possibility he didn't really explore was Trump Pocket Vetoing the bill. Congress would then upon returning from its recess need to reenact the entire measure after getting lots of heat from constituents for their votes during recess. Indeed, I think the overwhelming Pro vote was due to many congresscritter's assumption that Trump would do just that.

For me, the important question is why the Deep State instigated this move; so, I posted links to 6 incisive articles also looking for an answer in one manner or other that all together pointing to a Deep State flailing its arms in the deep end of the Hubris Pool realizing its drowning in its own effluent yet unable to utter that truth as it never will--it will break the mirror before allowing it to utter the truth. The Law of Diminishing Returns is finally laying the lumber to the Deep State after 130 years of grossly naked imperialism. Luce would be spinning in his grave if he knew how his American Century was being destroyed for A Few Dollars More.

Perhaps, John Pilger's latest essay will provide an explanation, https://www.rt.com/op-edge/398789-us-russia-china-war/

Jackrabbit | Aug 6, 2017 6:01:45 PM | 57
h@37

My take on Trump is informed by facts such as:

>> The US political system is designed to prevent real populists from ever gaining office. Examples: Citizens United and the rules to qualify for inclusion in candidate debates.

>> Obama was a faux populist and Sanders was a sheep-dog. Are we to believe that these populists were phonies but Trump is the real deal?

>> Only Sanders and Trump positioned themselves as populists. And even more importantly, Hillary didn't counter Trump by taking a more populist approach.

>> Hillary made it clear that she wanted to face Trump in the general election. The media dutifully covered Trump as a serious candidate. Supposedly, she felt that she had a better chance to defeat him. She then ran a terrible campaign (see: NYPost: Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever despite having every advantage.

>> Why would any oligarch oppose the establishment? Especially since Trump was so close to Hillary who was considered to be the likely next President. In fact, Trump served Hillary by becoming a leader of the 'Birthers'. Hillary was the first to question if Obama was foreign born.

>> Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP?

>> One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not seek to prosecute Hillary. The strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's health helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely that this was coordinated.

>> Trump acts or doesn't act in ways that are inconsistent with 'America First' and/or fuel the scaremongering over Russia:

> The missile attack on Syria (despite tweeting warnings to Obama not to bomb Syria in 2013) and sword dancing with the Saudis (WTF?);

> Not dismissing Comey early in his Administration - then alluding to 'tapes' after he did;

> Drip-drip of info regarding Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian; Publicly attacking Sessions; etc.

> Trump complains about 'Fake News' but has accepted that Russia interfered in the election;

For more:

How Things Work: Betrayal by Faux-Populist Leaders

Taken In: Fake News Distracts Us From Fake Election

karlof1 | Aug 7, 2017 3:44:05 PM | 100
Use of the terms "Isolationist" and "Isolationism" within the context of US History differs little from the use of the terms "Conspiracy Theory," Conspiracy Theorist," and "Revisionist"--all are used in an attempt to degrade the credibility of an individual or organization. A priori, everyone aside from First Peoples is an Internationalist as commerce with other nations of the world isn't optional--it's mandatory, thus the phrase within the Declaration about telling the world why. Rather, Isolationist is used to tar someone against Imperialism, the best examples being the very heated debate during the 1930s over the various Neutrality Acts when the hoi polloi last had some vestige of control over the federal government. (Pacifist was also a derogatory term used then for similar reasons.) Did Trump say he would close US borders to one and all--people, goods, financial instruments? No, of course not; so, he cannot be labeled an Isolationist. Now, is he what's known as a Nativist promoting an America First Nativism? During his campaign, he did use rhetoric of that sort, but his actions in office don't provide confirmation. (The 1932 presidential election also gives an excellent example of how the terms Internationalist and Isolationist are used politically, with FDR steadfastly refusing to acknowledge his Internationalism thanks to the divisive League of Nations debate after WW1.)

Essentially, to be an informed citizen of almost any nation, one needs the equivalent of a PhD in their national and world history, with minors in philosophy, anthropology and economics, which is why the citizenry seems so ill-informed--they are!--and easily led by the nose.

[Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded. ..."
"... The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO. ..."
"... The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program. ..."
"... The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'. ..."
"... The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. ..."
"... South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down. ..."
"... The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies ..."
"... On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity. ..."
"... You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement. ..."
Apr 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction: US Empire building on a world-scale began during and shortly after WWII. Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war (providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese), backed France's re-colonization war against the Viet Minh in Indo-China and installed Japanese imperial collaborator-puppet regimes in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

While empire building took place with starts and stops, advances and defeats, the strategic goal remained the same: to prevent the establishment of independent communist or secular-nationalist governments and to impose vassal regimes compliant to US interests.

Bloody wars and coups ('regime changes') were the weapons of choice. Defeated European colonial regimes were replaced and incorporated as subordinate US allies.

Where possible, Washington relied on armies of mercenaries trained, equipped and directed by US 'advisors' to advance imperial conquests. Where necessary, usually if the client regime and vassal troops were unable to defeat an armed people's army, the US armed forces intervened directly.

Imperial strategists sought to intervene and brutally conquer the target nation. When they failed to achieve their 'maximum' goal, they dug in with a policy of encirclement to cut the links between revolutionary centers with adjoining movements. Where countries successfully resisted armed conquests, empire builders imposed economic sanctions and blockades to erode the economic basis of popular governments.

Empires, as the Roman sages long recognized, are not built in a day, or weeks and months. Temporary agreements and accords are signed and conveniently broken because imperial designs remain paramount.

Empires would foment internal cleavages among adversaries and coups in neighboring countries. Above all, they construct a worldwide network of military outposts, clandestine operatives and regional alliances on the borders of independent governments to curtail emerging military powers.

Following successful wars, imperial centers dominate production and markets, resources and labor. However, over time challenges would inevitably emerge from dependent and independent regimes. Rivals and competitors gained markets and increased military competence. While some vassal states sacrificed political-military sovereignty for independent economic development, others moved toward political independence.

Early and Late Contradictions of Expanding Imperialism

The dynamics of imperial states and systems contain contradictions that constantly challenge and change the contours of empire.

The US devoted immense resources to retain its military supremacy among vassals, but experienced a sharp decline in its share of world markets, especially with the rapid rise of new economic producers.

Economic competition forced the imperial centers to realign the focus of their economies – 'rent' (finance and speculation) displaced profits from trade and production. Imperial industries relocated abroad in search of cheap labor. Finance, insurance, real estate, communications, military and security industries came to dominate the domestic economy. A vicious cycle was created: with the erosion of its productive base, the Empire further increased its reliance on the military, finance capital and the import of cheap consumer goods.

Just after World War II, Washington tested its military prowess through intervention . Because of the immense popular resistance and the proximity of the USSR, and later PRC, empire building in post-colonial Asia was contained or militarily defeated. US forces temporarily recognized a stalemate in Korea after killing millions. Its defeat in China led to the flight of the 'Nationalists' to the provincial island of Taiwan. The sustained popular resistance and material support from socialist superpowers led to its retreat from Indo-China. In response, it resorted to economic sanctions to strangle the revolutionary governments.

The Growth of the Unipolar Ideology

With the growing power of overseas economic competitors and its increasing reliance on direct military intervention, the US Empire took advantage of the internal disintegration of the USSR and China's embrace of 'state capitalism' in the early 1990's and 1980s..The US expanded throughout the Baltic region, Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans – with the forced breakup of Yugoslavia. Imperial strategists envisioned 'a unipolar empire' – an imperial state without rivals. The Empire builders were free to invade, occupy and pillage independent states on any continent – even bombing a European capital, Belgrade, with total impunity. Multiple wars were launched against designated 'adversaries', who lacked strong global allies.

Countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were targeted for destruction. South America was under the control of neo-liberal regimes. The former USSR was pillaged and disarmed by imperial vassals. Russia was ruled by gangster-kleptocrats allied to US stooges. China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.

Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded.

The Demise of Unipolarity: The 21st Century

Ten years into the 21st century, the imperial vision of an unchallenged unipolar empire was crumbling. China's 'primitive' accumulation led to advanced domestic accumulation for the Chinese people and state. China's power expanded overseas through investments, trade and acquisitions. China displaced the US as the leading trading partner in Asia and the largest importer of primary commodities from Latin America and Africa. China became the world's leading manufacturer and exporter of consumer goods to North America and the EU.

The first decade of the 21st century witnessed the overthrow or defeat of US vassal states throughout Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and the emergence of independent agro-mineral regimes poised to form regional trade pacts. This was a period of growing global demand for their natural resources and commodities- precisely when the US was de-industrializing and in the throes of costly disastrous wars in the Middle East.

In contrast to the growing independence of Latin America, the EU deepened its military participation in the brutal US-led overseas wars by expanding the 'mandate' of NATO. Brussels followed the unipolarist policy of systematically encircling Russia and weakening its independence via harsh sanctions. The EU's outward expansion (financed with increasing domestic austerity) heightened internal cleavages, leading to popular discontent .The UK voted in favor of a referendum to secede from the EU.

The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO.

Unipolarists continued to launch multiple wars of conquest in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, costing trillions of dollars and leading to the loss of global markets and competitiveness. As the armies of the Empire expanded globally, the domestic economy (the 'Republic') contracted .The US became mired in recession and growing poverty. Unipolar politics created a growing multi-polar global economy, while rigidly imposing military priorities.

The Empire Strikes Back: The Nuclear Option

The second decade of the 21st century ushered in the demise of unipolarity to the dismay of many 'experts' and the blind denial by its political architects. The rise of a multi-polar world economy intensified the desperate imperial drive to restore unipolarity by military means, led by militarists incapable of adjusting or assessing their own policies.

Under the regime of the 'first black' US President Obama, elected on promises to 'rein in' the military, imperial policymakers intensified their pursuit of seven, new and continuing wars. To the policymakers and the propagandists in the US-EU corporate media, these were successful imperial wars, accompanied by premature declarations of victories in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This triumphal delusion of success led the new Administration to launch new wars in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

As the new wave of wars and coups ('regime change') to re-impose unipolarity failed, even greater militarist policies displaced economic strategies for global dominance. The unipolarists-militarists, who direct the permanent state apparatus, continued to sacrifice markets and investments with total immunity from the disastrous consequences of their failures on the domestic economy.

A Brief Revival of Unipolarity in Latin America

Coups and power grabs have overturned independent governments in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and threatened progressive governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. However, the pro-imperial 'roll-back' in Latin America was neither politically nor economically sustainable and threatens to undermine any restoration of US unipolar dominance of the region.

The US has provided no economic aid or expanded access to markets to reward and support their newly acquired client regimes. Argentina's new vassal, Mauricio Macri, transferred billions of dollars to predatory Wall Street bankers and handed over access to military bases and lucrative resources without receiving any reciprocal inflows of investment capital. Indeed the servile policies of President Macri created greater unemployment and depressed living standards, leading to mass popular discontent. The unipolar empire's 'new boy' in its Buenos Aires fiefdom faces an early demise.

Likewise, widespread corruption, a deep economic depression and unprecedented double digit levels of unemployment in Brazil threaten the illicit vassal regime of Michel Temer with permanent crisis and rising class conflict.

Short-Lived Success in the Middle East

The revanchist unipolarist launch of a new wave of wars in the Middle East and North Africa seemed to succeed briefly with the devastating power of US-NATO aerial and naval bombardment .Then collapsed amidst grotesque destruction and chaos, flooding Europe with millions of refugees.

Powerful surges of resistance to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan hastened the retreat toward a multi-polar world. Islamist insurgents drove the US into fortress garrisons and took control of the countryside and encircled cities in Afghanistan; Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya drove US backed regimes and mercenaries into flight.

Unipolarists and the Permanent State: Re-Group and Attack

Faced with its failures, unipolarists regrouped and implemented the most dangerous military strategy yet: the build-up of nuclear 'First-Strike' capability targeting China and Russia.

Orchestrated by US State Department political appointees, Ukraine's government was taken over by US vassals leading to the ongoing break-up of that country. Fearful of neo-fascists and Russophobes, the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. Ethnic Russian majorities in Ukraine's Donbass region have been at war with Kiev with thousands killed and millions fleeing their homes to take refuge in Russia. The unipolarists in Washington financed and directed the Kiev coup led by kleptocrats, fascists and street mobs, immune as always from the consequences.

Meanwhile the US is increasing its number of combat troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to buttress its unreliable allies and mercenaries.

What is crucial to understanding the rise and demise of imperial power and the euphoric unipolar declarations of the 1990's (especially during the heyday of President Clinton's bloody reign), is that at no point have military and political advances been sustained by foundational economic building blocks.

The US defeated and subsequently occupied Iraq, but it also systematically destroyed Iraq's civil society and its economy, creating fertile ground for massive ethnic cleansing, waves of refugees and the subsequent Islamist uprising that over ran vast territories. Indeed, deliberate US policies in Iraq and elsewhere created the refugee crisis that is overwhelming Europe.

A similar situation is occurring during the first two decades of this century: Military victories have installed ineffective imperial-backed unpopular leaders. Unipolarists increasingly rely on the most retrograde tribal rabble, Islamist extremists, overseas clients and paid mercenaries. The deliberate US-led assault on the very people capable of leading modern multicultural nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, is a caricature of the notorious Pol Pot assaults on Cambodia's educated classes. Of course, the US honed its special skills in 'killing the school teachers' when it trained and financed the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

The second weakness, which led to the collapse of the unipolar illusion, has been their inability to rethink their assumptions and re-orient and rebalance their strategic militarist paradigm from the incredible global mess they created

They steadfastly refused to work with and promote the educated economic elites in the conquered countries. To do so would have required maintaining an intact social-economic-security system in the countries they had systematically shredded. It would mean rejecting their paradigm of total war, unconditional surrender and naked, brutal military occupation in order to allow the development of viable economic allies, instead of imposing pliable but grotesquely corrupt vassal regimes.

The deeply entrenched, heavily financed and vast military-intelligence-police apparatus, numbering many millions, has formed a parallel imperial state ruling over the elected and civilian regime within the US.

The so-called 'deep state', in reality, is a ruling state run by unipolarists. It is not some 'faceless entity': It has a class, ideological and economic identity.

Despite the severe cost of losing a series of catastrophic wars and the multi-billion-dollar thefts by kleptocratic vassal regimes, the unipolarists have remained intact, even increasing their efforts to score a conquest or temporary military victory.

Let us say it, openly and clearly: The unipolarists are now engaged in blaming their terrible military and political failures on Russia and China. This is why they seek, directly and indirectly, to weaken Russia and China's 'allies abroad' and at home. Indeed their savage campaign to 'blame the Russians' for President Trump's election reflects their deep hostility to Russia and contempt for the working and lower middle class voters (the 'basket of deplorables') who voted for Trump. This elite's inability to examine its own failures and the political system's inability to remove these disastrous policymakers is a serious threat to the future of the world.

Unipolarists: Fabricating Pretexts for World War

While the unipolarist state suffered predictable military defeats and prolonged wars and reliance on unstable civilian regimes, the ideologues continue to deflect blame onto 'Russia and China as the source of all their military defeats'. The unipolarists' monomania has been transformed into a provocative large-scale offensive nuclear missile build-up in Europe and Asia, increasing the risk of a nuclear war by engaging in a deadly 'game of chicken'.

The veteran nuclear physicists in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an important description of the unipolarists' war plans. They revealed that the 'current and ongoing US nuclear program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. These new technologies increase the overall US killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces threefold'. This is exactly what an objective observer would expect of a nuclear-armed US unipolar state planning to launch a war by disarming China and Russia with a 'surprise' first strike.

The unipolar state has targeted several countries as pretexts for launching a war. The US government installed provocative missile bases in the Baltic countries and Poland. These are regimes chosen for their eagerness to violate Russia's borders or airspace and insanely willing to invite the inevitable military response and chain reaction onto their own populations. Other sites for huge US military bases and NATO expansion include the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslav provinces of Kosovo and Montenegro. These are bankrupt ethno-fascist mafia states and potential tinderboxes for NATO-provoked conflicts leading to a US first strike. This explains why the most rabid US Senate militarists have been pushing for Kosovo and Montenegro's integration into NATO.

Syria is where the unipolarists are creating a pretext for nuclear war. The US state has been sending more 'Special Forces' into highly conflictive areas to support their mercenery allies. This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally). The US plans to seize ISIS-controlled Raqqa in Northern Syria as its own base of operation with the intention of denying the Syrian government its victory over the jihadi-terrorists. The likelihood of armed 'incidents' between the US and Russia in Syria is growing to the rapturous applause of US unipolarists.

The US has financed and promoted Kurdish fighters as they seize Syrian territory from the jihadi-terrorists, especially in territories along the Turkish border. This is leading to an inevitable conflict between Turkey and the US-backed Kurds.

Another likely site for expanded war is Ukraine. After seizing power in Kiev, the klepto-fascists launched a shooting war and economic blockade against the bilingual ethnic Russian-Ukrainians of the Donbass region. Attacks by the Kiev junta, countless massacres of civilians (including the burning of scores of unarmed Russian-speaking protesters in Odessa) and the sabotage of Russian humanitarian aid shipments could provoke retaliation from Russia and invite a US military intervention via the Black Sea against Crimea.

The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.

The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'.

The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. The US has 'suffered' peaceful, but humiliating, economic defeat at the hands of an emerging Asian power. China's economy has grown more than three times faster than the US for the last two decades. And China's infrastructure development bank has attracted scores of regional and European participants after a much promoted US trade agreement in Asia, developed by the Obama Administration, collapsed. Over the past decade, while salaries and wages have stagnated or regressed in the US and EU, they have tripled in China.

China's economic growth is set to surpass the US into the near and distant future if trends continue. This will inevitably lead to China replacing the US s as the world's most dynamic economic power . barring a nuclear attack by the US. It is no wonder China is embarked on a program to modernize its defensive missile systems and border and maritime security.

As the unipolarists prepare for the 'final decision' to attack China, they are systematically installing their most advanced nuclear missile strike capacity in South Korea under the preposterous pretext of countering the regime in Pyongyang. To exacerbate tensions, the US High Command has embarked on cyber-attacks against North Korea's missile program. It has been staging massive military exercises with Seoul, which provoked the North Korean military to 'test' four of its medium range ballistic missiles in the Sea of Japan. Washington has ignored the Chinese government's efforts to calm the situation and persuade the North Koreans to resist US provocations on its borders and even scale down their nuclear weapons program.

The US war propaganda machine claims that Pyongyang's nervous response to Washington's provocative military exercises (dubbed "Foal Eagle') on North Korea's border are both a 'threat' to South Korea and 'evidence of its leaders' insanity.' Ultimately, Washington intends to target China. It installed its (misnamed) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) in South Korea .An offensive surveillance and attack system designed to target China's major cities and complement the US maritime encirclement of China and Russia. Using North Korea as a pretext, THAAD was installed in South Korea, with the capacity to reach the Chinese heartland in minutes. Its range covers over 3,000 kilometers of China's land mass. THAAD directed missiles are specifically designed to identify and destroy China's defensive missile capacity.

With the THADD installation in South Korea, Russia's Far East is now encircled by the US offensive missiles to complement the build-up in the West.

The unipolar strategists are joined by the increasingly militaristic Japanese government – a most alarming development for the Koreans and Chinese given the history of Japanese brutality in the region. The Japanese Defense Minister has proposed acquiring the capacity for a 'pre-emptive strike', an imperial replay of its invasion and enslavement of Korea and Manchuria. Japan 'points to' North Korea but really aims at China.

South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down.

In the midst of a major political scandal involving the Korean President (who faces impeachment and imprisonment), the US-Japanese military alliance has brutally sucked the hapless South Korean people into an offensive military build-up against China. In the process Seoul threatens its peaceful economic relations with China. The South Koreans are overwhelmingly 'pro-peace', but find themselves on the frontlines of a potential nuclear war.

China's response to Washington's threat is a massive buildup of its own defensive missile capacity. The Chinese now claim to have the capacity to rapidly demolish THAAD bases in South Korea if pushed by the US. China is retooling its factories to compensate for the loss of South Korean industrial imports.

Conclusion

The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies.

On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity.

Gone are the days when the unipolarists could break up the USSR, finance violent breakaway former Soviet regimes in Asia and the Caucuses and run fraudulent elections for its drunken clients in Russia.

The disasters of US policies and its domestic economic decline has given way to rapid and profound changes in power relations over the last two decades, shattering any illusion of a unipolar 'American Century'.

Unipolarity remains the ideology of the permanent state security apparatus and its elites in Washington. They believe that the marriage of militarism abroad and financial control at home will allow them to regain their lost unipolar 'Garden of Eden'. China and Russia are the essential new protagonists of a multipolar world. The dynamics of necessity and their own economic growth has pushed them to successfully nurture alternative, independent states and markets.

This obvious, irreversible reality has driven the unipolarists to the mania of preparing for a global nuclear war! The pretexts are infinite and absurd; the targets are clear and global; the destructive offensive military means are available; but so are the formidable defensive and retaliatory capacities of China and Russia.

The unipolarist state's delusion of 'winning a global nuclear war' presents Americans with the critical challenge to resist or give in to an insanely dangerous empire in decline, which is willing to launch a globally destructive war.

The Alarmist , April 25, 2017 at 11:57 pm GMT \n

"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."

You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. Read More

nsa , April 26, 2017 at 2:52 am GMT \n
What's this "unipolarist" stuff ..some kind of trendy academic euphemism? A land war in Asia? Even the American public isn't that stupid.

There is zero chance of an attack on Korea .for a couple of reasons:

1) nothing in it for the jooies who need to conserve their satrap's military for an attack on Iran,

2) if feasible, would have already happened, and lastly

3) the paper tiger would lose another one.

Think about it .goodbye Seoul, goodbye 30,000 US troops, goodbye all those lucrative samsung-kia-hyundai franchises, kiss off a couple carriers from torpedos, goodbye lots of attack aircraft ..and that's all before the Chinese enter the fray. Right now the biggest problem is how to let jooie butt boy Trumpstein and his ridiculous VFW geezer generals back down without losing face. Face is everything to westerners, you know . Read More

Realist , April 26, 2017 at 8:27 am GMT \n
@nsa

Oh yes they are. Their stupidity is boundless.

Anonymous , April 26, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT \n
I kind of agree with you, I kind of don't.

No doubt the Zionists want to focus on Syria and Iran because there is a direct benefit to them there, but don't forget their goal. Their goal is total control of the world, and China and Russia stand in their way.

Using N Korea to threaten China and Russia is probably high on their to do list too.

But I do agree with you. There is no way a N Korea war would be easy or fast for America. We would probably lose 30k soldiers and many ships at least. Wr would burn through a ton of money when we are flat broke. And I doubt we can be in a 2 front war right now anyway. So probably Middle East will take the priority.

So the most plausible explanation to me is that Trump re-read one of the chapters he wrote on negotiation and tried to convince China to go to war for us. But the Chinese aren't stupid and they didn't take the bait.

China talked tough to N Korea and suspended their coal exports to make it look like they would play game, and America sent ships to threaten N Korea. But that was all Trump negotiation tactics. And Trump would be stupid to go to war and have this define his presidency.

dearieme , April 26, 2017 at 9:34 am GMT \n
"providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese"

Come off it! The Red Army assiduously avoided fighting the Japanese. Read More

Tulip , April 26, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT \n
China is not happy with North Korea either. Speculation is that China is planning an invasion with a secret green light from Washington. Even if the US went in, it may be that if China were granted basing rights in the North, or if there was an agreement for a multinational peacekeeping force, with equal US/Chinese troops, there may be a way of providing assurance to China on the national security front while getting rid of a gangster regime that threatens the security of everyone.
Robert Magill , April 26, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT \n

China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.

Walmart announced this week the planned opening of 40 new stores in China by 2020. This adds to the nearly 500 Walmart stores already operating. Very cleaver of them to sell cheap mass consumer goods made in China to Chinese customers and still generate profit. Where is the disconnect here?

The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.

What happened in New York on 9/11 totally unhinged America for a generation. One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in. Russia and China could probably survive a dozen each and soldier on.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com Read More

neutral , April 26, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT \n

One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in.

What do you mean by this ? Are you talking about most Americans leaving their cities and thus collapsing the entire economic system. Or are you saying that people will get so unhinged that it will launch all its missiles (without knowing who is responsible) and thus have more nuclear strikes hitting it ? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

El Dato , April 26, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT \n

Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese

This is COMPLETELY ass-backwards and there is not enough facepalm for such a statement. The Red Army kept itself well ensconced and recruited desperate peasants while Chiang Kai Check fought against the Japanese with not a lot of support from the US, then got the cold shoulder from Churchill. After that, the Nationalist Chinese were such an utter wreck that Mao could easily clean the floor.

Any student of the Sino-Japanese war should have the basics right.

Start reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10182755/Chinas-war-With-Japan-1937-1945-the-struggle-for-survival-by-Rana-Mitter-review.html Read More

Realist , April 26, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT \n
@Robert Magill

The per cent of Americans killed on 9/11 was less than 0.000097. The per cent of Japanese killed in the 2011 Tsunami was 0.0144 with nary a whimper. The Japanese total was 148 times the US total!

The US would never survive a small nuclear attack

Astuteobservor II , April 28, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT \n
@El Dato

Start reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10182755/Chinas-war-With-Japan-1937-1945-the-struggle-for-survival-by-Rana-Mitter-review.html

from what I have read. the first half of that statement is true, while the 2nd half is wrong. 45-49, ccp got the left overs of manchuria, while the kmt got hardware and training directly from the usa.

Monty Ahwazi , April 29, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT \n
Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory calendar! Read More
The White Muslim Traditionalist , April 29, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT \n
@The Alarmist
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement.

The United States doesn't decide what is right and what is wrong.

mp , April 29, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT \n
200 Words @Monty Ahwazi Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory calendar! Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?

It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.

Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell (they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. Read More

mp , April 29, 2017 at 11:54 am GMT \n
@Robert Magill

Walmarts in China are not like the one's in America. I'm convinced the US stores are supported by welfare checks and food stamps. Without those, my guess is that the stores would have closed a long time ago. Also, in China you don't see half the store filled up with overweight diabetics on disability, riding around on motorized scooters, looking like land-locked Barron Harkonnens, etc.

Corvinus , April 29, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT \n
@Wizard of Oz

Exactly. The doomsday prognosticators keep up with the Fake News about the impending end of the world scenarios and they fail to materialize repeatedly.

Ludwig Von , April 29, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT \n
Just my little thought : in fact China is not going to intervene in a conflict between US-SK-Japan versus NK. It will sit back and just wait until they all are exhausted and then collect .
Agent76 , April 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT \n
Mar 25, 2016 Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar?

Introduction to the report: Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar? Internationalization of the Renminbi and Its Implications for the United States.

Agent76 , April 29, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
Apr 12, 2017 China Russia Move For Gold Against Dollar Makes Them A Target By Trump

In this video we talk about all the latest breaking news regarding the financial quite feud between Russia, China and U.S. Its important to note that this move against Donald Trump and the U.S petro dollar being the world reserve currency was made before Trumps aggressive actions against a mutual ally to Russia and China.

denk , April 29, 2017 at 7:29 pm GMT \n
Uncle sham, 'Pay up or else !'

http://bit.ly/2pJezx6

hhhhhh

Wizard of Oz , April 29, 2017 at 10:20 pm GMT \n
@mp Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?

It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.

Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell (they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. OK until you come to "the Chinese are every bit as tribal as Jews," Whatever you might say about some 12 million Jews who; if in Israel, learn to speak a version of their old tribal language makes little sense when applied to 1.3 billion people speaking many mutually incomprehensible languages (or dialects as some prefer if you think Russian and Polish are two dialects) and with a long history of warlordism and the barbarism of the Cultural Revolution less than two generations behind them. Still I guess that it is wise to protect your IP from a Mandarin speaking Chinese employee who only became an Amrrican citizen yesterday .

[Jun 08, 2017] Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with French publication Le Figaro, has revealed that a US president is more often than not just a figurehead of government

Jun 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

Agent76 , June 3, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT

May 31, 2017 "Men in dark suits" rule the US – Putin on Deep State

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with French publication Le Figaro, has revealed that a US president is more often than not just a figurehead of government.

Mar 6, 2017 Zakharova warns of Orwellian US Media 2.03.17

Have a listen to what Zakharova has to say in relation to "fake news". Is there a deliberate campaign to undermine trust in all traditional media, so that the public can no longer form an opinion?

[Jun 03, 2017] Treason To What Im With The Russians, They Hate Us Less Than The Media Does!

Notable quotes:
"... I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." ..."
"... Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries. ..."
"... I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent! ..."
"... The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her. ..."
"... "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt." ..."
Jun 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
Of course, this begs an obvious question. Traitor to what? In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture, language, ethnos , history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?

The open celebration of what any other generation would have called "treason" reveals how fully self-discrediting is the Russian "interference" narrative. John Harington famously quipped: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." The "Russian interference" narrative is false because the fact it can be loudly denounced without being shut down for being the equivalent of "racist" or "xenophobic" shows Russia isn't very powerful within our government and society.

In contrast, our government and media seem to not only tolerate openly subversive or even hostile actions by foreign governments against the United States, but celebrate them.

Consider:

To criticize any of these countries, or to suggest dual loyalty on the part of their supporters in this country, is political death. Of course, that is because such dual loyalty is sufficiently strong that it is dangerous to broach the topic.

Indeed, for some in our Congress, dual loyalty would be a massive improvement.

The only reason we can't call men like these traitors is because there's no evidence they ever considered themselves Americans in any meaningful way. What could be more ridiculous than considering Chuck Schumer "a fellow American" with some imaginary "common interest" he shares with me?

Or take certain Main Stream Media figures. Bill Maher wants to Democrats to ask if you are with "us or the Russians". [ Maher: I want Democrats to say "You're Either With Us Or With The Russians ," by Ian Hanchett, Breitbart, May 12, 2017] Maher naturally delights in Open Borders for America and the replacement of our own population, but has spoken in the past about how "Israel faces the problem of becoming a minority Jewish state within their own country". [ Bill Maher on Israel, uncut and uncensored , by Danielle Berrin, Jewish Journal, November 29, 2017]

It's not double loyalty; that would be giving Maher too much credit. And it's not treason, because Maher just isn't part of my people, by his own standards. When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.

I'm with the Russians.

After all, "treason" requires not just providing "aid and comfort" to a foreign nation, but to an enemy. Why exactly is Russia an enemy of the United States ?

It's not Russia which makes claims on our territory . It's not Russia which funds extremist networks. It's not Russia which is deliberately sending terrorists into the West.

Of course, there is a Trump associate who has disturbing ties with a country doing just that. The main focus of the investigation into "Russian collusion" is focusing on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . But Flynn's strongest ties to a foreign power seem to be to be increasingly extreme and anti-European Turkey of the autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Incredibly, Flynn even wrote an editorial demanding more support for Turkey on election day itself. [ Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support , by Michael Flynn, The Hill, November 8, 2016]

As Turkey is quite openly facilitating the migrant invasion of Europe and helping ISIS, there's a far better case to claim our NATO "ally" is a threat than Russia. And yet Flynn's ties to Turkey go all but unmentioned outside evangelical Christian websites [ Best-selling author predicted Flynn's departure , WND, February 14, 2017]. The MSM is utterly indifferent to Flynn's ties to Erdogan, even when they seem to be utterly dedicated to destroying General Flynn personally.

Part of it simply could be the defense industry and the "Deep State" need an enemy with a powerful conventional military to justify their wealth and power. As it can't be China (that would be racist), Russia will do.

The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat. Russia is funding, or at least is tied to, several alternative media sources such as RT, possibly Wikileaks, Sputnik etc. Contrary to MSM claims, RT is hardly friendly to the "Alt-Right," instead promoting progressive hosts such as Thom Hartmann. But there is at least a slightly different point of view than the monolithic Narrative promoted on every late night comedy show, network news broadcast, cable news broadcast, newspaper headline, and Establishment website [ The Hard Road For Putin , by Gregory Hood, Radix, July 22, 2014].

There is also an undeniable, and openly articulated , sense of racial hatred expressed against Russians by Jewish members of the media. Russians are hated both as a specific ethnos and as a white nation which does not seem to be fully committed to "our values," which, as defined by Weimerica's journalist class, consists of various forms of degeneracy. [ Welcome to Weimerica , by Ryan Landry, Daily Caller, May 5, 2017]. John Winthrop's "City Upon A Hill" we are not.

It's not just idiotic but obscene that the same journalists gleefully involved in deconstructing the American identity now demand Middle America rally round the flag out of some misplaced Cold War nostalgia. Needless to say, these same journalists loved Russia back when it was Communist and killing millions of Orthodox Christians.

For immigration patriots, it's especially obnoxious because the eradication of the American identity is a result of mass immigration. And immigration is more important than every other issue for two reasons.

Ignoring immigration ensures no problem can ever be solved; indeed that every problem consistently gets worse.

ORDER IT NOW

To take just one example, Americans are sent all over the world to die because "we have to fight them there so they don't come here"; and then our government goes out of its way to bring terrorists here . And of course, as more problems are imported, the managerial class obtains more power to govern social relations and its own power grows . This is why it is hard to believe those who support Open Borders are actually working to defend the national interest in good faith.

But the second reason is even more important:

And even citizenship means nothing, The MSM constantly promotes Jose Antonio Vargas and his illegal friends or the protesters who parade under foreign flags not just as "Americans" but as people somehow more American than us.

It's a strange definition of patriotism where wanting peaceful relations with Russia is "treason" but banning the American flag in public schools because it might offend Mexicans is government policy .

Naturally, Leftist intellectuals and the reporters who parrot their ideas do have some vague idea of "American" identity-that of a "proposition" or "universal" nation which exists only to fight a global struggle for equality [ Superpowers , by James Kirkpatrick, NPI, June 24, 2013].

But can you betray a "proposition nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal nation?"

Actually, you can. If you are part of the historic American nation, one of those European-Americans who actually think of this country as a real nation with a real culture, you are in a strange way the only people left out of what it means to be a modern "American." To consider America a particular place with a specific culture and history that not everyone in the world can join simply by existing is treason to a "universal nation." Everyone in the world can be an "American," except, you know, actual Americans.

This is why the MSM is insistent that the governing philosophy of " America First ," which should simply be a truism for any rational American government, is instead something subversive and dangerous .

The hard truth is that "our" rulers aren't the guardians of our sovereignty, but the greatest threat to our independence.

And this isn't an unprecedented circumstance in history. During the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia, Carl von Clausewitz violated his king's orders to join the invasion of Russia and instead joined the Tsar's forces in the hope of someday liberating his own country. After all, it wasn't Tsar Alexander that was occupying Prussia; it was Napoleon. And in the end, he won, Prussia was restored, and eventually it was Prussia that would unite all of Germany.

The same situation applies today. Today, those actively pursuing the destruction of my people, culture and civilization aren't in Moscow. I don't even concede those are enemies at all.

Our enemies are in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, in "our" own media companies, government bureaucracies and intelligence agencies.

The real America is under occupation – and resistance to collaborators is patriotism to our country. We elected Donald Trump because we thought he could help disrupt and perhaps even end that occupation so we could have a country once again.

The attempt to destroy the President has ripped the mask off the forces behind this occupation . And we owe no loyalty to the collaborators who are trying to destroy his administration, dispossess our people, and destroy our country.

Because in the end, "treason" to the occupation is loyalty to America.

Mulegino1 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 16, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT

I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism."

Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves. Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders.

Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 16, 2017 at 9:25 am GMT

This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth, described excellently here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's not a good sign at all. PeakStupidity here is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone .. Buehler?

Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 16, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

"I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." - Buckley

We'd also be better off governed by names from the Moscow phone book than by the New York Times and Washington Post.

Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 17, 2017 at 3:00 am GMT

@Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies...

Just a reminder of who made Teddy. Everybody knows by now (a short overview@ http://www.tomatobubble.com/id695.html ):

"It's not merely that [Jacob] Schiff wielded enormous power, but rather the fact that his actions, more so than anyone else's, fundamentally altered the course of American history. Schiff was really the first true Jewish Mega-Mogul of the whole United States (Judah Benjamin had previously run the confederacy). As the first, Schiff, more than anyone who followed him, was able to leverage his power into eternity. That is why the MVZ award must go to him .

Schiff hated Christian Russia with a passion. He worked ceaselessly to overthrow the Romanov Dynasty and replace it with Jewish Reds / Communists. Toward that end, he personally financed, and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese War. As a result, the war ended with a Japanese victory. Russia's loss was also facilitated by Schiff's boy, President (and also a former New York Governor) Teddy Roosevelt*, whose negotiating intervention clearly favored Japan over Russia

(* Roosevelt became President after the conservative William McKinley was conveniently assassinated by aPolish[?]-American anarchist Leon Czolgosz, Teddy being conveniently Vice-President. Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy when the first false-flag incident of the USS Maine occured, later on followed by the Lusiatania – when FD Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy- and Pearl Harbour).

"Schiff's Jewish agents in Russia skillfully used the humiliating loss of the Russo-Japanese war as an occasion to launch a Communist revolution. The bloody Revolution of 1905 ultimately failed, but the Tsar's regime was left considerably weakened. Many of the returning Russian POW's came home brainwashed after Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while in Japanese captivity. The final Bolshevik overthrow of Russia in 1917 will owe its success, in large part, to the damage done to Russia by the team of Jacob Schiff & Ted the Red Roosevelt on 1905.

President William H. Taft proved to be a Constitutional Conservative, and not a big government "progressive" like his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt. But what really angered Jacob Schiff most of all was Taft's refusal, told to Schiff in person, to dampen trade relations with Tsarist Russia*. According to Henry Ford's sources, Schiff and his entourage left the White House saying. "This means war .

[*Schiff imposed also the abrogation of the Russian American Trade Treaty of 1832 in 1911, first instance of 'sanctions' motivated by the 'ill-treatement' of Jews in Russia (actually of the Jews emigrated to America returning to Russia holding American passports and engaged in subversive activities)].

"In order to oust the popular Republican Taft in 1912, Schiff and company recruited Teddy Roosevelt to run for President again, as a third party challenger. This maneuver split the Republican vote in two, allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to steal the Presidency. Wilson's Jewish owned presidency would turn out to be disastrous for America, and the world (The Fed, World War I, Russian Revolution, Jewish foothold in Palestine, Depression of 1919-1920)

As was the case during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the chaos of World War I enabled the Communists (Bolsheviks) to stage another uprising in 1917. Leading the diabolical efforts was Jacob Schiff's loyal agent, Leon Trotsky, freshly reestablished in Russia after having hidden in Brooklyn for the past decade. The Tsar had been forced to abdicate earlier that same year. The provisional government would then be overthrown by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks.

The following year, Schiff's agents murdered the Tsar and his entire family. The reign of terror that the Soviets then ushered in would plague humanity for decades to come. Scores of millions would be murdered! And it could never have happened without the tireless leadership of Rothschild, Schiff and their Junior partners.
Soon after the Revolution, Schiff removed Russia (now the Soviet Union) from his "do-not-lend list".

Just for a little 'piquant'. The granddaughter of Jacob, Dorothy, had a 'relationship' (which detractors called an 'affair') with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Priss Factor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 4:45 am GMT

Deep State should just be called the Sewer. At least a swamp is a natural eco-system. Deep State is a man-made Sewer, the Bowel of Power.

wayfarer , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

"Let's Connect the Dots!" https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/05/17/lets-connect-the-dots/#more-150513

Priss Factor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT

@Authenticjazzman "

... No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews lost faith in communism.
Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany, but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also, the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.

Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.

So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass control of much of Russian resources.
And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin winning another term.

Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may have kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering, and this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists like Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland for Jewish lawyers in love'.

So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty. They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.

So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent, defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support for Putin in Russia.

In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.

Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion) than with their own hurting kind.

These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity. Why would they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized by the Glob Virus.

jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:23 am GMT

Many USA jews, and rabbis, were against Zionism because the USA was the new Zion. Henry Ford around 1918 began to see the increase of jewish power in the USA, and began resistance.

Around 1933 world jewry accomplished a world wide boycott of Ford cars, and Ford gave up. Trump, though he has many close jewish contacts, is not the puppet of the neocons. Hillary is. So Deep State wants to get rid of Trump,in order to continue their plans to subjugate the whole world, the globalised world, where all cultures have disappeared, the whole world one big USA clone.

FKA Max , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:44 am GMT

High-quality TV with Victor Davis Hanson and Tucker Carlson:

Inside Dems' 'big lie' about Trump and Russia

Published on May 18, 2017

Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' that Democrats and the media cling to in quest to get Pres. Trump out of office #Tucker

This is a very welcome new development for the Alt Right:

Tucker Carlson's Reinvention
[...]
We've become fans of the show in this household even though we consume far more more information from the internet than cable television. He's reaching an audience which normally doesn't watch FOX News.

http://www.unz.com/article/the-battles-of-berkeley-someone-is-going-to-get-killed-where-is-trump/#comment-1845245

Hillary's Neoliberals

http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/hillarys-neoliberals/

Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries.

Just as Hillary Clinton may feel more comfortable with the old neoconservatives, Trump supporters have little in common with either Clintonites or neocons.

Clinton versus Trump is a war of NPR, CBS, and the New York Times against the National Enquirer, conservative talk radio, and the Drudge Report. Clinton supporters such as former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, onetime Bush officials Hank Paulson and Brent Scowcroft, and billionaire Meg Whitman certainly have nothing in common with Republican Trump supporters such as Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh.

Culture, not just politics, is rapidly destroying - but also rebuilding - traditional political parties.

Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT

@Anon

Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews – they are staffed and manned by the imported American Rabbis of Habad. Best and the choicest pieces of Russian municipal land are given to synagogues and Jewish cultural centres for free. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-russian-scare/

Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

Zogby , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 9:44 am GMT

I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!

The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her.

Take a recent incident The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified information to Lavrov. McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny that Trump reveal classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that had already been public for weeks. Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript of the meeting to show Trump didn't reveal any classified information. Then Trump goes on Twitter: Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President and it's my right! Go help somebody like that

PiltdownMan , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 10:18 am GMT

What Putin said yesterday.

"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:24 am GMT

@Wally Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews ....

Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs Shamir is an inveterate liar and the figure of 90+ synagogues in Moscow is fraudulent.

Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:25 am GMT

@Sebastian Puettmann Don't kid youselves.
The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.
He is just confused.

The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.

We all hate Keith Olberman, but the Russians don't get the same cable channels. Why would they hate Keith Olberman when he doesn't even come on TV there?

Serg Derbst , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT

I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever.

There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc.

I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have.

The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.

There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army – but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism, materialism, hedonism – an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity either.

There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or the Germans.

Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:55 am GMT

@Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater to gays.

Communist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.

The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block, and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total madness.

"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience to even elaborate thereon.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style Jazz players coming out of Russia. You are making several good points, but I won't hit the 'agree' button, because I agree with the Priss Factor's reply to your main points.

Again, it is amusing that you post the same potted description of you on every post.

If you post under a pseudonym and won't identify your 'authentic jazz', you may be wiser to drop the claims.

Just leave the occasional incidental.

Nice to see you making a post that makes much sense, though.

neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT

@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. A typical cuckservative response, how about you respond to what this article is about. The facts are absolutely clear the greatest enemies are those that exist in America, they have been mentioned in this article, your obsession with Russia is not going to deflect from this fact.

Its rather simple, Ukraine is not American, despite all your stupid domino theories yourwill no doubt bring up, on the other hand extremists like Olberman openly support mass non white immigration into the USA, what would any reasonable nationalist think is the bigger issue.

Anonymous , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

@Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves.

Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Here's a 1200-page read for you. It's from a traditionalist Catholic perspective.

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. [20 mb PDF file]d

neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT

@Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.

There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army - but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism, materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity either.

There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or the Germans. I partially agree with you on the identity thing, but on the other hand the American identity (I say this as a non American) was based on being white. There was the notable exception of the blacks, but they did not make up the majority of the population and their acceptance as being American was the exception more than the rule, their distinct culture added some spice to what was America, but nobody can seriously believe that if the USA was 90% black it would still be America.

You also now have the situation that people arrive off planes from places like India, China or Somalia and are declared American, I find that ridiculous. Sadly this is no longer a problem only in America, its the same in Sweden, France, Germany, UK, etc, they all have made what being a people is completely meaningless.

Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall, they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in. General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening Russia.

There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas .

Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them.

That is a very strange assertion, as are many of your others. Strong evidence has been widely reported about the gas attack while Obama was Prex of the USA having had a Turkish connection.

Erdogan imprisoned many reporters on this and other ties with al Qaeda and the Islamic state.

It is easy to look up.

Assad is an idiot.

He was a respected opthalmolagist in London for years, testimonials from former (British) patients are not hard to find. Opthalmology may not be the most demanding medical speciality, but it is up there, and is not a nest of idiots.

If you want to see an idiot, you may try the mirror.

Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT

@Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.

There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army - but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism, materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity either.

There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or the Germans.

There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it.

and, with a name like Serb, I can see why. Why are you writing about something that you obviously (from your racism drivel in the 1st paragraph) know not a damn thing about?

You are an prime example of the data points we at PeakStupidity use to prove that America and the West has arrived at a global maximum.

Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT

Apr 6, 2016 Fascism, American Style

The United States of America, that dream of what a democratic republic ought to be, has become the Fascist States of America. As the 2016 elections have more than revealed, we have moved beyond the era of representative government and have entered into a new age. You can call it the age of authoritarianism. Or fascism. Or oligarchy. Either way, argues John W. Whitehead, we are being played for fools.

jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT

@Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. ....

Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Stalin was our enemy, a Roosevelt creation.
He died in 1953, probably murdered.
Then the threat was over, those that did nog believe it should have realised it when Chrustjow removed his rockets and atomic warheads from Cuba.
But the USA went on with the madness of possible mutual destruction, I suppose in the hope that the cost of the war effort would cause the collapse of the USSR.

jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT

@Anonymous Here's a 1200-page read for you. It's from a traditionalist Catholic perspective.

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. [20 mb PDF file]d Did you read it ?
If you did, is there the theory that christianity was a Roman invention, brought by Paul, to undermine jewish power ?

countenance , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

But can you betray a "proposition nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal nation?"

By disagreeing with the proposition.

Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

@Seraphim @the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Just a reminder of who made Teddy. Everybody knows by now (a short overview@http://www.tomatobubble.com/id695.html) ....

I had never heard of that before.

It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40 years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.

The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly misfired on their intentions.

So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?

It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later but a joke version "was"founded earlier, perhaps that has a connection.

A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.

The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria, how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero (and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military perspective).

Linda Green , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

@Achmed E. Newman This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth, described excellently here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's not a good sign at all. PeakStupidity here is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone ..... Buehler? Isiah 5:20:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited.

Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT

@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all? @What has changed in 2000 years?

A steady Judaization of Christianity. They are no more Christians.

Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT

Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad! Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell – Aug 8 – Charlie Rose

John Gruskos , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. Trump doesn't "have" to do any such thing.

The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies, radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American friendship would have many other benefits – boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China, and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe.

John Gruskos , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT

@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall, they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in. General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening Russia.

There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get.

Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT

@Che Guava

Toward that end, he personally financed, and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese War.
Much of what you are saying I had read in passing (interesting post), but that is interesting to me. Do you have a pointer to something I could read on it, preferably on the 'net or a book in Japanese (also the below).
Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while in Japanese captivity.
I had never heard of that before.

It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40 years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.

The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly misfired on their intentions.

So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?

It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later ... but a joke version "was"founded earlier, perhaps that has a connection.

A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.

The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria, how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero (and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military perspective). You will find it in:

Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership

https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=0874519489

Naomi Wiener Cohen – 1999 , p.137

It actually refers to an article in New York Times of March 24, 1917 – "KENNAN RETELLS HISTORY Relates How Jacob H. Schiff Financed Revolution Propaganda in Czar's Army".
@ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E05E4DB143AE433A25757C2A9659C946696D6CF&legacy=true

jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:49 pm GMT

@Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!

Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose

https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'.

jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:51 pm GMT

@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. Raegan never made any mistake: 'he slept through it all'.

Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

@Anon Shamir is an inveterate liar and the figure of 90+ synagogues in Moscow is fraudulent. Still in denial we see.

Mark Green , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks in his essay however seem not to be functioning properly.

It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.

Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast–not Russia–that gets to graze unmolested throughout Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.

This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state. This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.

Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed. It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.

Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel–not Russia–that has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.

And it is Israel–not Russia–that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against the foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.

Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.

Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military power.

Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white) multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.

Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.

US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing venom.

jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

@John Gruskos Trump doesn't "have" to do any such thing.

The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies, radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American friendship would have many other benefits - boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China, and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe. Your benefits are to Deep State horrible losses.

Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence. It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.

Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks. It really is a mental illness at this point.

They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor, but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018.

Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT

@Linda Green Isiah 5:20:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited. Thank you very much, Linda! I know there are plenty of search tools and places to search on-line, but I didn't have the wording right.

Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. I agree with your point, John, but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in trusting members of the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal – though, I grant you, any amnesty was a bad deal for Americans. Here is more regarding Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco.

neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT

@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. With that amnesty he could never win any vote California if he existed now, this the problem with all these cuck types, they all want to believe in the magic dirt of America that somehow they will have another Reagan one day, this will never happen and Reagan shares part of the blame.

Anonymous , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:39 pm GMT

@Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!

Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose

https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 Do you think think this middling intellect, son of an autoworker from Akron, Ohio with a degree in accounting from U. of Akron, realizes he's only a useful goyim tool and has no real power??

jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm GMT

@Mark Green Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks in his essay however seem not to be functioning properly.

It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.

Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast--not Russia--that gets to graze unmolested throughout Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.

This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state. This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.

Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed. It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.

Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel--not Russia--that has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.

And it is Israel--not Russia--that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against the foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.

Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.

Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military power.

Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white) multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.

Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.

US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing venom. If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.

What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.

Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making America great again', not very clear to me.
A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they knew, or want.
Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
And hostility to establishment politicians.

War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT

I have 0 allegiance to the Maxine Waters Negro Democratic Party the party of Negros Sihks .Chinese Koreans MS-13 Mexican Zetas

I believe in strong Native Born White American Christian Solidarity with Euro-Christian Russia

If Donald Trump goes to war against Christian Russia .I will go into battle with Christian Russia ..against the Maxine Waters Negro Democratic Party .

The Civil War was a terrible mistake .the Negro wasn't worth it .

Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT

@wayfarer "Let's Connect the Dots!"

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/05/17/lets-connect-the-dots/#more-150513 Leon Czolgosz was not Polish.

He was a Jew whose family lived in Poland for a few generations and then moved to Anerica. He was a follower of Emma Goldberg and Alexander Berkman who thanks be to God were deported back to Russia just in time to participate in the revolution.

Buzz Mohawk , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT

100% Correct! Thanks go to Mr. Kirkpatrick for writing this and to Mr. Unz for putting it here.

Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military secrets to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action those military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose only qualification that they are not White.

Steve Naidamast , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:38 pm GMT

I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.

To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is a bit absurd.

No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).

Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States. His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency, his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy, and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.

As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.

Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the winners are always the highest bidders.

Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for Southern Independence.

America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason; he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.

So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but one to protect the wealthy and their needs.

There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to protect the White privileged classes .

Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT

@Wally Still in denial we see. That's not an argument. You are parroting Shamir, who said something that he never bothered to prove. Can you prove it?

Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

@Achmed E. Newman I agree with your point, John, but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in trusting members of the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal - though, I grant you, any amnesty was a bad deal for Americans. Here is more regarding Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco. A decade before he even ran for governor Reagan was spotted by DART industries and other cut throat capitalists who wanted to reverse every gain the working class made in the 20th century.

Reagan's backers knew that the easiest way to do this was to import millions of legal and illegal immigrants to replace Americans in every job from physician to dishwasher.

So Reagan CLAIMED to regret his amnesty after the damage was done. There is an old French saying.

"Don't listen to what he says, look at what he does."

That's what I do. I look beyond the rehetoric and look at what is done. Reagan betrayed his working and middle class White voters with amnesty and making affirmative action worse.

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT

@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. " because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine"

Since then the UnzReview has become a platform for the Kagans' clan propaganda? The data on three (3) referenda have shown that Crimeans wanted a greater autonomy from Kiev long before the US-sponsored thugs of neo-Nazi leaning followed cookie-carrying Nuland-Kagan towards the "bright future" of today's economic and moral decline in Ukraine. Are not you longing for more auto-da-fe in Odessa, which was conducted by neo-Nazis battalion Azov in 2014? At that time the battalion was financed by an Israeli citizen and pillar of Jewish community of Ukraine Mr. Kolomojsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeguAaPYKU8
It is understandable why Israel-firsters hate Russian federation; the russkies dared to stop the advance of ISIS in a great game for Eretz Israel and other attractive mythological trinkets of supremacist kind.
When the US and EU are hollowed out by your insatiable tribe, where would the "eternal victims" have to go? To Rothschild bunkers?

Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:19 pm GMT

@Zogby I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!

The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her.

Take a recent incident...

The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified information to Lavrov.

McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny that Trump reveal classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that had already been public for weeks.

Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript of the meeting to show Trump didn't reveal any classified information.

Then Trump goes on Twitter: Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President and it's my right!

Go help somebody like that... Actually it's true. The president, not state or justice and certainly not the liberal press is completely in charge of foreign affairs and the President can classify or not classify any and all information.

Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

@Anon That's not an argument. You are parroting Shamir, who said something that he never bothered to prove. Can you prove it? I have.

It's noted that you predictably ignored:

Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

And you will most certainly ignore:

Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
and:
The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
and:
The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
and:
Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
and:
Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
and:
Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
and:
IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
Read more: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

@Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.

To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is a bit absurd.

No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).

Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States. His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency, his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy, and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.

As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.

Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the winners are always the highest bidders.

Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for Southern Independence.

America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason; he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.

So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but one to protect the wealthy and their needs.

There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to protect the White privileged classes....

So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was.

As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics of the people.

American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.

The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people.

Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 8:30 pm GMT

I just got out of the car after listening to the vomitorium NPR's daily short-stroke session with Brooks and Dudiowhocares how the weasel spells his fairy-sounding name. It's interesting, listening to a Jew (I could be wrong, but it's NPR, so probably not) interview a Jew pretending to be an Anglo Conservative, and a goy leftist that I find indistinguishable from a Brooklyn Jew. Anyhoo, between tossing each other off, Brooks (loyalty: Israel, his son serves in the IDF FFS) called Russia our "adversary." You know it's a lie when the media says it. Did NPR's pet "Conservatives" refer to the Soviet Union as our "adversary"?

Media = scum. Otherwise, they couldn't get work in that business.

Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT

P.S., a giant AMEN to every word of this piece, Kirkpatrick. Bravo.

Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT

Kneel before Zog.

Indeed. Many years ago, I used terms like "ZOG" only with emotional trepidation. That is long since gone. Now the trepidation is entirely practical; it puts off the idiots we need to get through to. It is an entirely accurate term for the regime.

No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews lost faith in communism.

After Stalin, the Russians removed Jews (and many other aliens) from their former heights of power in the USSR. That didn't win them any (((friends))). More to the point, Putin brought (((the oligarchs))) to heel, and reversed all their (((important work))). That's when the (((hate))) really started for Russia.

It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'.

That's leftism.

Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

@Wally I have.

It's noted that you predictably ignored:

Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

And you will most certainly ignore:

Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
and:
The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
and:
The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
and:
Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
and:
Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
and:
Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
and:
IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all I know the rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other links are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion to.

Also, you dodged:

http://www.unz.com/article/the-hazards-of-military-worship/#comment-1874540

Because you're wrong and are too much an intellectual cripple to admit it.

Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.

I'm with the Russians.

count me as also with the Russians

Bill Maher is a sewer rat*

great article

enjoyed the comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
*apologies to real sewer rats for the comparison

Wally , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:23 pm GMT

@Anon You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all I know the rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other links are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion to.

Also, you dodged:

http://www.unz.com/article/the-hazards-of-military-worship/#comment-1874540

Because you're wrong and are too much an intellectual cripple to admit it. And that's why I have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure you remember.

I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.

How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!!

Wally , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT

@Anon The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence. It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.

Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks. It really is a mental illness at this point.

They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor, but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018. Exactly, good point.

Like when Zionists claim that scrutiny of the '6M Jews, 5M other & gas chambers' is hateful to Jews.
Forgetting that making such claims in the first place is hateful to Germans and to Gentiles who Jews claim 'let it happen'.

KenH , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT

Count me with the Russians, too. Non self hating whites in America are stateless and behind enemy lines. We are told the nation belongs to every racial and religious group except those of the founding racial stock (Christian or not). We have laws promoting and protecting most non-white racial groups at the expense of the white majority. Our history is being rewritten to cast aspersions on our founding and villainize great white men who built America while lionizing non-whites who did next to nothing.

(((Hollywood))) movies and television shows depict whites as either corrupt, vapid, moronic or untrustworthy compared to non-whites and generally dehumanize us and foment racial hatred against us. The golden rule in politics is that white politicians are strictly forbidden from acknowledging whites as a group let alone show any sympathy or compassion for them or working on their behalf. Donald Trump has only done so half heartedly and implicitly and he's derided as a white supremacist 24/7 and as "un-American" while facing calls to resign simply for enforcing immigration laws and failing to take a wrecking ball to the last vestiges of the old, white America.

This is conquest and occupation, not progress as the (((authors))) of all these trends inform us. With a straight face. Everything most of us loved and held dear has been destroyed by the JOG and remade in their vile image and likeness.

Therefore, if Putin were to invade the U.S. this would be cause for celebration for the embattled and shrinking white majority. We would have nothing to lose. This nation betrayed us long ago and no longer deserves our loyalty, support or affection.

The pot bellied, "race doesn't matter" patriotards and antifa scumbags can have it.

Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 12:09 am GMT

@Wally And that's why I have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure you remember.

I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.

How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!! You clearly have no interest in debate. Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt. Enjoy yourself.

Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:12 am GMT

@Priss Factor The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater to gays. Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.

No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews lost faith in communism.
Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany, but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also, the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.

Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.

So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass control of much of Russian resources.
And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin winning another term.
Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may have kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering, and this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists like Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland for Jewish lawyers in love'.
So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty. They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.

So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent, defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support for Putin in Russia.

In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.

Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion) than with their own hurting kind.

These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity.
Why would they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized by the Glob Virus. 60′s Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.

The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural" Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of "me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak and pathetic

Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence.

Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:55 am GMT

@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all? "Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? "

Here we are.

Don't look for leadership from the Whore of Babylon.
All of these "hierarchical" churches are pyramids of power in the Beast System.

Authority among men is on a level field; with the Word of God- Jesus of the scriptures- as King.

Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:01 am GMT

@CanSpeccy


So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was.
As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics of the people.

American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.

The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture, language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"

His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens. Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths. Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.

"Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."

Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?

" mass replacement immigration."

No.

"The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people."

There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point is tiresome to say the least.

Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:05 am GMT

@Anon You clearly have no interest in debate. Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt. Enjoy yourself. Problem is that you're not an intellectual. Not in the slightest. Dream on.

Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 7:02 am GMT

@jilles dykstra If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.

What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.

Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making America great again', not very clear to me.
A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they knew, or want.
Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
And hostility to establishment politicians. By definition, since the polity of the USA is controlled by the Izzies, it can not be a sovereign state.

It is a bizarre colonial posession of Israel. So, by your argument, Israel is the only truly sovereign state.

Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:05 am GMT

@Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.

The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural" Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of "me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak and pathetic...

Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires...
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions.

Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.

Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent to be academic hack.

Jong was a sexual libertarian, not a PC whore.

Eonic , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:15 am GMT

@Wally I have.

It's noted that you predictably ignored:

Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

And you will most certainly ignore:

Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
and:
The Zionist attempt to control language.
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
and:
The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
and:
Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
and:
Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
and:
Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
and:
IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg In view of the contents of your last link, you may be interested in this : https://eonic1.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/the-dumb-american-poem/

Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT

@Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.

The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural" Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of "me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak and pathetic...

Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
desires...
Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. " An all-knowing judge/creator"

Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

Wizard of Oz , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

@Corvinus Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture, language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"

His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens. Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths. Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.

"Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."

Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?

"...mass replacement immigration."

No.

"The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people."

There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point is tiresome to say the least. I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So ..

Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al

Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 12:49 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'. Just keeping it real from inside the D.C. operations and from folk's in power!

War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 1:40 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....

Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal .Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it

If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them they would view it as genocide

America is not a proposition nation and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day 365 days a year as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of

The future for the Native Born White America Working Class .Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions .and Rampage 82

Paul Kersey

Go by Rampage 82 my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands .my cousin committed suicide three years later .Oh my God what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's

John Derbyshire

I was just in Book Review this morning .there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82 " go by it read it ..

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 1:56 pm GMT

The alleged patriotism of the US Congress (and Olderman, Maddow, and other hysterical "progressives") and the reality of meddling into the US affairs, as documented by the facts:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/19/the-open-secret-of-foreign-lobbying/
"When AIPAC director Morris Amitay was caught red-handed mishandling classified missile secrets in 1975, he could have been prosecuted under FARA. When AIPAC and an Israeli diplomat purloined the entire 300-page book of classified trade secrets compiled from 70 U.S. industry groups opposed to unilateral trade concessions for Israel in 1984, they could have been prosecuted for failing to report their clandestine subversion of due process. When in 2005 [AIPAC officials] Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman met with Israeli diplomats during efforts to pass classified information to the press they thought could trigger a U.S attack on Iran, FARA consequences would have awaited them all. However, because the U.S. Department of Justice has unilaterally abrogated its responsibility to enforce FARA, people, ideas, money and propaganda campaigns continue to secretly slosh freely between Tel Aviv and Israeli fronts in America with taxpayer funds thrown into the toxic brew."
In short, "support the troops" by sending them to fight for Tel Aviv projects.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/05/neocons-protest-us-spying-on-israel/
Meanwhile, the US homeland security is in the Israelis' hands.
http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/08/21/homeland-security-made-in-israel/
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/US-Deputy-of-Homeland-Security-US-Israel-to-sign-automated-cyber-information-sharing-agreement-457261

Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT

@Anon The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions.

Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.

Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent to be academic hack.

Jong was a sexual libertarian, not a PC whore. All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism and were the products of the Jew commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the kindling of second wave feminism.

War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT

If you have any doubts about the open genocidal intent of the Democratic Party

Do the following thought experiment ..What would happen if Richard Spencer incessantly in his his US College Tour stated emphatically:"WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFULL IF YOUNG NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN COUPLES STARTED HAVING LARGE WHITE FAMILIES .so Native Born White Americans can go back to being a 90 racial minority in America again!!!!"

How would Melissa Harris Perry react?

How would Maxine Waters react?

How would the TATA Institute grads react?

How would Ciela Munoz react?

How would the smelly hairy bulldyke Hillary Clinton react?

Paul Kersey

Go buy Rampage 82 .."Oh my God what they did to that waitress" .this is what the Greek owner of the restaurant next to Walt Whitman High School said to me several years ago .the restaurant by the Colonial Era..historic grave yard that the Salvadoran youth trample over disrespectefully every morning on their way to Walt Whitman High School ..West Hills area

Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....

Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture."

CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.

"As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."

Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.

"Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is "

Maybe. Or maybe not.

Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

Paul Kersey


Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


John Derbyshire


I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it..... "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."

The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets–Anonym and Anon, for starters.

"America is not a proposition nation "

Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular, "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization " By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores.

Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

Paul Kersey


Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


John Derbyshire


I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it..... I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life changing
on LI.

In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old style of hospitality featured privacy.
The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's scope of the imagination at the time.

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....

Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ...

I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.

That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.

The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn) as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America.

Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT

@Authenticjazzman " An all-knowing judge/creator"

Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician. You are correct.

Free will is paramount.

And with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.

Jesus said not to fear the first death.

Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.

Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self- aggrandizement) or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.

Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this message.

But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire"; who also added the addendum:
"ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind"

Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT

I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

@Stonehands I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life changing
on LI.

In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old style of hospitality featured privacy.
The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's scope of the imagination at the time. As you know Glen Cove has been completely colonized by El Salavodor and Mexico

Glen Cove used to be a beautifull North Shore Town

I used to go to that health food store down past the firehouse that used to proudly display the great big Convederate Flag in the firetruck bays .

Interestingly Tom Suozzi's uncle was the Mayor of Glenn Cove and got trashed by Newday for cracking down on the Mexicans and Salvadoran illegals .his nephew Tom the Cockroach is onboard with importing the nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc .and war with Christian Russia

Congressman Tom Suozzi a creepy looking short Italian with cornrows of hairplugs and platforms in his shoes .and speaks with a lisp

War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:01 pm GMT

@Corvinus "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."

The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets--Anonym and Anon, for starters.

"America is not a proposition nation..."

Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular, "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores. Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days .

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:07 pm GMT

Meanwhile, the Zio-propagandists ignore the death of Seth Rich:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/

"The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.
A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time Okay, so where's the computer? Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.
But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters because it doesn't fit with their political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking story.
Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked" by a foreign government. Here's the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
"Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a "disgruntled" Democrat upset with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray) appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University.
With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible. Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they've showed no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?"

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

@PiltdownMan What Putin said yesterday.


"What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

What Putin said yesterday:

"Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

Putin was being tactful, obviously.

Clearly, what he meant was that the US is now dominated by dangerously corrupt people. The same is true of virtually all states in all times. What is unusual about America today is the scale of harm that the US plutocracy is in a position to inflict, and is indeed inflicting, on both Americans and the world.

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

Paul Kersey


Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


John Derbyshire


I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it.....

Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus

Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the "agent provocateur" function enabled. The AP function would explain the repeated demands to know what someone opposed to European genocide proposes to do about it: bomb throwing being, presumably, the desired response, leading to arrest and incarceration under anti-terrorism laws.

One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated. If he were denying the Jewish Holocaust he would be censored here, or if not, probably targeted for some kind of legal sanction, as would only be right. Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European hatred here?

Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT

@Stonehands You are correct.

Free will is paramount.

And...with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.

Jesus said not to fear the first death.

Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.

Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self- aggrandizement)...or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.

Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this message.

But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire"; who also added the addendum:
"ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind" First of all, myself a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a center focus, I am most certainly more versed within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than you could probably imagine, and point is : He was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if he wanted to continue eating, and this holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation, and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort at hand : Making it, the music, swing.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz artist.

Wizard of Oz , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT

@Corvinus "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture."

CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.

"As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."

Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.

"Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is..."

Maybe. Or maybe not. "not relevant here". Fair enough unless you are willing to allow in these often discursive conversations an attempt to lead people on a path of thought which will spark tecognition – in this case perhaps of the loss of much that used to bind even if it wasn't an essential eternal part of human existence.

Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT

@Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.

To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is a bit absurd.

No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).

Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States. His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency, his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy, and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.

As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.

Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the winners are always the highest bidders.

Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for Southern Independence.

America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason; he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.

So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but one to protect the wealthy and their needs.

There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to protect the White privileged classes.... "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of th electorate

So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white house.

Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.

You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering about.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

Wizard of Oz , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:14 pm GMT

@CanSpeccy


I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.

The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn) as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America. At least Leicester has got a lot of successful Indians has it not (many ex East Africa I believe)? By chance I had dinner tonight at a Two Fat Indians restaurant, not nearly as cheap as in the UK but also no fat Indians but a couple of gorgeous smiling smart young women from Punjab. I wouldn't want all our immigration of the relatively smart to be Chinese, though I welcome them, so it tended to confirm my relatively optimistic view about Australia's population. Clearly native white Australians are breeding almost as dysgenically as outback Aborigines and Lebanese immugrants from 40 yeats ago so I see the Chinese and Indians who have often been educated in Australia as making up for that. It is curious however that our school PISA ranking has declined in the last 10 years or so. I suspect parties of the left and teacher unions though another cause for puzzling over it is that a larger proportion of children get their education in non government schools in Australia than almost anywhere in the First World.

Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT

@CanSpeccy


I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.

The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn) as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America. "But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny."

Clearly your fixation on something that does not observable exist, chiefly the extermination of whites in the "West" by elites and their toadies, is a trait of you as an aspie. I have nothing personal against your affliction. I just find it fascinating that you rinse and repeat this phenomenon.

"The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement "

Another one of your obsessions. Modern married white couples rarely look at their situation in this fashion. They have children. They will take care of them as best they are able. Tens of thousands of mothers and fathers assuredly are not going to be badgered by you and your ilk into thinking about ensuring the viability of the "white race" by having more babies. Have you met your obligation here? Do you have at least five white offspring? Have you properly indoctrinated, I mean discussed, of their future duty?

(consistent with government directed sex "education,")

Yes, sex education. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.

"plus no-fault divorce"

Yes, no-fault divorce. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.

"and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)"

Finally, we agree. This is a big deal.

"as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population."

NOT genocide. Mass immigration has been a historical and global phenomenon. Nations sent colonists to explore. The undesired and unwanted left their home countries and, as immigrants, arrived to other parts of the globe. Immigration policies were informal or formal, and they varied from nation to nation. Furthermore, there always has been some level of augmentation in a nation's population. The British helped to found the American colonies; other Europeans, along with Africans and Asians and Latin Americans, arrived there, either voluntarily or by force. The British were "replaced" in the fact they were no longer the dominant group to control the region, and that they increasingly intermarried with non-British. This ethnic "mixing" had been considered taboo in Europe (except among the elite to secure their power and authority), but in America it became the rule.

"Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America."

Tragic. But a fact of life. I suggest you run for political office. Make a difference in England, your home nation. Promote what you believe in.

"Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the "agent provocateur" function enabled."

From what I've been told by a good friend who does work for this organization, the CIA has been targeting you since you were eight years old. They have a dossier on you and your family. You have been on notice for decades given your "pro-race is code for anti-humanity" mindset.

"One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated."

Of course it should be "tolerated". In fact, it should be relished and replicated by other posters here to expose your lies and propaganda. There is no "Euro-Holocaust". That is Fake News. I'm sure at some point in time the CIA will engage in psycho-ops and reprogram you.

"Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European hatred here?"

False characterization. I am "spewing" my love for the human race. Unfortunately, there are people who are bitter and lost.

Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:23 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days.... "Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days ."

Are your sock puppets on eight hour or daily shifts?

Now, regarding my posterity comment, do you have a rebuttal?

bluedog , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

Paul Kersey


Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


John Derbyshire


I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it..... That's why militias were formed to take care of the wild dogs that roam thru society Join one today..

geokat62 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT

@Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section.

Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.

While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.

It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are. I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is, actually doing.

One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the following material they've posted on their website:

This is America.This is ADL. (NB – disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking individuals)

The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave the fabric of our pluralistic society.

For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's premier human relations and civil rights organization.

If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition benefits are available to Corporate Partners.

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/about-adl/corporate-partners.pdf

More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity. They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."

Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression – promoting a policy of diversity, while damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.

While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic. Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many goyim – i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism one cannot favour both at the same time.

So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this this film will not have a happy ending.

-----

P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice of life."

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 9:18 pm GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days.... Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement of Euro-Americans. It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.

Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.

There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out, from the time of Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.

Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 9:23 pm GMT

@Stonehands All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism and were the products of the Jew commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the kindling of second wave feminism. Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.

Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her. The media just needed someone as 'leader'.

Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of long march through institutions.

Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term 'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'.

Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:02 pm GMT

@geokat62


I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.

While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.

It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are. I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is, actually doing.

One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the following material they've posted on their website:


This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking individuals)

The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave the fabric of our pluralistic society.

For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's premier human relations and civil rights organization.

If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition benefits are available to Corporate Partners.

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/about-adl/corporate-partners.pdf

More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity. They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."

Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.

While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic. Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot favour both at the same time.

So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this this film will not have a happy ending.

-------------

P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice of life."

while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME.

well said Geo,

we've all seen this genocidal hag shilling for the destruction of the West

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERmOpZrKtw

and we all know by now the consequences of this insanity being foisted by these (often Jewish) netherworld demons

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3831991/Wheelchair-bound-woman-gang-raped-six-migrants-Swedish-asylum-centre-asking-use-toilet.html

no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating, (with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents] who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who want to pay lower wages in general)

but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is, at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that, but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers call all non-Jewish immigrants – invaders.

So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife, while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.

There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:02 pm GMT

@Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.

Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.

Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT

@Authenticjazzman First of all, myself a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a center focus, I am most certainly more versed within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than you could probably imagine, and point is : He was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if he wanted to continue eating, and this holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation, and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort at hand : Making it, the music, swing.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz artist. I own a small restaurant where l occassionally feature solo artists or duets, myself included. I have been playing classical/jazz guitar for 45 years. I recently performed for Jason Vieaux [2016 solo classical Grammy award] and friends, and one of the pieces l played was "Jesu."
He agreed that my original transcription [key of G] and fingering were unique and pleasing to the ear and probably easier to commit to memory then the Rick Foster or Christopher Parkening renditions; we're talking non- stop double and triple stops here!

As per Christianity; you may believe there is no God (that's your faith and hope) but you cannot confirm it.

Bro Methylene , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:18 am GMT

@Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. What makes you think Assad is an idiot? He seems more intelligent than most politicians, journalists, and politicians in Washington, D.C. (I cringe at having to name the place. It's like speaking Orc-language in Rivendell.)

Millions of Americans, having been raised on TV propaganda, still have a screaming need to feel superior to everyone – except perhaps the Israelis.

The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the world is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT

While the "progressives" badmouth bad-bad russkies for "destroying our democracy," an obscene spectacle of persecution of the most important whistleblower of our times continues.
"Getting Assange: the Untold Story," by JOHN PILGER
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/getting-assange-the-untold-story/
"Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed, "Can't we just drone this guy." According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is "unprecedented in scale and nature." In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. Assange's ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the "national security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was "active and ongoing" and would harm the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security." This is a kangaroo court."

dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 3:18 am GMT

@Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater to gays.

Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.

The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block,
and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total
madness.

"Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience to even elaborate thereon.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style Jazz players coming out of Russia.

Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show

I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was, if not more so.

I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you?

It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions about global Marxism.

dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 3:41 am GMT

@ThereisaGod This comment reflects the mindless nationalism of a person who has spent too much time reading mainstream Zionist propaganda.
The USA INSTIGATED the Syrian "revolution". It armed and funded the rebels (Al Qaeda) and told them we would support them. The Assad government had NO CHOICE but to act as they did or die, handing Syria over to friends of Israel who would then set about dismantling the defences of the Shias in the region who effectively oppose the racist state of Israel.
As this article lays out, American patriots should be supporting Russia and Assad. If these countries fall to international finance (as the entire western world has done) the Washington swamp will turn its full attention to destroying the USA in a similar manner to the Soviets destruction of Christian Russia (it's the same people, folks. The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives).

Sean. Your comment is, umm ...... confused.

The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives

I hear this all the time. I know that many Trotskyists morphed into neocons but that's not quite the same as saying that Trotskyists are neocons are identical. Trotsky may have been a heretical communist but he was still a communist. Are neocons actual communists? In what way are they actual communists?

dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 3:50 am GMT

@ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?

Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?

In the West Christian leaders are not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. They're liberals. They're not liberal Christians, they're just liberals.

In Russia they take Christianity a bit more seriously. In Russia Christian leaders actually believe in God (which is extremely rare among western Christian leaders).

The problem with Christianity is that once you take away belief in God what you're left with really is just liberalism.

in the middle , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 4:36 am GMT

@Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall, they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in. General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening Russia.

There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . Your comment is totally senseless!

Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 4:37 am GMT

@Authenticjazzman " An all-knowing judge/creator"

Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future victims.
Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician. @why did he not rethink

Did that false 'judge/creator' not know that he would be taken to task by an Authenticjazzman, the 'authentic' judge of what God should or should not do as to not displease his 'Authenticity'? So, he is not all-knowing. QED.

in the middle , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

@John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. How exactly did Reagan biggest mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples, please.

in the middle , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 6:30 am GMT

@Alden Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military secrets to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action those military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose only qualification that they are not White. Regardless of ethnicity, these spies deserve the death penalty, for treason to the people who gave them the welcome into our land. As for "white christian", Christianity is either underground or dying, thanks to the power of the sons of the devil, as told by Iesous Christos, (greek), (John 8:44-45 King James Version (KJV)

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

So now we know that 'churchianity' has become a den of thieves, and a cave of robbers, teaching that whom Christ called sons of the devil, Churchianity teaches that they are the children of god. What a contradiction by those who profess to represent Christ!

Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT

@Anon Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.

Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her. The media just needed someone as 'leader'.

Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of long march through institutions.

Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term 'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'. "They have nothing to do with communism"

Bullshit they have everything to do with communism, as all, without exception, all of these characters are hoping and waiting for the transformation of capitalism to marxism, and they, as stupid and naive as they are, they think that they will be running the show thereafter, when fact is they will be the first to be purged.

You simply have no insight, and you are in above your head with these themes.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT

@dfordoom


Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show
I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was, if not more so.

I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you?

It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions about global Marxism. "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree.

Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

@annamaria "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
Agree. " They serve the interests of global capitalism"

Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.

Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting and waiting for the shift to collectivism.

Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.

I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it is fact.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz musician.

Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

No, I won't reject you. That would be actual anti-Semitism, and would make no sense. But if you follow the usual pattern, and spend more time fighting critics of Jewry than you do fighting the Jews who deserve critiquing, then yeah, I've no use for you.

Basically I expect pro-White Jews to join the White Tribe, and put the Jewish Tribe at the back of the bus, or better yet, off the bus altogether (other than some special cases, I don't even see why most of them would even need to announce (or even hold) their Jewish identity; it's not like anyone's going to put you on the rack and force you to confess it – Jewish identity is something you can reject or opt out of).

As for those special cases: the most valuable thing a pro-White Jew can do is go into his own (former?) tribe and fight Whites' enemies there. You guys have a calling of epic importance waiting for you, if you'll have it.

Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:21 pm GMT

We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an interesting question- the policy is clearly in error.

Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT

As per Christianity; you may believe there is no God (that's your faith and hope) but you cannot confirm it.

Well put, and succinctly. Though I say that as someone who believes there is no God (and does not have any faith or hope that there is not).

Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

@geokat62


I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section.
Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.

While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.

It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are. I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is, actually doing.

One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the following material they've posted on their website:


This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking individuals)

The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave the fabric of our pluralistic society.

For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's premier human relations and civil rights organization.

If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition benefits are available to Corporate Partners.

https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/about-adl/corporate-partners.pdf

More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity. They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."

Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.

While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic. Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot favour both at the same time.

So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this this film will not have a happy ending.

-------------

P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice of life." I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren 'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have married outside our religion of birth.

Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT

Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

Agreed. Corvinus is a piece of shit. CanSpeccy makes a great point about his "hi fellow kids!" "yeah but guys where can we buy some dynamite?" federal informant type trolling.

So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

Shit or get off the pot, as I like to say. If I may be so bold, I would strike "embrace mono-culturalism for all nations" from the list of demands. It would certainly be the right thing for Jews to do, given their embrace of ethnopatriotism for themselves, but I would be satisfied with the demand (which is non-negotiable, I agree) "immediately cease and desist from promoting the anti-ethnopatriotic agenda for non-Jewish Whites" being met.

Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

@CanSpeccy


I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews. I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist. You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy, assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews.

Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT

@CanSpeccy


I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews. oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the 50′s he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath.

Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:56 pm GMT

@Aaron8765 oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the 50's he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath. 'principle' (sic)

Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT

@CanSpeccy


I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews. "Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this."

False characterization.

"I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not."

It is evidence of irrational hatred due to a belief that Jews overall engage in the purposeful destruction of cultures. There is the assumption that diversity/multi-culturalism/tolerance is the bane of existence, that the Jewish propaganda machine serves as an ethnic and societal meat grinder. Unwitting people are being brainwashed into promoting these concepts. Except you are conveniently discounting this important fact human beings have free will. Increasing numbers of people have made decisions of their own accord about these issues. They embrace these philosophies for a host of reasons. You are a snake oil salesman of how Cultural Marxism allegedly is murdering our youth. Let us assume that this Jewish menace would be neutralized. Do you not believe there would be some other group filling in for that void through their own strategies of indoctrination and mind control? Perhaps the philosophies you tout would then be force fed down the throats of the masses.

"According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism."

That's not what I stated. I'm not a fan shall we say of you denigrating wholesale a particular group and characterizing that same group of being a proponent of genocide. You have every liberty to protect "your own kind", just as those individuals from "your own kind" have the freedom to question the reasons why you want those protections as well as how those protections are put in place. Furthermore, don't you realize there is no such thing as "racism" and "hate speech"? It's a ruse.

Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

KenH , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

@Rurik


while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME.
well said Geo,

we've all seen this genocidal hag shilling for the destruction of the West

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERmOpZrKtw

and we all know by now the consequences of this insanity being foisted by these (often Jewish) netherworld demons

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3831991/Wheelchair-bound-woman-gang-raped-six-migrants-Swedish-asylum-centre-asking-use-toilet.html

no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating, (with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents] who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who want to pay lower wages in general)

but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is, at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that, but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers call all non-Jewish immigrants - invaders.

So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife, while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.

There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.

But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries

Don't be so sure about some . One hundred percent of Jews serving in both chambers of Congress have supported efforts at granting mass amnesty of third world illegal aliens. Seventy to eighty percent consistently vote Democrat no matter how far to the left or anti-white the party becomes. Even so called conservative (or neocon) Jews like Krauthammer, Bernie Goldberg and others have voiced support for amnesty or partial amnesty.

So it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board with America as proposition nation and the race replacement of whites while hypocritically supporting the militant racial nationalism and exclusivity of the Israeli state.

Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board

I can't argue with that Ken

and you could say the same of all non-white peoples, they're mostly on board for an immigration policy that will eventually rip white nations apart and see the white people trampled under like they were in Zimbabwe, or Haiti when the whites received their comeuppance then.

They all seem to hate us, but none more so than Jews

but it is worth pointing out that certainly not all Jews (or other minorities) want us genocided

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)

some can see past their blind racial hatred and envy to the day that whitey is finally ground under the mire of their collective hatred, to what comes next.

what kind of world will it be without Western civilization and the Rule of Law?

Zimbabwe, Palestine, Darfur, the Balkans, Drug cartels and corruption running S. America outright, India and Pakistan cutting each other's throats, cannibalism returning to Africa and Indonesian islands, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc.

And I mention New Zealand, because the only thing protecting the white people (and the meek of all races) in places like Oceana or Latin America or Africa, the Middle East, etc is the fragile, amorphous sense of the law , that permeates the jungles and hinterlands of the planet, where some American expatriate living in Mexico is left unmolested by the cartels and corrupt governments down there. On the day that whitey is unable to protect his own families in the US, that is the day that certain ex-patriots in Mexico will find out just how loved they really are by the Mexicans, who've suffered their arrogance and relative wealth with bitter, quiet, simmering resentment.

If your society has reached the point where your women and children are brutalized by hostile invading armies and there's nothing you can do to protect them, and the courts and authorities will not punish the orcs, then it's only a short distance until the day of Zimbabwe comes and you're run out of your home in terror for your life.

There was a time when the whites of Zimbabwe could count on England and the rule of law to protect them. They discovered too late how wrong they were. It will be the same for all white places when the global system of the Rule of Law breaks down and we return to the law of the jungle with a vengeance.

how well will Israel fare when there's no more white guilt to milk for funding and arms and "moral" sanction?

already Norway and other nations are talking about BDS, in part because of the burgeoning Muslim populations in these countries.

when Europe becomes multicultural, as that Zionist hag insists it must, how well are the Jews of the world going to prosper when the governments of Europe are Islamized?

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

@Aaron8765 We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an interesting question- the policy is clearly in error. Treason in high places: " Not Remembering the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/

"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck, who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious, unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their families"

neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 5:47 pm GMT

@Aaron8765 I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren 'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have married outside our religion of birth.

have married outside our religion of birth

That makes no difference, since being jewish is ultimately a racial category not a religious one. You don't have to take my word for it, you can research how the state of Israel defines what a jew is, and it is not on religious grounds. In fact they use the Nuremberg race acts that defined what a jew was as their own criteria, obviously they will claim they are using it for those fleeing oppression, but anyone who is sincere about this knows it is because the Nuremberg race acts were correct in their definitions.

Sowhat , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 6:31 pm GMT

Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate a reference or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 7:17 pm GMT

@Authenticjazzman "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of th electorate

So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white house.

Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.

You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering about.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white house.

Quite.

Conservatives despair to find that Trump scores only a 1.5 or 2 relative to the ideal 10 they had hoped for.

However, Hillary would have been a solid and consistent -8 (MINUS EIGHT) or worse. Every day of Trump – however betrayed Conservatives may feel relative to their ideals – is a day on which the ALL-OUT DESTRUCTION of America does not proceed with the organized, unopposed vigor that it would have done under Hillary. (Also known as Mrs. Vincent Foster #2.)

Of course, the lackey MSM are doing their level best to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) among those opposed to the oligarchy. Their "Russia hacked the election" complex of lies (aka "narrative") would certainly have drawn admiring applause from Joseph Goebbels himself, both for the boldness of the original conception – tapping into old *conservative* mistrust of the USSR, and for the shameless repetitive execution.

Right now, the U.S. still has remnants of the Second Amendment, which alone is the true, long-term measure of a free country. (Various states and their complicit federal judges are working hard to get rid of this final obstacle to billionaire rule and death camps.)

Don't believe that the SECOND Amendment is the true measure of a free country? Spend 6 weeks in Canada or any other advanced country in Europe, Asia, talk to people, see what they say about sensitive subjects. Read and watch their MSM and alternative media. Ask yourself where the subject country was 100 years ago, and where it is likely to be in 100 years.

Has free speech in the subject country been OFFICIALLY curtailed under rubrics such as "hate speech," "incitement," "libel/slander" etc.? What is the extent of INFORMAL censorship, e.g. through publishers' associations, codes of conduct, post-modern J-schools and official "certification" of "journalists," etc.?

What do they/don't the MSM in the subject country report? Secret/informal taboos? Is there REAL criticism of the power structure? Of existing laws and institutions? Are politicians REALLY subject to the rule of law? Do they REALLY lock up corrupt politicians as the U.S. used to do? Are politicians' families exempt from public scrutiny?

Political murder is another indication of the health or otherwise of a free society. Are mysterious deaths of politicians and their staff commonplace in the subject society? Does interest in major incidents die down after 2-3 days? Or persist for years (JFK) despite repeated attempts at whitewashing?

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT

@CanSpeccy Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement of Euro-Americans. It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.

Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.

There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out, from the time of Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.

Wiz Oz seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.

What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint – vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are – are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT

@Aaron8765 I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist. You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy, assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews. Re: Kantorowicz

Bureaucracies, governmental or academic, hate a non-conformist. I know. I worked (briefly) for three governments and also held academic appointments at three universities, the last, a tenure-track appointment, that I abandoned after three days.

The problem for all groups in a multi-cultural society is that group interests are liable to conflict and thus generate antagonisms that often have a racial or religious aspect. For Jews, it is worse than for most because they are adherents, or associates by descent, of a religion that is fundamentally racist. Yahweh, after all, is the God of the Jews, and urges the Jews to go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth.

Thus, when Jews succeed as they have done in large numbers in America in gaining positions of great wealth and power, and especially when they exercise that power for specifically Jewish interests such as the defense of the state of Israel, they naturally raise feelings of suspicion, fear and antagonism, as would say a bunch of Russian nationalists if they ran much of Hollywood , were among the principal peddlers of porn in America , had massive media influence , and held many seats in Congress and used their financial clout to determine who holds many of the other seats in Congress .

None of this, of course, alters the fact that it may at times seem tough being a Jew and an American-firster.

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 9:00 pm GMT

@annamaria Treason in high places: " Not Remembering the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/

"The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
" Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
" The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded."
"Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck, who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious, unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their families" WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national importance to Israel?

Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation.

Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety and anonymity of retirement since then.

One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off – it is sometimes claimed that the Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.

First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea. Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government. An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds of individuals to propose, prepare and implement.

dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 1:08 am GMT

@Authenticjazzman " They serve the interests of global capitalism"

Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.

Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting and waiting for the shift to collectivism.

Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.

I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it is fact.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz musician.

Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.

Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance to loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).

The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology. They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.

The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money.

Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 1:42 am GMT

@Sowhat Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate a reference or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO Mr. What, that "bluing" is called a hyperlink *. They've been around for well nigh 25 years now by my recollection. The guy's link is fine, but VDare right now is raising some money, and that "splash" page will appear on anyone's initial visit, so to speak, to the site right now. If you mash that X in the right corner, you will get directly to the article that the guy you're replying to wants you to see.

I hope that helps I would like to AGREE with myself here too, because, as usual, I know I am right. I don't know how to do that though without joining faceboot or some such crap.

* Here is one, just as a random example. It'd be interesting to see what happens when you single-click on it. You might as well now – it'll bug you the rest of the evening if you don't.

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 2:09 am GMT

@Eagle Eye WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national importance to Israel?

Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation.

Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety and anonymity of retirement since then.

One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off - it is sometimes claimed that the Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.

First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea. Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government. An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds of individuals to propose, prepare and implement. "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."

First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind – that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the Friends of Israel and such – have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?

Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 11:17 am GMT

@dfordoom


Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.
Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance to loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).

The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology. They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.

The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money. " Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it"

Hogwash, this idea is beyond absurd.

What you are saying is that for the purpose of "Making a fast buck" they will support a political/economic system, namely communism, which has the goal of destroying them , in other words the chickens are voting for Colonel Sanders.

" The monied classes do not believe in marxism" . Again hogwash, and you would be in a state of shock if you were able to engage certain billionaires in conversation regarding this issue.

The motivation behind their fixation upon Marxism is their striving to considered as "Intellectuals", and they are plagued by inferiority complexes regarding their status as "Businessmen", whereas marxists are looked upon as : "Intellectual".

I was never convinced that rich people were exceptionally intelligent, rather to the contrary.
Wall street being a perfect example of stupidity prevailing amongst millionaires and billionaires.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz artist.

Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

@annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."

First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?

First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years.

yep

also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.

As was the Lavon affair.

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

It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was the false flag attack on 9/11 – that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.

Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT

@Eagle Eye


Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint - vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French. "and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did."

You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons, the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the Enlightenment.

"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""

The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher", considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs students in this field.

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT

"Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights).
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades ."

Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT

" considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs students in this field"

So what you are saying is that holding a "doctoral degree" in philosophy automatically transforms the individual involved into being a "Philsopher"

This is pure unadulterated nonsense, and I personally have had the aquaintance of two persons who did indeed hold doctoral degrees in philosophy and they were both light years away from the qualification of "Philosopher".

Homer was a"Philosopher", Marc Aurel, was a philosopher, Goethe was a philosopher, etc, but none of the BS artists in this day and age holding doctoral degrees in philosophy, could ever with a straight face claim to be a "philosopher".

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

@annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."

First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
"Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU? The basic question – which remains unaddressed in the response – is very simply:

What was the Israeli leadership trying to do by launching a combined airborne and naval attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967?

You mention the Lavon affair in 1954. This scandal arose out of an attempted Israeli false-flag operation in Egypt that went spectacularly wrong.

The Suez Crisis in 1956 was another major disaster for Israel, the UK and France.

This experience will have informed Israeli government thinking in 1967.

Moreover, as noted in the original post, radar technology at the time, as well simple visual identification of the attacking jet fighters and vessels precluded even a remote possibility of dressing up the attack as having been perpetrated by Egypt.

Further, the U.S. had plenty of intelligence assets in both Egypt and Israel to find out what actually happened to the USS Liberty within hours. An operation of this magnitude involves at a minimum hundreds of people across different countries and cannot be kept completely secret.

The Lavon affair was intended to involve small anonymous attacks against random civilian targets, but failed to achieve this relatively modest objective.

Are we now to believe that the Israelis thought they could pull off a massive combined air-sea attack against a United States vessel on the high seas (where radar and visual observation is unobstructed) and blame it on Egypt? The very idea is insane.

So why did Israel resort to this desperate gamble?

Barring a collective bout of insanity throughout Israel's civilian and military leadership, the most likely explanation is that the USS Liberty itself was seen as a major and indeed mortal threat to Israel, to such an extent that the Israeli leadership decided to risk a major rift with the U.S. to eliminate the threat.

How would the USS Liberty itself be a threat? Most likely by compiling high-grade military intelligence and passing it to Egypt and the other Arab nations. This could have occurred either pursuant to official directives from the top of the U.S. hierarchy, or perhaps because the local command went rogue.

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT

@Corvinus "and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did."

You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons, the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the Enlightenment.

"English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

"One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""

The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher", considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs students in this field.

One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."

Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."

Notice how ridiculous it sounds?

French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker.

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT

@Rurik


First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years.
yep

also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.

As was the Lavon affair.

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

It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was the false flag attack on 9/11 - that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.

as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them

This suggestion at least makes logical sense.

However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT

@annamaria "Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
http://theduran.com/heres-why-saudi-arabia-and-israel-are-allies-in-all-but-name/
"Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. ..
Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights). ...
Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values.
Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades ."

Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world.

Modern, secular Syria TREBLED its population since 1980 even though water and land were already exhausted then.

http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-real-story-on-syria-forced.html

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT

@Eagle Eye


Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world.
Modern, secular Syria TREBLED its population since 1980 even though water and land were already exhausted then.

http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-real-story-on-syria-forced.html What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?

"Trump and Netanyahu to the world: WE ARE ALL WAHHABISTS NOW!"
http://theduran.com/trump-and-netanyahu-to-the-world-we-are-all-wahhabists-now/

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 12:30 am GMT

@Eagle Eye


as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.

However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt. " it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively.

Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 1:42 am GMT

@ "I am a philosopher."

Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?

At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object and purpose):

1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).

For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' – the definitions of the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
*"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 – Septuagint).

'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'.

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:45 am GMT

@annamaria "...it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively. (1) I said that "reading between the lines," one might conclude that Israel IMMEDIATELY set about containing the fall-out in Washington. Of course, such efforts (if they indeed took place) would be hugely embarrassing to Israel and would be kept top secret even years later.

(2) You have still not given us any real theory of WHY Israel would launch a combined air/sea attack on the USS Liberty.

The idea that Israel was at this precise moment in the middle of the Six Day War trying to pin the blame on Egypt does not hold water as explained in several posts above.

CONCLUSION: The best working theory at present is that the USS Liberty was providing high-grade intelligence to the Arab countries fighting Israel in the Six Day War.

If you have a better explanation consistent with the known facts, including the use of radar by the USS Liberty and airborne units in the area please share it here.

QUESTION: What is known about LBJ's stated and actual positions vis-a-vis Israel, Egypt, other Arab countries? Post-retirement contacts by LBJ and his family?

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:46 am GMT

@Eagle Eye


Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint - vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."

I don't understand why you say that or why Corvinus thinks it would be silly if anyone did say in English "I am a philosopher."

Most significant universities in the English-speaking world have a philosophy department whose faculty members would, in most cases, be prepared to assert that "I am a philosopher."

This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

No doubt there are plenty of bad English-speaking philosophers as there are bad English-speaking academics in every other field, but it is simply false to suggest that philosophical works in the English language are characterized by ponderous bad writing. In fact, the great English-speaking philosophers lead the world in the clarity of their analysis: David Hume , for example, or George Berkeley .

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:57 am GMT

@Seraphim @ "I am a philosopher."

Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?

At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object and purpose):

1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).

For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. ... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' - the definitions of the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
*"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 - Septuagint).

'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'. David Anhagt may have been at the forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity, but things have moved on a bit since then. Today, surely, the key questions in philosophy are of the following kind:

(1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?

(2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we know of it and how?

(3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?

(4) What is morality?

(5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?

And much more.

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:58 am GMT

@annamaria What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?

"Trump and Netanyahu to the world: WE ARE ALL WAHHABISTS NOW!"
http://theduran.com/trump-and-netanyahu-to-the-world-we-are-all-wahhabists-now/

What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?

A country at three times carrying capacity talking about "sovereignty" is like a 600 lb person talking about running a marathon.

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT

@Eagle Eye


Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint - vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism

That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it is (think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers), restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law, the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.

As for:

privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies.

LOL

Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They even have listening lamp posts.

Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout, mainly protestant, Christians.

Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom pants, and on and on.

As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT

@Eagle Eye


What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?
A country at three times carrying capacity talking about "sovereignty" is like a 600 lb person talking about running a marathon. as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic, the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host in a desired direction.
Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT

@CanSpeccy David Anhagt may have been at the forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity, but things have moved on a bit since then. Today, surely, the key questions in philosophy are of the following kind:

(1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?

(2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we know of it and how?

(3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?

(4) What is morality?

(5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?

And much more. All these 'moves' have been already made long before the end of Antiquity. There were the essential questions of 'philosophy' to which Plato, Aristotle and a score of 'Oriental' philosophers have offered the answers.
Didn't a noted philosopher of the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead, famously said that: 'The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato'?

Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT

@Eagle Eye


One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."

Notice how ridiculous it sounds?

French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker. "Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher.""

OK. Doctor of philosophy.

"Notice how ridiculous it sounds?"

No.

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT

The Saker publishes some interesting news re the MH17 tragedy:
"SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] orders to destroy all evidence of the conducted special operation MH17″ http://thesaker.is/sbu-orders-to-destroy-all-evidence-of-the-conducted-special-operation-mh17/
by Scott Humor: " If you want to know my opinion that hasn't changed since 2014. The Boeing flight MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian air force fighter jets, but not necessarily piloted by Ukrainian pilots. It was a CIA and NATO operation to frame Russia. Most likely the Dutch government was a part of this operation. Now, they are trying to hang all the dogs on Waltzman -Poroshenko, because neither the Dutch monarchs, nor the CIA would fancy to be implicated in this crime."

The whole edifice of sanctions against Russian federation was built on the MH17 case. A few people come to mind. First is the Secretary of State John Kerry who had proclaimed that Russians were guilty of the shooting before any investigation took place.
Then there is a Department of War Studies, King's College London, which became famous for inviting Eliot Higgins (an expert in selling ladies underwear) to lecture the College' students on Higgins' specialty – the russophobic stuff, which was debunked on numerous occasions but which is still dear to the hearts at the Department of War Studies, King's College London. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/principal/Indexnew.aspx https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/professors/rainsborough.aspx
And then there is a circus of Dutch investigation: https://www.rt.com/news/375105-mh17-investigation-dutch-journalist/ and this http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/dutch-prosecutor-does-not-answer-questions-on-russian-supplied-radar-data/
The Dutch/Ukrainian scoundrels are now facing this (which is just a beginning): https://www.rt.com/news/374893-trump-letter-mh17-investigation/ "The open letter, signed by 25 journalists, former civil aviation pilots and researchers from Germany, the Netherlands and Australia, was posted on the website of Joost Niemoller – a Dutch journalist who publicly challenged the current investigation into the ill-fated Flight MH17, which was downed over Ukraine in July 2014. "

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMT

"The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato"

Newton, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, James Clerk Maxwell, Einstein - Some footnotes.

Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT

@Eagle Eye


as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
This suggestion at least makes logical sense.

However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.

Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

then why did they machine gun the lifeboats, eh?

that in itself is a war crime you know, and the ONLY reason they would have done it is to sink the ship with ALL hands. Thereby leaving no survivors to expose the treachery.

and they had the Johnson regime and traitor McNamara on board with their cowardly, murderous treason.

not to mention the controlled kosher msm

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT

@annamaria as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic, the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by the "most moral" apartheid state.
And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host in a desired direction. You still haven't answered the question:

What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.

Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

Thank you.

Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT

@Eagle Eye You still haven't answered the question:

What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.

Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

Thank you. if you (and Annamaria) don't mind, I'll address this..

What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

there was a war going on between a US ally and a nation of strategic importance to the US- Israel and Egypt. The USS Liberty was a NSA intelligence ship. It was there to monitor what was going on. Duh.

explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

unless you an admiral in the US Navy at the time, no one knows for sure. But a lot of people have speculated that the USS Liberty was sent by the Johnson regime to get sunk by Israel and be used as a false flag to take America into war against Egypt.

We already know for a fact that jets were scrambled to assist the USS Liberty and were called back and ordered not to assist by Johnson through Secretary of State McNamara. And not once, but twice.

So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about it, we'll likely never know.

Hope that helps eagle

annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT

@Eagle Eye You still


What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.

Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

Thank you. Why don't you look closely into the present to understand the past?
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/23/truth-has-become-un-american/

"As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war."

Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

@CanSpeccy


"The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato"
Newton, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, James Clerk Maxwell, Einstein - Some footnotes. There are more, but most of them are sloppy footnotes.
CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 12:52 am GMT

@Seraphim There are more, but most of them are sloppy footnotes.

but most of them are sloppy footnotes

True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things - so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth, either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state.

Heir Max , Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT

How does Russia ( read Putin ) embracing Christianity and encouraging it again in Russia factor in the sudden sour attitude of our progressives in the US? The LOVED the USSR.. as it was atheistic, no? But as a non-threat-Russia, and a Christian Russia, eh, not so much; especially since Russia has decided they are not so fond of the Muslim.

Interesting times. Great article.

Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

@CanSpeccy


but most of them are sloppy footnotes
True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things - so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth, either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state. You can see what sloppiness leads to.
John Gruskos , Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 3:55 pm GMT

@in the middle How exactly did Reagan biggest mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples, please. Giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants who were in America in 1986 encouraged more illegal immigrants to come, in hopes of a future amnesty.

In 1986 there were only 1 million illegal immigrants. Now there are at least 11 million.

CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT

@Seraphim You can see what sloppiness leads to.

You can see what sloppiness leads to.

We need to define "sloppiness" with exactitude.

Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 31, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT

@CanSpeccy

English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism
That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it is (think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers), restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law, the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.

As for:

privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies.
LOL. Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They even have listening lamp posts.

Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout, mainly protestant, Christians. Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom pants, and on and on.

As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.

English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism

It may have escaped you that my earlier post referred to the time of the American Revolution, and in particular to sophisticated British traditions and conventions as they were perceived by the educated class in the colonies.

The sad decline of Britain in the modern era, and its more colorful history in earlier ages, are neither here nor there for these purposes.

[Jun 02, 2017] I think that the Soviet Threat, the basis for the Cold War, was a hoax. It was created by the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us to no effect by

views Zbigniew Brzezinski through the rose glasses. In reality Zbig Russophobia was based on that same desire to dominate the globe that had driven British elite to Russophobia before. Plus desire of MIC to preserve its size and profits and return to the good old days of Cold War. The US militarism is business driven militarism, which makes it even more dangerious.
Notable quotes:
"... The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev. This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget. ..."
"... Despite 16 years of Washington's wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, the "Muslim threat" does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected. ..."
"... Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia. ..."
"... The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction. ..."
"... The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as "Russian agents," "anti-semites," and "conspiracy theorists." When you hear a source called a "Russian agent," an "anti-semite," or a "conspiracy theorist," you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell you the truth. ..."
"... The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American military/security complex's need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon. ..."
Jun 02, 2017 | www.unz.com
I think that the "Soviet Threat," the basis for the Cold War, was a hoax. It was created by the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us to no effect. The patriotic war movies, the patriotic Memorial Days and July 4ths with emotional thanks to those who died "saving our freedoms," which were never in danger from the Japanese and Germans, only from our own government, succeeded in brainwashing even National Security Advisors. Little wonder the insouciance of the American population today.

The Cold War was an orchestration of the military/security complex, and there are many victims. Brzezinski was a victim as the Cold War was his life. JFK was a victim as he lost his life to it. The Vietnamese, who died in the millions, were victims The photo of the naked young Vietnamese girl fleeing down the road in terror from the American napham behind her made us aware that the Cold War had many innocent victims. The Soviet troops sent to Afghanistan were victims as were the Afghans themselves.

The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev. This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget.

Treading water while looking for a new justification for bleeding the American taxpayer, the military/security complex had President Clinton declare the US to be the World Policeman and to destroy Yugoslavia in the name of "human rights." With Israeli and neoconservative input, the military/security complex used 9/11 to create the "Muslim Terrorist Threat." This hoax has now murdered, maimed, dispossessed, and displaced millions of Muslims in seven countries.

Despite 16 years of Washington's wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, the "Muslim threat" does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected.

The Muslim Threat was never a danger to the US. It is only a danger to Washington's European vassal states, who had to accept millions of Muslim refugees from Washington's wars. However, the newly created Russian Threat is a threat to every American as well as to every European.

Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia.

This dire Russian announcement received no western press coverage. No high official of any Western government, Trump included, called Putin to give reassurances that no such attack on Russia was being planned.

So, what happens next time when a false alarm, such as the one Brzezinski received, is received by his counterpart in Moscow or the National Security Council? Will the animosities resurrected by the evil US military/security complex result in the Russians or the US believing the false signal?

The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction.

The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as "Russian agents," "anti-semites," and "conspiracy theorists." When you hear a source called a "Russian agent," an "anti-semite," or a "conspiracy theorist," you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell you the truth.

You will never, ever, get the truth from the Western media or from any Western government. (See: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/06/02/israels-slaughter-us-sailors/ )

The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American military/security complex's need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon.