Softpanorama

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

Neoliberal Brainwashing: Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few

Journalism Vacation from Truth is a direct threat to democracy. Without journalistic integrity, there is no democracy as the average voter cannot make an informed choice. Inverted totalitarism won some time ago.

Skepticism > Political Skeptic > Media-Military-Industrial Complex > Propaganda

News Neoliberal newspeak Recommended Links Fake News scare and US Neo-McCarthyism Purple revolution against Trump Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak
Demonization of Putin Hillary Clinton email scandal: Timeline and summary Who Shot down Malaysian flight MH17? Obama's Putin-did-it fiasco Media-Military-Industrial Complex Anti Trump Hysteria
Doublespeak Discrediting the opponent as favorite tactic of neoliberals The Guardian Slips Beyond the Reach of Embarrassment Freedom of speech played by Western MSM as three card monte Patterns of Propaganda The importance of controlling the narrative
MSM Sochi Bashing Rampage Cold War II "Fuck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place Neoconservatism as the USA version of Neoliberal ideology  Charlie Hebdo - more questions then answers New American Militarism
Swiftboating: Khan gambit against Trump at Democratic Convention Pussy Riot Provocation and "Deranged Pussy Worship Syndrome" Deception as an art form The Deep State National Security State Totalitarian Decisionism & Human Rights: The Re-emergence of Nazi Law
Inside "democracy promotion" hypocrisy fair US and British media are servants of security apparatus The attempt to secure global hegemony American Exceptionalism Co-opting of the Human Rights to embarrass governments who oppose neoliberalism Manipulation of the term "freedom of press"
Lewis Powell Memo Anatol Leiven on American Messianism Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Edward Lucas as agent provocateur Groupthink Soft propaganda
Diplomacy by deception Democracy as a universal opener for access to natural resources Deconstructing neoliberalism's definition of 'freedom' The Real War on Reality Nation under attack meme Bullshit as MSM communication method
Neo-fascism Classic Hypocrisy of British Ruling Elite Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ? Big Uncle is Watching You What's the Matter with Kansas Media as a weapon of mass deception
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass The Good Soldier Svejk Nineteen Eighty-Four Propaganda Quotes Humor Etc

"The truth is that the newspaper is not a place for information to be given,
rather it is just hollow content, or more than that, a provoker of content.
If it prints lies about atrocities, real atrocities are the result."

Karl Kraus, 1914

WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

1984

We are the world, we are exceptional, we cannot fail. The elite will lie, and the people will pretend to believe them. Heck about 20 percent of the American public will believe almost anything if it is wrapped with the right prejudice and appeal to passion.

jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com, Feb 04, 2015

I think journalists today — elite journalists at least — absorb the biases of the ruling neoliberal oligarchy far more readily than they used to do. The media establishment is populated by yes-men. I do not understand how any skeptical person can, in good conscience, trust a western MSM description of foreign events. You need a second source to compare coverage. The mainstream media gives us no real news. Just the regurgitation of  talking points they were given. Seeing how they treat the concept of truth these days, one might think that 1984 dystopia was an understatement.  Truth killing is a meta-issue ( nationalinterest.org

The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth — factual reality — is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. 

Crushing the truth means not just our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. 

To the extent that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.

If you take in television news as truthful information, that's all a critically thinking person needs to know about you. In reality this is propaganda, pure and simple. Propaganda can be  defined as a war on reality using fake news, disinformation, projection, witch-hunts (see neo_Mccarthhyism)  and other methods. An attempt to create an artificial reality.  The key here is controlling the narrative.  For example, "fake news" hysteria is a perfect method of suppressing of dissent and questions about MSM ties to three-letter agencies: 

Journalists manipulate us in the interest of the Powerful. Do you also have the feeling, that you are often manipulated by the media and  lied to? Then you're like the majority of Germans. Previously it was considered as a "conspiracy theory". Now it revealed by an Insider, who tells us what is really happening under the hood.

The Journalist Udo Ulfkotte ashamed today that he spent 17 years in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. ...he reveals why opinion leaders produce tendentious reports and serve as the extended Arm of the NATO press office. ...the author also was admitted into the networks of American elite organizations, received in return for positive coverage in the US even a certificate of honorary citizenship.

In this book you will learn about industry lobby organisations. The author calls hundreds of names and looks behind the Scenes of those organizations, which exert bias into media, such as: Atlantic bridge, Trilateral Commission, the German Marshall Fund, American Council on Germany, American Academy, Aspen Institute, and the Institute for European politics. Also revealed are the intelligence backgrounds of those lobby groups, the methods and forms of propaganda and financing used, for example, by the US Embassy. Which funds  projects for the targeted influencing of public opinion in Germany 

...You realize how you are being manipulated - and you know from whom and why. At the end it becomes clear that diversity of opinion will now only be simulated. Because our "messages" are often pure brainwashing.

Gekaufte Journalisten - Medienwelt Enthüllungen Bücher - Kopp Verlag

Simplifying, the US MSM foreign events media coverage (and large part of domestic coverage related to the opposition to neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization, see Anti Trump Hysteria during elections and immediately after them ) has little to do with the reality and is mostly a barometer of the paranoia of the US neoliberal elite.  It is 100% propaganda, or as CBS like to call it "fake news".

How does Fake History and Fake News in the US MSM gradually superseded their reality-based version (which never was perfect, and often quite distorted)  is a very interesting question but it is too big for this page. I would only say that this process is closely connected with the process of the neoliberalization of the US society which started in full force in late 70th (see also late Sheldon Wolin  notion of  Inverted Totalitarism) . We can take election of Reagan as a starting point although the process started immediately after WWII. From this point "fake news" were enforced on the US society as the only acceptable narrative? Which, is essence, is a real war on reality.

It also could be that the process started earlier, immediately after  WWII with the creation of CIA. The question whether  representative democracy is compatible with the existence large all-powerful and largely uncontrollable intelligence  agencies is another interesting question to ask.  At some point any society with powerful intelligence  agencies can come to the situation when the tail wags the dog. In the USA this probably happened  around 1963, with the JFK assassination.  In a way the USSR via Truman enforced its model of governance on the USA ;-). Creation of intelligence agencies by Truman was actually the act of the creation of national security state. Which could be  viewed as an official end of the US democracy and quick (less then two decades) rise to power of deep state (with the victory demonstrated to the US people in 1963).    With it the huge apparatus of state propaganda (and by extension means of suppressing of dissent) intelligence  agencies, which gradually acquired political power including considerable (but not yet absolute, that will come much later, after 9/11) level of control of MSM  (see Church Committee - Wikipedia ). 

After 1963, the level outrage in the society was such that there were some meek attempts to check this power, especially the power of intelligence agencies over the MSM (Church Committee - Wikipedia  was probably the most well known) but they lead to nowhere.

Principles of War propaganda

 Principles are are well known since the WWI (Falsehood in War-Time):

1. We do not want war.
2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
3. The enemy is the face of the devil.
4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
5. The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
8. Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
9. Our cause is sacred. "The ages-old 'God bless America' is playing once more."
10. All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.

The blog empirestrikesblack cites Belgian investigative journalist Michel Collon who has outlined five principles driving war propaganda:

  1. Obscure one’s economic interests;
  2. Appear humanitarian in work and motivations;
  3. Obscure history;
  4. Demonize the enemy; and
  5. Monopolize the flow of information.

Neo McCarthyism

Neo McCarthyism campaign which was launched around mid 2016 by Democratic Party operatives as tactical tool to distract attention from DNC corruption and illegal removal of Bernie Sanders from the Democratic ticket after lection of Trump turned into important component of color revolution against Trump. And was fueled not only by MSM but also powerful factions of neoliberals and neocons in US intelligence agencies concerted about their future and the level of financing of "national security parasites".  They also have skeletons in the closet to hide (especially FBI and CIA) and did not prepare well to the Trump victory as this was a huge surprise for everybody including Trump himself.  See Steele dossier and Strzok-gate

Please note that the original McCarthyism campaign lasted more then a decade. And McCarthyism was not exactly or only about Communist infiltration into the US goverment. It has elements of a more general framework of suppressing any "dissidents" who question "official narrative" and simultaneously served as the framework of brainwashing of population creating a stereotype of enemy, in best Bolsheviks, or, if you wish Nazi Germany, style. In other words, like in famous Orwell novel 1984, under McCarthyism questioning of official narrative has  become a "though  crime" (much like it was in the USSR, especially under Stalinism period).   And repressions were real, although far less extensive and brutal, than in the USSR in 30th.  Thousands of people lost jobs and were blacklisted. Many ostracized, especially from artistic circles, committed suicides.

While Senator McCartney has a certain gist for blackmailing people and, being an alcoholic, he probably would be a suitable candidate for high position in NKVD, he was not a pioneer. He was just a talented follower. This type of modern witch hunt was first implemented on large scale by Bolsheviks in Russia after 1917.  Actually Bolsheviks originated many modern methods of brainwashing of the population.  Which later were enhanced and further developed in Nazi Germany and than imported to the USA after WWII.

That all brings us to the concept of "deep state" and its control of MSM.  The problem with the "deep state" approach to governance is that it replicates Bolshevism on a new, more polished,  level, with high officials of intelligence agencies, Wall Street and  military industrial complex as a new Politburo.  Which is not elected but still controls that nations. So much for remnants of democracy in the USA.  That does not mean that some deviations from the "Party line" are impossible: the election of Trump is one  such event. But loop at the power of the reaction of the "deep state" on this event. Not that Trump (who can be viewed as some kind of Republican "Change we can believe in" Obama" ) was intended to follow his election promises in any case.  The level of vetting of candidates is two party system probably is higher then many of us suspect.

As currently there is no alternative to neoliberalism, the current situation will continue to exist. Notwithstanding  the fact that neoliberal ideology was discredited after 2008 financial crisis, much like Bolshevism in 60th. Bolshevism as a theocratic ideology was essentially dead after WWII (although it managed to kick the can down the road for another 45 years). After 60the Soviet people despite constant brainwashing started to have wide-ranging doubts about the communist state and communist ideology. Listening to state-sponsored propaganda radio-stations from the West such as BBC and Voice of America became national pasture of Soviet citizens, especially educated one. Despite all the jamming.  Similar situation happened with the USA after 2008, when citizen suddenly start showing some level of interest RT broadcasts and views on internal situation in the USA ;-). And, of cause, all this needs to be  stopped. In the name of the "health of the state", democracy be dumned (religious term which literally means "condemned to eternal punishment")

In this particular sense, imitating the enemy by the USA elite after WWII, which was done to fight communist  threat (which was overblown) was a very dangerous course with far reaching consequences.  The new level of this process of "imitating  the enemy" now started with the USA -- the rise of alternative press (kind of Samizdat replica from Soviet past) and clumsy attempt of the deep state to suppress it claiming that they are propagator of "fake news" with the subtext that they are Russian agents  (the campaign which spectacularly backfired: which the help of President Trump tweets this term now became the standard nickname of the "official" US MSM).  That brings us directly to revising Stalin's "Show trials" and corresponding witch-hunt in the USSR.  Appointing  Muller to investigate Trump for "Russian connection" (so called "Russiagate") replays favorite theme of accusing enemies of Stalin of being British agents.  On a new level incorporating set of political technologies of overthrowing the legitimate government commonly known  as "color revolution" technologies. But in both cases it is all about eliminating political rivals.

In broader context the current practice of manipulating population is similar to "high demand cults" style practice  -- Bolshevism actually can be best viewed as a religious cult merged with the political movement, much like political Islam today ( Belief-coercion in high demand cults ):

They use all of the techniques as "low demand" faith groups use: requiring members to accept a system of beliefs, conforming to certain behavioral norms; expecting them to involve themselves in the life of the congregation, etc. However, mind-control groups add many additional methods, and take them all to a much higher level. Some are:

Members are not physically restrained from leaving the group. They are not held prisoner. They can walk away at any time. But there are strong pressures to remain. If they left, all social and emotional support would disappear; they will often be shunned. Some groups teach that God will abandon or punish them if they leave. They may be told that they will die in the imminent war of Armageddon if they leave the protection of the group.

The main methods here always was the generation and totalitarian control of "suitable" narrative (that's why Sheldon Wolin called neoliberal society "inverted totalitarism"):

"The primary aim of official propaganda is to generate an "official narrative" that can be mindlessly repeated by the ruling classes and those who support and identify with them. This official narrative does not have to make sense, or to stand up to any sort of serious scrutiny. Its factualness is not the point. The point is to draw a Maginot line, a defensive ideological boundary, between "the truth" as defined by the ruling classes and any other "truth" that contradicts their narrative. "

Gerald Celente coined the  "presstitutes", which is obviously politically incorrect, but still reasonably precise term: presstitutes sell themselves to neoliberal establishment for access and governments to prosper financially and to keep their jobs. In the USSR journalist were called "soldiers of the Party" so in the less humiliating way we can call them "soldiers of neoliberal establishment" ;-). 

Due to the size an introductory article was converted to a separate page Neoliberal Propaganda


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Home 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section

"It tends to be all accurate, but not in an over-all context."

Donald Rumsfeld

"Citizens must be alert to propaganda and
glittering generalities is a type of propaganda
which often uses words such as freedom and patriotism."

"Civics in Practice". Page 274

2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001

[May 21, 2018] On neoliberalism

While it is stupid to argue that neoliberalism does not exist: it exits both as ideology, economic theory and politicl pratice (much like Marxism before it; yet another "man-made" ideology -- actually a variation of Trotskyism, this discussion does illuminate some interesting and subtle points.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is a time-limited global system sustained by coercive imposition of competitive behaviour, parasitic finance & privatisation. ..."
"... But it's better to think of neoliberalism as a bunch of arrangements ("system" if you remove connotations of design) rather than as an ideology. Ed has a point when he says that almost nobody fully subscribes to "neoliberal ideology": free market supporters, for example, don't defend crony capitalism. ..."
"... Perhaps the texts of transnational trade treaties might be the best place to search for a de facto definition of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Whether or not the present neoliberal system is the result of a single coherent ideology, it emerged from the 70s on as a set of related (if not deliberately coordinated) responses to the structural crises of the older postwar Keynesian system. And there was definitely a cluster of policy-making elites in the early 70s making similar observations about the failure of consensus capitalism. ..."
"... It is possible to have 'hard' and 'soft' neoliberalism depending on whether the state employs 'carrots' or 'sticks', but essentially almost the entire UK political system agreed that 'There Is No Alternative' until Corbyn became Labour leader. ..."
"... I think Will Davies has hit the spot with his definition of neoliberalism as "the disenchantment of politics by economics". In other words, neoliberalism is first and foremost a political praxis, not an economic theory. It is about power, hence the continuing importance of the state. ..."
"... That is the Great Transformation and neoliberalism as its current phase are about turning institutions into businesses (including marriage), and part of this is "managerialism". This is not done because businesses are inherently better for every purpose than institutions, but because businesses are better vehicles than institutions for tunnelling (looting) by their managers. ..."
"... Neo-liberals are not opposed to all types of government intervention. But like neo-classical economists, they believe ultimately in the price mechanism to allocate resources - in the long run, if not the short. ..."
"... In terms of sincerity, Milton Friedman asserted in "Capitalism and Freedom" that the more a society was "free market," the more equal it was. Come the preface to 50th anniversary edition, he simply failed to mention that applying his own ideology had refuted his assertion (and it was an assertion). ..."
"... Neo-liberalism never been about reducing "the State" but rather strengthening it in terms of defending and supporting capital. Hence you see Tories proclaim they are "cutting back the state" while also increasing state regulation on trade unions -- and regulating strikes, and so the labour market. ..."
"... Somewhere along the line neo-liberalism got associated with austerity and small-government policies. The latter I think was because they are (correctly) associated with promoting privatisation and deregulation policy. ..."
"... But the market is the creation of man. It has no power, no judgement, other than that bestowed on it by us. My problem with neoliberalism is the belief that decisions can be made on the basis of a money metric whereas we know that money is not necessarily a good measure of value. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is real, but only describes background theoretical claims. It is wrong to apply the term to the broader political movement it supported. The political movement was dedicated to maximizing the power and freedom of action of large-scale capital accumulators. Lots of ideas from neoliberal intellectual argumentation were used to increase the power of capital accumulators, and neoliberal economists tended to ignore many aspects of the political movement they supported (strongr state power, crony capitalism, monopoly power) not strictly part of neoliberal theory ..."
"... usually the theory was just a weapon used in internal battles or as a PR tool to mask less savory political objectives. ..."
"... Repeating the message: "neoliberalism" has a pretty much official definition, the "Washington Consensus". And the core part of the "Washington Consensus" is "labour market reform", that is in practice whichever policies make labour more "competitive" and wages more "affordable". ..."
"... The "free markets" of neoliberalism are primarily "free" labour markets, that is free of unions. ..."
"... I would argue that, in terms of practical working definitions, Max Sawicky's definition of neo-liberalism seems to work well, at least in the U.S. context (second half of post): https://mikethemadbiologist.com/2017/04/28/remember-the-victims-of-the-nebraska-public-power-district/ ..."
May 16, 2018 | stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com

Is neoliberalism even a thing? This is the question posed by Ed Conway, who claims it is "not an ideology but an insult." I half agree.

I agree that the economic system we have is "hardly the result of a guiding ideology" and more the result of "happenstance".

I say this because neoliberalism is NOT the same as the sort of free market ideology proposed by Friedman and Hayek. If this were the case, it would have died on 13 October 2008 when the government bailed out RBS . In fact, though, as Will Davies and Adam Curtis have said, neoliberalism entails the use of an active state. A big part of neoliberalism is the use of the state to increase the power and profits of the 1% - capitalists and top managers. Increased managerialism, crony capitalism and tough benefit sanctions are all features of neoliberalism. In this respect, the EU's treatment of Greece was neoliberal – ensuring that banks got paid at the expense of ordinary people.

I suspect, though, that measures such as these were, as Ed says, not so much part of a single ideology as uncoordinated events. Tax cuts for the rich, public sector outsourcing and target culture, for example, were mostly justified by appeals to efficiency, and were not regarded even by their advocates as parts of a unified theory. To believe otherwise would be to subscribe to a conspiracy theory which gives too much credit to Thatcher and her epigones.

In this sense, I mostly agree with Paull Mason :

Neoliberalism is a time-limited global system sustained by coercive imposition of competitive behaviour, parasitic finance & privatisation.

I'm not sure about that word "system". Maybe it attributes too much systematization to neoliberals: perhaps unplanned order would be a better phrase. But it's better to think of neoliberalism as a bunch of arrangements ("system" if you remove connotations of design) rather than as an ideology. Ed has a point when he says that almost nobody fully subscribes to "neoliberal ideology": free market supporters, for example, don't defend crony capitalism.

And it's useful to have words for economic systems. Just as we speak of "post-war Keynesianism" to mean a bundle of policies and institutions of which Keynesian fiscal policy was only a small part, so we can speak of "neoliberalism" to describe our current arrangement. It's a better description than the horribly question-begging "late capitalism".

This isn't to say that "neoliberalism" has a precise meaning. There are varieties of it, just as there were of post-war Keynesianism. Think of the word as like "purple". There are shades of purple, we'll not agree when exactly purple turns into blue, and we'll struggle to define the word (especially to someone who is colour-blind). But "purple" is nevertheless a useful word, and we know it when we see it.

If neoliberalism is a system rather than an ideology, what role does ideology play?

I suspect it's that of post-fact justification.

Put it this way. In the mid-80s nobody argued that the share of GDP going to the top 1% should double. Of course, many advocated policies which, it turns out, had this effect. Some of them intended this. But those policies were justified on other grounds, often sincerely. Instead, the belief that the top 1% "deserve" 15% of total incomes rather than 7-8% has mostly followed them getting 15%, not led it. A host of cognitive biases – the just world illusion, anchoring effect and status quo bias underpin an ideology which defends inequality. John Jost calls this system justification (pdf) . You can gather all these biases under the umbrella term "neoliberal ideology" if you want. But it follows economic events rather than is the creator of them.

So, I half agree with Ed that neoliberalism isn't a guiding ideology. But I also agree with Paul, that it is a way of describing a particular economic system.

I don't, however, want to get hung up on words: I'd rather leave such pedantry to the worst sort of academic. What's more important than language is the brute fact that productivity and hence real incomes for most of us have stagnated for years. In this sense, our existing economic system has failed the majority of people. And this is true whatever name you give it.

May 16, 2018 | Permalink

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.html?url=http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2018/05/on-neoliberalism.html&text=On neoliberalism&count=horizontal

https://www.facebook.com/v2.8/plugins/like.php?app_id=a279adbe87e2b3c505e777af99a5260d&channel=http%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2Fr%2FRQ7NiRXMcYA.js%3Fversion%3D42%23cb%3Df4e24a832d1cc6%26domain%3Dstumblingandmumbling.typepad.com%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fstumblingandmumbling.typepad.com%252Ff181ea6c8da6c9e%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&href=http%3A%2F%2Fstumblingandmumbling.typepad.com%2Fstumbling_and_mumbling%2F2018%2F05%2Fon-neoliberalism.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&show_faces=false

Comments

Scratch , May 16, 2018 at 04:13 PM

Perhaps the texts of transnational trade treaties might be the best place to search for a de facto definition of neoliberalism.

There's not much room to blur, obfuscate (beyond the natural impenetrability of legalese) or wreath around with dubious ethicism in these documents I'd imagine.

Luis Enrique , May 16, 2018 at 04:53 PM
if it's a way of describing the prevailing economic system, does it make sense to describe people as neoliberals? Does that imply that everyone who is not a radical revolutionary (i.e. anyone who if they got their way in government would still be within normal variation in policies from a USA Republican administration to the Danish Labour party?). So the Koch brothers are neoliberals and Brad De Long is a neoliberal despite them disagreeing vehemently about most things?

I know we have lots of other words that are used in wildly inconsistent ways (capitalism, socialism) but I can't help being irked by the sheer incoherence of the things that neoliberals are accused of. Most recent example to come to mind, somebody in conversation with Will Davies on Twitter claimed neoliberals oppose redistribution (and Will did not correct him). FFS.

Mike W , May 16, 2018 at 06:04 PM
Conway says:

'But, despite the fact that neoliberalism is frequently referred to as an ideology, it is oddly difficult to pin down. For one thing, it is a word that tends to be used almost exclusively by those who are criticising it - not by its advocates, such as they are (in stark contrast to almost every other ideology, nearly no-one self-describes as a neoliberal). In other words, it is not an ideology but an insult.'

Well political science and history uses models too. What is the problem of say David Harvey's definition in, A Brief History of ...that which doesn't exist (2007)?

Rather I think he means it upsets 'main stream' economics professors, to be called this term, and rather than opt for Wren Lewis gambit (there is such a thing as 'Media Macro' or 'Tory Macro', or 'Econ 101', which I found interesting as it happens) Conway has gone for pedantry and first year Politics student essentialism, ie what is Democracy? type stuff.

As it happens he is dated and plain wrong above.

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/coming-out-as-neoliberals

Hope this helps Ed

Ralph Musgrave , May 16, 2018 at 06:32 PM
Neoliberalism, at least in the UK, was in part a reaction by Thatcher & Co to the excesses of previous Labour administrations: excesses in the form of "if an industry looks like going bust, let's pour whatever amount of taxpayer's money into it needed to save it". Thatcher & Co's reaction was: "s*d that for a lark – the rules of the free market are better than industrial subsidies (especially industrial subsidies in cabinet ministers' constituencies)"
Kevin Carson , May 16, 2018 at 06:39 PM
Whether or not the present neoliberal system is the result of a single coherent ideology, it emerged from the 70s on as a set of related (if not deliberately coordinated) responses to the structural crises of the older postwar Keynesian system. And there was definitely a cluster of policy-making elites in the early 70s making similar observations about the failure of consensus capitalism.
Ben Philliskirk , May 16, 2018 at 07:11 PM
"if it's a way of describing the prevailing economic system, does it make sense to describe people as neoliberals?"

Yes, these are largely people who reacted to the 'series of events' that occurred in the global economy in the 1970s by essentially accepting a certain set of policies and responses, many of which involved seeking to insulate the state against collective popular demands, intervening against organised labour, deregulating finance and targeting state intervention towards private business.

It is possible to have 'hard' and 'soft' neoliberalism depending on whether the state employs 'carrots' or 'sticks', but essentially almost the entire UK political system agreed that 'There Is No Alternative' until Corbyn became Labour leader. Many of these people were hardly hardcore ideologists but rather pragmatic or unimaginative types that were unwilling to challenge the 'status quo' or the prevailing economic system, just as there were very few classical liberals from WWI onwards.

From Arse To Elbow , May 16, 2018 at 07:40 PM
I think Will Davies has hit the spot with his definition of neoliberalism as "the disenchantment of politics by economics". In other words, neoliberalism is first and foremost a political praxis, not an economic theory. It is about power, hence the continuing importance of the state.

This instrumentality echoes Thatcher's insistence that "Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul", which shows that there was more in play in the late-70s and early-80s than simply responding to the "structural crises of the older postwar Keynesian system".

Sarah Miron , May 16, 2018 at 09:06 PM
You should be reading Philip Mirowski instead. The economist and historian of science Philip Mirowski is considered the foremost expert on this subject, he has written many books on this the latest is:

"The Knowledge We Have Lost in Information: The History of Information in Modern Economics":

https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Have-Lost-Information-Economics/dp/0190270055/

*

Neoliberalism is a philosophy based on the metaphor/idea that the "market" is an information process ad it is quasi-omniscient, that "knows" more than any and all of us could ever know. It makes certain claims about what "information" is and what a "market" is. It's mostly started with the Mont Perelin Society think-tank.

Sarah Miron , May 16, 2018 at 09:11 PM
Here's an intro:

His papers:

Some lectures:

Blissex , May 16, 2018 at 10:02 PM
"productivity and hence real incomes for most of us have stagnated for years."

But for many, usually people who vote more often or more opportunistically, they have been years of booming living standards.

The core of the electoral appeal of thatcherism is that thatcherites whether Conservative or New Labour have worked hard to ensure that upper-middle (and many middle) class voters collectively cornered the southern property market, creating a massive short squeeze on people short housing.

So many champagne leftists of some age talk about policies and concepts, but for the many the number one problem for decades has been managing to pay rent.

Blissex , May 16, 2018 at 10:05 PM

"neoliberalism is first and foremost a political praxis, not an economic theory. It is about power, hence the continuing importance of the state."

That's a very good point, but I would rather say that's a good description of New Right/thatcherite (and "third way" clintonian/mandelsonian) politics, and neoliberalism is the economic policy aspect.

There is after all something called "The Washington consensus" that is a "standard" set of neoliberal economic policies.

Blissex , May 16, 2018 at 10:12 PM
"Neoliberalism is a philosophy based on the metaphor/idea that the "market" is an information process"

Written that wait it evokes Polanyi's "Great transformation" where markets mechanisms have displaced social mechanisms in many areas.

But Just yesterday I realized that Polanyi was subtly off-target: it is not markets-vs-society (two fairly abstract concepts) but instead institutions-vs-businesses.

That is the Great Transformation and neoliberalism as its current phase are about turning institutions into businesses (including marriage), and part of this is "managerialism". This is not done because businesses are inherently better for every purpose than institutions, but because businesses are better vehicles than institutions for tunnelling (looting) by their managers.

Blissex , May 16, 2018 at 10:17 PM
"the "market" is an information process ad it is quasi-omniscient, that "knows" more than any and all of us could ever know"

There have been a few books arguing that "the market", being omniscient, all powerful, and just in judging everybody and giving them exactly what they deserve, has replaced God, and today's sell-side neoliberal Economists are its preachers:

Nanikore , May 17, 2018 at 07:21 AM
Economists started using the term neo-liberalism a bit later, after it became a derogatory term - and after 2008 began to disassociate from it (a few, and very few, did after the Asian Financial Crisis).

It is important to realise I think that it is a term that closely linked to political science -- and in particular a branch of international relations. The person most associated with Neo-liberalism is Francis Fukuyama. What he did was link capitalism and democracy; both he said had triumphed and because they respect the freedom of individual liberty and they allowed markets, which are the most efficient way of allocating resources, to operate liberally. Its heyday was at the time of the collapse of the Berlin Wall - "the end of history" as FF famously said.

Political scientists see neo-classical economics and neo-liberalism as very compatible, because of the formers basic construct of individual optimisation, rational choice and market efficiency. Often they are grouped together and contrasted with radical and realist (realpolitik) approaches. For neo-liberals and neo-classicists, markets get prices right, whether they do so with a lag is a minor point.

NK.

Nanikore , May 17, 2018 at 07:46 AM
Neo-liberals are not opposed to all types of government intervention. But like neo-classical economists, they believe ultimately in the price mechanism to allocate resources - in the long run, if not the short.

They have no problem with welfare states. Like neo-classical economists they accept the second welfare theorem.

They are pro-globalisation: they don't like international trade, capital or immigration controls. Why? Because they impact on individual liberty and distort market prices.

International relations were often guiding reasons behind economic policy that were pro-globalisation. By encouraging globalisation, you were encouraging international capitalism and thereby the spread of democracy (a la Francis Fukuyama). International relations policy was close to the PM, and run from the Cabinet Office.

I would argue that Blair and Jonathan Portes are prime examples of neo-liberals. And indeed the Clinton/Blair years were quintessentially neo-liberal in the formerly correct use of the term. Thatcher, as a strong opponent of the welfare state, was not.

Nanikore , May 17, 2018 at 08:49 AM
One further point. Neo-liberals are progressively and socially liberal, as well as economically liberal. They believe in cosmopolitanism and diversity and put much emphasis on minority and women's rights.

NK.

Anarcho , May 17, 2018 at 09:31 AM
"In fact, though, as Will Davies and Adam Curtis have said, neoliberalism entails the use of an active state."

It has always been like that -- Kropotkin was attacking Marxists for suggesting otherwise over a hundred years ago.

"In the mid-80s nobody argued that the share of GDP going to the top 1% should double. Of course, many advocated policies which, it turns out, had this effect. Some of them intended this. But those policies were justified on other grounds, often sincerely."

Yes, different rhetoric was often used -- but the net effect was always obvious, and pointed out at the time. But you get better results with honey than vinegar...

In terms of sincerity, Milton Friedman asserted in "Capitalism and Freedom" that the more a society was "free market," the more equal it was. Come the preface to 50th anniversary edition, he simply failed to mention that applying his own ideology had refuted his assertion (and it was an assertion).

Neo-liberalism never been about reducing "the State" but rather strengthening it in terms of defending and supporting capital. Hence you see Tories proclaim they are "cutting back the state" while also increasing state regulation on trade unions -- and regulating strikes, and so the labour market.

Luis Enrique , May 17, 2018 at 12:12 PM
how coherent are the comments above?

fr'instance

"intervening against organised labour" China bans unions, doesn't it? Are they in this tent too?

"targeting state intervention towards private business" not quite sure what that means but pre-1970 import substitution industrial policy is what?

am I a neoliberal because I think markets do process dispersed information and that competition does some good things (I am worried about monopolies, I would be worried about non-competitive government procurement) or am I not a neoliberal because I am nowhere near thinking markets are omniscient and could write long essays on how markets fail?

am I a neoliberal because I think the Washington Consensus is broadly sensible (with some reservations) or not a neoliberal because I'd like to see far more social housing?

and so on

Nanikore , May 17, 2018 at 03:13 PM
Somewhere along the line neo-liberalism got associated with austerity and small-government policies. The latter I think was because they are (correctly) associated with promoting privatisation and deregulation policy.

But neo-liberals have never been against welfare states in principle or counter-cyclical policy in principle.

Key-neo-liberals, however, were pro-austerity policy after the Asian Financial Crisis - but this included most of the mainstream economics establishment (most crucially of all Stanley Fischer at the IMF). Their rational (naturally enough) related to consistency, credibility, incentives and moral hazard arguments. There were a few who protested (eg Stiglitz). But they were exceptions.

NK.

e , May 17, 2018 at 03:28 PM
@ Luis Enrique
I don't think you'd make the grade as a 'true' neo-liberal unless you'd be happy for your social housing to be less then optimal and only for the destitute. Do you see moral hazard if the housing market is once again sidestepped in favour of decent homes for average every-day heroes, or do you subscribe (explicitly) to the view that the state must sanction and hurt in order that individuals strive?
C Adams , May 17, 2018 at 06:48 PM
@Blissex

"There have been a few books arguing that "the market", being omniscient, all powerful, and just in judging everybody and giving them exactly what they deserve, has replaced God...."

But the market is the creation of man. It has no power, no judgement, other than that bestowed on it by us. My problem with neoliberalism is the belief that decisions can be made on the basis of a money metric whereas we know that money is not necessarily a good measure of value.

Ben Philliskirk , May 17, 2018 at 08:17 PM
@ Luis Enrique

'"intervening against organised labour" China bans unions, doesn't it? Are they in this tent too?'

Well yes. They have taken it further than most countries, stripping back their welfare system while increasing state promotion of capitalist development.

'"targeting state intervention towards private business" not quite sure what that means but pre-1970 import substitution industrial policy is what?'

Import substitution industrial policy is protectionism, not neoliberalism. I'm referring to governments' privatisation and outsourcing of public services and industries, taking them out of political responsibility and collective provision, while at the same time providing them with subsidies and guaranteed markets.

Luis Enrique , May 17, 2018 at 09:26 PM
Ben, ok protectionism is a different tactic than outsourcing but it's intervention towards private business so maybe that's not a defining characteristic of neoliberalism?

And if the Chinese Communist party is neoliberal and also the Koch brothers I am not convinced this is a useful nomenclature

Avraam Jack Dectis , May 17, 2018 at 10:31 PM
Is Productivity Growth like Evolution ? Is it possible that productivity growth is like evolution: It can be a fortitous accident or it can happen due to competitive pressure. The fortuitous accidents are the new technologies whose advantages are so obvious they are quickly adopted.

The competitive pressures can be constraints on profits or resources that force greater efficiency. Perhaps, now, in the UK, there is no shortage of reasonably priced personnel, infrastructure and goods. So, if productivity growth is low, you can be certain neither requirement has been met.

If neither requirement has been met, then, it may well be that there is excessive unused capacity and, if that is the case, GDP growth has been suboptimal.

Which leads to the best question: Is greater GDP growth the result of greater efficiency or is greater efficiency the result of greater GDP growth?

The conclusion is that it may be a mistake to guide policy under the assumption that GDP growth must he preceded by productivity growth. Failing to realize this may be a cause of unnoticed suboptimal GDP growth. .

Hubert Horan , May 18, 2018 at 04:53 PM
1. Neoliberalism is real, but only describes background theoretical claims. It is wrong to apply the term to the broader political movement it supported. The political movement was dedicated to maximizing the power and freedom of action of large-scale capital accumulators. Lots of ideas from neoliberal intellectual argumentation were used to increase the power of capital accumulators, and neoliberal economists tended to ignore many aspects of the political movement they supported (strongr state power, crony capitalism, monopoly power) not strictly part of neoliberal theory

2. The overlap and confusion between neoliberal theory and the political movement for unfettered freedom for capital accumulator is consistent with the broader history of movement conservatism. After WW2, conservatives (broadly defined) had a fixation with developing an intellectual foundatation/justification for their policy preferences. Partly as a reaction to the perception that FDR-LBJ era liberalism was based on theories published by Ivy League professors. The Mont Pelerin intellectual thread that Mirowski and others describe was part of this process. But (even for the liberals) it was always a mistake to claim that intellectual/ideological theorizing lead to political policy and action. It was sometimes the opposite; usually the theory was just a weapon used in internal battles or as a PR tool to mask less savory political objectives.

3. Democratic neoliberalism (Brad DeLong) was always a totally different animal. It was a reaction to the economic crises of the 70s/80s--New Deal policies written in 1934 didn't seem to be working; maybe would should incorporate market forces a bit more.

At the same time Republican neoliberalism had abandoned all pretense of detached analysis and was now strictly a tool supporting the pursuit of power.

Calgacus , May 18, 2018 at 07:38 PM
"Put it this way. In the mid-80s nobody argued that the share of GDP going to the top 1% should double. Of course, many advocated policies which, it turns out, had this effect. Some of them intended this. But those policies were justified on other grounds, often sincerely. Instead, the belief that the top 1% "deserve" 15% of total incomes rather than 7-8% has mostly followed them getting 15%, not led it. "

This is just not true. People did argue that, did announce the intent of these policies in public. Bill Mitchell's former student Victor Quirk is great on such declarations of war on the poor from the rich throughout history. Mitchell himself wrote that he was surprised how many and how blatant these declarations were.

Blissex , May 18, 2018 at 09:54 PM
"But the market is the creation of man. It has no power, no judgement, other than that bestowed on it by us."

But the neoliberal thesis is that it is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-judging. "vox populi vox dei" taken to an extreme.

"My problem with neoliberalism is the belief that decisions can be made on the basis of a money metric"

That to me seems a very poor argument, because then many will object that ignoring the money metric means that you want someone else to pay. Consider the statement "everybody has a right to healthcare free at the point of use": it is mere handwaving unless you explain who and how to pay for it.

The discussion in the money yes/no terms is for me fruitless, because there are two distinct issues in a project: the motivation for there being the project, and the business of doing the project.

Claiming that the *only* motivation for a project should be money seems to me as bad a claiming that given a good motivation how to pay for a project does not matter. Projects don't reduce to their motivation any more than they reduce to the business of doing them.

An extreme example I make is marriage: for me it is (also) a business, as it requires a careful look at money and organization issues, but hopefully the motivation to engage in that business is not economic, but personal feelings.

That's why I mentioned a better-than-Polanyi duality between businesses and institutions: institutions as a rule carry out businesses but for non-business motivations, while "pure" businesses have merely economic motivations.

For example a university setup as a charity versus one setup a a business: both carry out business activities, but the motivation of the former is not merely to do business.

Blissex , May 18, 2018 at 09:57 PM
Repeating the message: "neoliberalism" has a pretty much official definition, the "Washington Consensus". And the core part of the "Washington Consensus" is "labour market reform", that is in practice whichever policies make labour more "competitive" and wages more "affordable".

The "free markets" of neoliberalism are primarily "free" labour markets, that is free of unions.

Mike the Mad Biologist , May 19, 2018 at 01:06 AM
I would argue that, in terms of practical working definitions, Max Sawicky's definition of neo-liberalism seems to work well, at least in the U.S. context (second half of post): https://mikethemadbiologist.com/2017/04/28/remember-the-victims-of-the-nebraska-public-power-district/
C Adams , May 19, 2018 at 08:06 PM
@ Blissex "ignoring the money metric means that you want someone else to pay."

Not sure I follow. If payment is made via money then that is not ignoring the money metric, i.e. money as a measure of value. Do we want someone to do the project and is someone willing and able to do it? If, yes, then money is not (or at least does not need to be) the constraint. It is a mechanism to facilitate the project. If we want universal healthcare, money is not the constraint, the constraint is the ability of society to train and sustain (feed and house) the required expertise.

dilberto , May 19, 2018 at 08:11 PM
"What is neoliberalism?"

Neo-liberalism is an economic idea based on the conjecture that by reverting the level of state spending and regulation of an economy to that which existed at an earlier stage of its economic development will produce the same level of economic growth which the economy experienced then.

But the level of output of an economy is a reflection of the level of the efficiency of that economy, the level of economic growth therefore reflects the rate of increase in its efficiency in terms of increased economic output as the economy develops, a measure which inevitably reduces in its order as an economy approaches its maximum level of efficiency and output. So the rate of economic growth of an economy will inevitably be progressively reduced as an economy matures as the opportunities for efficiency improvements are exploited and the number that remain diminish.

The level of state spending and regulation typical of economically developed societies are responses to the social change which economic development itself has brought about. Abolishing those responses therefore is likely only to serve to reintroduce the social problems which led to their introduction and to make the social consequences of economic development more arduous for the lower social and economic groups disfavoured by that process of social change.

Neo-liberalism is, like other materialist ideology of the progressive left and right, a predominantly economic idea which is a product of the affluent and intellectual classes who themselves, being a product of their elevated economic condition, being dependent upon it and therefore having a vested interest in its continuance, are imbued with a bias which sees the improvement in the general economic condition as a natural unmitigated good and are therefore oblivious or apathetic to its non-material consequences as material progress causes a society and its population to diverge from its native and surviving character as it adapts to the historically exceptional conditions of modernity and undermines its cultural foundation and ultimately threatens its long term cultural future.

nicholas , May 19, 2018 at 10:16 PM
It seems clear from the above posts that there is no clear consensus about what neo-liberalism actually is.

I suggest the use of the term is little more than a cloak used to cover up an uncomfortable reality for those on the left. Traditional left wing policies, such as nationalisation, state intervention in the economy such as rent controls, high marginal tax rates, and strong trade unions systematically failed to deliver prosperity. States which moved to economic models involving more reliance on markets to shift labour and capital to new activities seemed to prosper far better. Rather than say that conservatives such as Friedman were proved right about the fundamental propositions about how an economy should be organised, the soft left adopted conservative policies, and have dressed it up as 'neo-liberalism' to save face.

Indeed, some on the left, such as 'filthy rich' Mandelson, embraced the market economy with the zeal of converts, and have ignored its faults and problems, and have failed to seek to mitigate or remedy these faults and problems.

Nanikore , May 20, 2018 at 07:26 AM
@nicholas

The best thing to do is consult a first or second year undergraduate political science or international relations text. Burchill "Theories of International Relations, Palgrave is a good one, and used in many UK universities. There will be a chapter on neo-liberalism in them. These texts give you the standard blurb on what neo-liberalism really is (as well as what the other major schools of thoughts are together with critiques of all of them).

Neo-liberalism is very much a coherent (but by no means flawless) theory.

Neo-liberalism comes from the subject of international relations. Fukuyama is the most representative neo-liberal. Important is the notion of 'soft power': the spread of capitalism and western culture and other forms of globalisation spreads western notions of democracy and human rights. It was important to integrate countries into the international capitalist (and engage them in the multilateral) system. At the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall this seemed to be a convincing theory. It was very much adopted as a key foreign policy strategy in the UK and the US. One of its biggest blows, however, is the lack of political reform we have seen in China. What this showed was that democratisation does not necessarily follow capitalism and globalisation.

NK.

Nanikore , May 20, 2018 at 07:42 AM
Just to qualify what I said above - the would not use the term "western notions". Ie they would not associate democracy or human rights with being western. They are very cosmopolitan, and believe in the notion of universal, (not relative), values.
Blissex , May 20, 2018 at 03:29 PM
""ignoring the money metric means that you want someone else to pay."
... then money is not (or at least does not need to be) the constraint. It is a mechanism to facilitate the project. If we want universal healthcare, money is not the constraint,"

Oh please, this is just two-bit nominalism: "money" then is just the mechanism by which "you want someone else to pay" and indeed:

"the constraint is the ability of society to train and sustain (feed and house) the required expertise."

That is the *physical* aggregate constraint, regardless of whoever pays, the practical constraint, given that physical stuff is purchased with money, creating or obtaining that money.

The question is then distributional, who is going to pay the money to "train and sustain (feed and house) the required expertise". Unless there are ample unused resources, someone will have to pay.

What right-wingers object to is the idea that "universal health care" is paid for as a percent of income, so that someone on £100,000 a year pays £8,000 a year for exactly the same level of service that someone on £10,000 a year pays £800 a year for.

Jo Park , May 20, 2018 at 07:08 PM
@Luis Enrique: Correct - you are not a neoliberal as you'd like to see far more social housing? A neoliberal believes in more economic freedom, so you achieve the aim of housing people who need state help for housing, food, energy etc by giving them the money to buy a basic level of those things. The State should not be in the business of saying this house here is not a social housing one, but this next that gets built is.
Calgacus , May 21, 2018 at 02:37 AM
Blissex: "Oh please, this is just two-bit nominalism: "money" then is just the mechanism by which "you want someone else to pay""

Umm, no. In real terms, the someone else who is paying in health care is mainly the health care professional treating you.

"Unless there are ample unused resources, someone will have to pay."

But in all modern capitalist countries there are ample unused resources as far as the eye can see. Medicine is one way to use them up, nearly cost-free, and all benefit. Most people value "not being dead" highly. As Paul Samuelson said responding to stupid worries about the cost of the US health care system, so it's 15% (or whatever). It's the best 15% of the economy.

The real problem is that "socialized medicine" is too efficient in real terms, and doesn't create corrupt and powerful satrapies to demand public money, as the US health system does. Since the UK has the most efficient health care system, it has the least real resource "someone has to pay" problem, but it causes the biggest demand gap, the true longterm, macro problem. The opposite for the USA. The real right wing concern is that the underpeople get health care at all, not some smokescreen triviality about nominal taxation.

Most written about health care, as about war, follows the backwards, mainstream way. C Adams is following the correct, MMT/Keynesian way. If that is two-bit nominalism, we need more of it.

Robert Mitchell , May 21, 2018 at 04:37 AM
Blissex: "Oh please, this is just two-bit nominalism: "money" then is just the mechanism by which "you want someone else to pay""

"Unless there are ample unused resources, someone will have to pay."

The Fed proved in 2008 it has ample resources, created with keystrokes, without limits.

In normal times banks and private money markets create dollar-denominated credit at will; in a panic, the Fed backstops the private credit.

Thus, print to pay for social spending. Index incomes to price rises. You can print faster than prices will rise ...

[May 21, 2018] There's no real Left in the UK anymore, either. The Blairites are still a force with the Labour party. Even the old Left newspapers - The Guardian, The Observer - are just neocon and neoliberal mouthpeces

May 21, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Bevin Kacon | May 20, 2018 1:50:01 PM | 12

There's no real Left in the UK anymore, either. The Blairites are still a force with the Labour party and that party is known as The Red Tories - especially in Scotland - for the obvious reason!

Even the old Left newspapers - The Guardian, The Observer - are no longer such, as has been evidenced of late. I no longer read the UK press - Private Eye is my 'paper' reading - and would not trust one word broadcast by the BBC and, I am sorry to say, Channel 4.

bevin , May 20, 2018 3:04:03 PM | 16
The Guardian and The Observer have never been socialist papers. They were liberal, just like the democrats in the United States were liberal. And liberals, who are the advance guard of capitalism, can hardly be called 'of the left'.
The only opponents of capitalism and imperialism are socialists or nationalists, of a kind rarely seen outside the third world periphery of the system since 1917.
Anyone who sees the fascists and crooks surrounding Trump as being opponents of anything except the human race is almost as daft as someone who sees the Democrats as part of the left.
But the real prize for idiocy goes to those sad souls who see the FBI, CIA, MI6 and their clones as anything but- deepest apologies here to the Mafia and their ilk- criminal gangs, of the worst kind.

[May 21, 2018] Stop Kicking Sand in Kim's Face by Eric Margolis

May 18, 2018 | www.unz.com
It's got to be either one of the stupidest acts that I can recall or a very wicked plan by Washington neocons to sabotage Korean peace talks. How else to describe the decision by Big Brother USA and junior sidekick South Korea to stage major air force exercises on North Korea's border. The prickly North Koreans had a fit, of course, as always when the US flexes its muscles on their borders. Continuing South and North Korean peace talks scheduled this week were cancelled by the furious North Koreans. The much ballyhooed Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un is now threatened with cancellation or delay. Who can blame the North Koreans for blowing their tops? As Trump administration mouthpieces were gabbing about peace and light, the US Air Force was getting ready to fly B-52 heavy bombers and F-22 Raptor stealth fighters around North Korea's borders and missile-armed subs lurked at sea. This provocation was the first of two major spring military exercises planned by the US and its reluctant South Korean satrap. In case North Korea failed to get the message, the second exercise is code-named 'Maximum Thunder.' And this right after Trump and his neocon minions reneged on the sensible nuclear treaty with Iran. In a policy one could call 'eat sand and die,' Trump demanded that Iran not only give up any and all nuclear capacity (Iran has no nukes), but also junk its non-nuclear armed medium range missiles, stop backing the Palestinians, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, roll over and be good, don't do anything to upset Israel, and pull out of Syria. In short, a total surrender policy leading to future regime change. Hardly an encouragement for North Korea. North Korea was right on target when it accused arch-neocon John Bolton of trying to sabotage the peace deal. In 2005-2006, Bolton served as the Bush administration's ambassador to the UN. He established a tradition for the post of being anti-Muslim, pro-Israel and anti-Russian, a policy continued to this day by the current US UN rep, loud-mouthed neocon Nikki Haley. In the 2005-2006 period, after years of negotiations, the US and North Korea were close to a nuclear/peace deal. Enter John Bolton. He succeeded in sabotaging the US-North Korea deal. Why? Because Bolton, as an arch neocon, was fanatically pro-Israel and feared that North Korea might provide nuclear technology to Israel's foes. As usual with the neocons, Israel's interests came before those of the United States. Trump's newly named Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo, is also an ardent neocon. Last week, Bolton went onto US TV and actually suggested North Korea might follow the course set by Libya, of all places. Libya's then ruler, Muammar Kadaffi, bought some nuclear equipment from Pakistan so he could hand it over to the US as a gesture of cooperation after the Bush administration invaded Iraq. The handover was done with much fanfare, then the US, France and Britain attacked Libya and overthrew Kadaffi. The hapless Libyan leader was eventually murdered by French agents. Is this what Bolton has in mind for North Korea? The Northerners certainly seemed to think so. Some wondered if Bolton and perhaps Pompeo were trying to sabotage the North Korea deal. Or were at least being incredibly obtuse and belligerent. Was Trump involved in this intrigue? Hard to tell. But he can't be happy. His minions and bootlickers are promoting Trump for the Nobel Prize – rather ahead of events. Or was the US military rattling its sabers and trying to protect its huge investments in North Asia? The Pentagon takes a dim view of the proposed Korean nuclear accords. The burst of sweetness and light coming from Pyongyang just sounds too good to be true. Veteran Korea observers, this writer included, find it hard to believe Kim Jong-un will give up his nuclear weapons, particularly after seeing Trump's deceit in dealing with Iran and Kadaffi's murder. Speaking of de-nuclearization, why does North Korea not demand that the US get rid of its nuclear weapons based in South Korea, Okinawa, Guam and with the 7 th Fleet? Many are targeted on North Korea. US nuclear weapons are based on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Others are secretly based in Japan. Why not demand the US pull out all its 28,500 troops in South Korea and some 2,000 military technicians at air bases? Conclusively halt those spring and fall military maneuvers that raise the threat of war. End the trade embargo of North Korea that amounts to high level economic warfare. Establish normal diplomatic relations. Pyongyang has not even begun to raise these issues. Smiles and hugs are premature.

epnngg , May 18, 2018 at 10:57 pm GMT

The US Empire has no desire for diplomacy and realistic concessions on both sides when it comes to North Korea. The US will attempt to have its way and its way only with NK. The great tragedy is, as long as the US remains entrenched on the Korean peninsula, North and South Korea cannot make the peace process work that is so long overdue their peoples.
melpeexxx , May 18, 2018 at 11:16 pm GMT
Military industries are imbedded into major economies. North Korea and Iran keeps war profits churning. Same old story.
Chris Mallory , May 19, 2018 at 12:58 am GMT
Can you imagine the squealing from the "conservatives" if North Korea and Mexico ran some military exercises in the Gulf of Mexico?

Iran sent a destroyer and a couple of supply ships into the Atlantic and I thought the "conservatives" were gonna have aneurysms.

Anonymous [989] Disclaimer , May 19, 2018 at 5:28 am GMT
Who is really in control? The US seems like a country at war with itself. One minute, one decision, another minute, the opposite decision. Trump himself started out with promise but now follows the Jewish agenda to the letter.

Could it be that the US power structure is completely split along the lines of MAGA vs. Zionists and everything the rest of the world experiences is secondary?

My advice to Kim – keep the nukes, and try to eat less.

jilles dykstra , May 19, 2018 at 7:03 am GMT
USA stupidities have long consequences.
The British, experienced in ruling an empire, did not want outside interference in the Korean civil war.
The list of USA stupidities is long, Philippines, Japan, China, South America, Iraq, Iran, Libia, Syria, two world wars.
Peter Lowe, The Origins of the Korean War, London, 1986
Barbara W. Tuchman, 'Stilwell and the American Experience in China, 1911- 45', New York, 1970, 1985
William L. Neumann, 'America encounters Japan, From Perry to MacArthur', 1963, 1965, New York
Charles Callan Tansill, 'Amerika geht in den Krieg', Stuttgart 1939 (America goes to War, 1938)
Charles A. Beard, 'President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances and realities', New Haven, 1948
Roy Mottahedeh, 'The Mantle of the Prophet, Religion and Politics in Iran', Oxford, 1985, 2000
Barbara Hinckley Sheldon Goldman, American Politics and Government, Glenview Ill.,1990
Alan Friedman, 'Spider's Web, Bush, Saddam, Thatcher and the Decade of Deceit', London, 1993
There are more books I could mention, but this seems enough.
The USA's problem, as I see it, that, until now, foreign policy could be determined by internal political reasons.
Trump's problem, making clear that this is over.
Jake , May 19, 2018 at 11:22 am GMT
Eric Margolis is one of the 2 or 3 best 'mainstream' published columnists in the country. He nails the nearly innumerable problems with Neocons about as well as can be done.
jacques sheete , May 19, 2018 at 11:38 am GMT

As Trump administration mouthpieces were gabbing about peace and light, the US Air Force was getting ready to fly B-52 heavy bombers and F-22 Raptor stealth fighters around North Korea's borders and missile-armed subs lurked at sea.

Yet it's them Eye-rainianz what's da threat to whirled peas.

Hey Eric, perhaps instead of "gabbing," you really meant "gabbling?"

US foreign policy: Say one thing, do the opposite, piss on yer own citizens, blame it all on someone else, and laugh all the way to the bank.

Anonymous [426] Disclaimer , May 19, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT
The sad fact is the American troops and nukes are staying in S. Korea to use as a cudgel against China. The tension, rhetoric and sanctions will continue; though, unless Trump and his war cabinet are criminally insane, no war will ensue that allows Kim's forces to get in a punch. Needless American and S. Korean losses wouldn't play well in the media, especially in an election year. Pre-emptive genocide on a vast scale (implying a nuclear attack), however, is always possible from the Americans and their "free world" vassals wouldn't dare to criticise it, nor would the compliant American media. Not when we've been brainwashed to believe that American cities are N. Korean targets. Once an American military infestation occurs in a country it cannot be extirpated without killing the host, and the parasite is too deeply embedded in S. Korean tissue to be driven out or just walk away.
macilrae , May 19, 2018 at 1:24 pm GMT
John Bolton does indeed present a quite ferocious image and I am sure the only thing that held him back from a military career was the possibility that, one day, he might have to fight.
Greg Bacon , Website May 19, 2018 at 1:54 pm GMT
There's one nation that will benefit from the NK deal, as they have been playing footsies with the N. Koreans for some time. That nation is Israel.

Trump the Schlump: Iran Nuclear Deal Is Bad; North Korean Nuclear Deal Is Good

The only country that stands to benefit from this disjointed and hypocritical U.S. nuclear proliferation policy is Israel. It was the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, aided and abetted by Israel's wealthy American Jewish billionaire troika of political influence peddlers – Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and Bernard Marcus – who, in the end, convinced Trump to trash the JCPOA. Trump's two new additions to his national security and foreign policy team, Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, have long advocated blowing up the JCPOA, charging that Iran has been violating the deal. Nothing is further from the truth, as demonstrated by conclusive reports on Iran's nuclear program from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Israel's own Mossad intelligence service, and the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency..

Israel's clandestine links with North Korea date back to the operations of the Israel Corporation, which controlled Israel Aircraft Industries and Zim Israel Navigation Shipping Company. Eisenberg was the first Israeli to establish trading links with the People's Republic of China, which eventually extended to North Korea and Khmer Rouge-controlled Cambodia. Eisenberg's chief exports to China and North Korea were weapons. In the latter part of his life, Eisenberg was found more often in Beijing, where he died in 1997, than in Tel Aviv. As with Israel's covert oil business with Iran, Eisenberg's weapons sales to China and North Korea were handled by a shell corporation in Panama called United Development, Inc.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/05/17/trump-schlump-iran-nuclear-deal-bad-north-korean-nuclear-deal-good.html

Wow, imagine that, our foreign policy being run by neoCONs and Zionists in service to Apartheid Israel.

Those that know 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag will recall ZIM as the Israeli shipping outfit that broke their WTC lease–costing them over 50k–several weeks before 9/11 and got the hell out of Dodge, as if they knew something bad was going to happen.

Gosh, what would the USA do without our good friend and ally Israel always stabbing us in the back?

Johnny Smoggins , May 19, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
Margolis seems like a pretty worldly, well connected guy. He should send the video of Ghaddafi being sodomized with a sharpened stick to Kim as a reminder of what can happen to him if he gives up his nuclear deterrent.
Harold Smith , May 19, 2018 at 2:41 pm GMT
"North Korea was right on target when it accused arch-neocon John Bolton of trying to sabotage the peace deal. "

Bolton is merely the stalking horse in this particular scam. (It is for this kind of role that Bolton was picked in the first place). Apparently we're to infer that orange clown really, really, really, really, really, really, really wants some kind of a peace deal with North Korea, just like he really, really, really, really, really, really, really wants better relations with Russia for example alas there's always a fly in the imperial ointment.

In reality of course there was never any chance of a peace deal with North Korea, just like there was never any chance of a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, or a withdrawal from Syria, or cooperation with Russia (on anything), or a real investigation into 9/11, etc. Instead what we get is affectatious posturing by actors on a stage; "government" by diabolical jewish-supremacist-inspired dialectics.

Che Guava , May 19, 2018 at 2:44 pm GMT
@padre

Err, Saudi Arabia?

and for no concessions and a ridiculously slavish subordination of the U.S.A., Israel?

[May 20, 2018] Ford Says Farewell The American Conservative

May 20, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Ford Says Farewell America's most iconic automaker plans to drive almost all of their passenger sedans into the sunset by 2020. By Telly Davidson May 16, 2018

1959 Ford Country Squire Station Wagon Advertisement Life Magazine November 10 1958 By SenseiAlan /Flickr/CreativeCommons Ford Motor Company recently dropped a bombshell -- one that would have been largely unthinkable before the Great Recession. FoMoCo announced that it would be phasing out virtually all passenger cars built for the U.S./Canadian market (they will continue in Europe) by 2020, except for the upcoming Focus Active and always-popular Mustang -- a move all the more grim in that it was founding father Henry Ford that pioneered the mass-market sedan for both America and the world.

The Focus will be first to go this month, followed by the Taurus next March and the Fiesta in May 2019.

Ford Motor Company was always the Eve to General Motors' Adam in Detroit, not only making cars (and profits) by the trunkload, but leading the league in midcentury style. The "Jackie Kennedy" Lincoln Continental Town Car . The Thunderbird . But during the "Big Government" era of unapologetically high property taxes and ballooning environmental regulations, Ford suffered its first postwar crash. Amid the 1975 fuel shortages, Congress passed -- and Detroit's own liberal Republican stalwart Gerald Ford (despite some quibbles and misgivings) signed -- the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Act (CAFÉ), which started off by requiring an 18 mpg standard by the 1978 model year (1975 models were around 13 mpg by average.) The standard would rise to 19 mpg in 1979, 20 in 1980, and then not one but two mileage points per year through 1984 -- with massive, multi-million-dollar IRS and court-imposed fines if a manufacturer was found to be non-compliant.

Like a small-town mayor futilely trying to resist a federal court order, Ford mocked GM's newly streamlined "large" cars when they debuted for 1977 (GM had been planning to go on a diet even before CAFÉ, and had vastly more R&D money than Ford or Chrysler). Ads noted that Ford's family-priced LTD sedan was now the same length as a "downsized" (but still gargantuan by today's standards) new '77 Cadillac. Cynically, both Ford and Chrysler made no secret of the fact that their 1978 model full-size cars would be the last of their kind (Cadillac also let everyone know that their big 1978 Eldorado was heading for the exit door), encouraging not only the "buy it while you still can!" panic buying of the hyperinflationary late '70s -- but also as good as telling customers that next year's forcibly-downsized models would be decidedly inferior. Lincoln gave its Town Car and Mark V one last victory lap before they went, and Ford also renewed the Mark V's shorter-wheelbase platform-mates the Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar for 1979. Still fuming at the imminent loss of their league-leaders, Ford so grossly overproduced for 1979 that Lincoln had a backlog of 210 days' worth of cars by July of 1979, effectively giving them a 1980 model year.

Not surprisingly, the downsized 1979 Ford (and Chrysler) "full size" sedans initially bombed -- sales declined drastically for the '79 LTD and Mercury Grand Marquis, and went off a cliff in 1980. And while the Mark VI "only" fell by half of its 1979 numbers, the Town Car went off Thelma and Louise's cliff -- barely managing one-third of its '79 numbers.

And all this was just a sampling of what became arguably the biggest one-year euthanasia in Ford history, as the 1980 Ford Granada and Mercury Monarch (and their upscale twin, the luxury Lincoln Versailles), and the iconic Pinto/Bobcat were all put to sleep at year's end. All but the Granada were canceled outright, in nameplate as well as body style, with the Granada barely hanging on as a thinly-disguised Fairmont (Ford's first big downsizing-era success, which kept the lights on at Dearborn during the 12-15 percent interest rate era from 1978 to 1983.)

Now the plot thickens. The first downsizing era was complete, but the second one, to bring things into compliance for 1984-85 (and what Detroit assumed would be even more draconian) standards, was now underway. Ford suffered catastrophic losses in 1980-82, and Chrysler had to beg a stern President Carter for a too-big-to-fail bailout in 1979-80 to avoid bankruptcy, as they frantically redesigned their slow-selling car lines yet again.

But out of this "Big Government" intrusion came the impetus to design what became Ford's biggest successes in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s -- the 1983-88 and 1989-97 Thunderbird, the 1984-94 Ford Tempo, and the 1986-95 Ford Taurus. (Already their 1981-90 Escort flirted with #1 bestseller status in recessionary 1982.) Meanwhile, arch-competitor GM euthanized all but the station wagons and the Chevy Caprice sedan (which lasted until 1990) of their full-size 1977 lines in spring 1984. The cars GM replaced them with were engineering marvels (except when it came to reliability, perhaps) of front-wheel-drive, V6-powered efficiency -- but as folksinger Malvina Reynolds might have said, they all looked ticky-tacky and they all looked the same. GM suffered its largest decade-loss in its then-history during the '80s, according to auto historian Paul Niedemeyer.

But just as it had in 1978, Ford held out -- and this time, the move paid off. As Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr. began relaxing CAFE laws (or at least refusing to raise the standards dramatically), the "downsized" big cars of the first wave of downsizing that still remained in production began selling like hotcakes -- especially to Greatest and Silent Generation traditionalists who wanted cars that reminded them of the unapologetic luxury they drove in the 70s, when they were at the height of their earning power and still healthy. The 1991 LTD/Marquis looked much the same as they did in 1979, and the Town Car of 1989 (and its closest competitor, the '89 Chrysler Fifth Avenue) were virtual reruns of 1980. And the Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham (the only other GM survivor of 1984-85's "second downsizing") was still wearing its chrome-finned, formal-roofed, stately 1977 body all the way into 1992, with only a couple of reshaped-sheetmetal facelifts in between.

But Boomers had already been converted during the energy-conscious '70s to efficient Japanese (and soon, Korean) cars. (Their Gen-X and Millennial children also would have no qualms at all about buying "foreign.") By the late 80s and 90s, the Japanese were second to none in reliability, and rising suns like Hyundai and Kia began offering league-leading, bumper-to-bumper warranties. As the Roger & Me era of globalization took hold, even the saltiest WWII and Korea veterans who were left began seriously considering Japanese and Korean autos -- given that the Asian automakers were consciously building plants in the U.S. and Canada to erase the stigma of buying foreign (and head off potential tariffs), while the allegedly "all American" Big 3 were sending jobs by the thousand to Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, and eventually China.

The one big exception, however, was American trucks and vans -- including that ultimate "soccer moms" symbol, the "minivan" (introduced by Chrysler in 1984 and Ford in 1985) and the luxury SUV. Because even the biggest global-warming advocates and environmentalists had to concede that a civilized society needed ambulances, hearses, construction, repair, and delivery trucks, and so forth, trucks were held to a significantly lower MPG standard.

Conscious of his fellow Yuppies (and not wanting to be a gloomy Debbie Down-size-er like Jimmy Carter), Bill Clinton said "No way!" to raising CAFE standards, much less cracking down hard on American-made trucks, vans, Jeeps, and SUVs that were all the rage (and already paying the Big Three's bills) in the late '90s. And naturally, Texas oilman George W. Bush (with his bestie, "Kenny-Boy" Lay of Enron) and Dick "Halliburton" Cheney barely even touched fuel standards. The CAFÉ standard never rose above 27.5 mpg for passenger cars from 1985 all the way through 2010 -- a full 25 years.

By 2010, the US auto industry was in the worst shape since the Great Depression, if not the Carter years. GM was pulling itself out of bankruptcy, and cancelled their Saturn and Pontiac brands on Halloween 2010 (Oldsmobile had been the first to the cemetery in the relatively prosperous June of 2004). Chrysler had long ago put Plymouth and what was left of AMC/Eagle to sleep, and was even more bankrupt than GM. The only real survivor was, ironically, Ford, thanks to its European partnerships and its red-hot truck/SUV presence, and the ever-popular Mustang. (The Focus, Taurus, and Fusion were still doing well, although largely behind the Japanese and Korean majors.) The Town Car (whose body dated to 1998) and Crown Victoria (which went back to 1991-92) finally died in early 2012, after shutting down production at the end of August 2011. And though the iconic Lincoln Continental was revived for 2017, it has largely failed to meet expectations.

So this was your life, Ford Motor Company. You invented the modern working-class hero's sedan with the Model T, you survived and thrived as arguably midcentury middle-class America's most iconic automaker, you stumbled badly and nearly OD'ed on gasoline and outdated styling through the last days of disco, but woke up with Morning in America. "Big Gov'mint" forced you -- kicking and screaming -- to innovate in ways you didn't want to, but that kept you alive during that time. And then, when deregulation happened, and the focus became trucks/minivans/SUVs that didn't need year-to-year changes to stay popular, you had to play it as it laid.

Fare thee well, Ford sedans and wagons. It wouldn't have been the same without ya.

Telly Davidson is the author of a new book, 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."

John_M May 15, 2018 at 10:47 pm

If oil prices his $100 a barrel as Citi is predicting next year (side effect of Trump's Iran move), this could turn out badly for Ford.

I hope I have purchased my last gas car – a Prius Prime – a year ago. I am in my later 60's and I like long range trips. At 50 mpg+ on gas, I will be able to afford to drive it when I am retired. And for my about town commuting and short trips, I am averaging over 130 mpg – relying mostly upon the battery. With luck, it will last until I am not up for long haul trips.

I hope to buy a fully self driving electric car in 4 years when I have finished paying off the Prius. My wife is directionally challenged and we are likely to be somewhat rural, making Uber-like services less able. In the mean time, she drives her 10 year old Toyota corolla, which gets quite good mileage.

I have driven gas guzzlers in my time, but given the amount I drive, I have decided to optimize my cars for reliability and mileage. The Prius replaces a Suburu Forester that got ~ 23 mpg. It had over 230,000 miles on it before it sustained enough damage from road debris that it wasn't worth repairing.

I don't need another suv or pickup, the kids are finally moving out.

[May 20, 2018] Making sense of Russian political ambiguities by The Saker

Looks like Putin does not see alternative to neoliberalism... Also he need to provide for Russia a time to get from knees it was put by yeltzin regime. Russia is still very week economically in comparison with the alliance of US and EU. It does not have China advantage of hosting manufacturing of many high tech products.
Notable quotes:
"... to me this does strongly suggest that Putin is on the retreat, that he has made a major mistake and that the Empire has scored a major victory. ..."
May 20, 2018 | www.unz.com

Meh. I am personally unconvinced. How can Putin say that he wants serious reforms while keeping the exact same type of people in command? If indeed the Medvedev government did such a great job, then why is there any need for such major reforms? If Putin's power base is indeed, as I believe it to be, in the people, then why is he trying to appease the financial elites by catering to their interests and agenda? Most crucially, how can Russia free herself from the financial and economic grip of the Empire when the Empire's 5 th column agents are (re-)appointed to key positions? And in all of Russia was there really nobody more qualified than Mutko or Kudrin to appoint to these positions?

Of course, there always this "Putin knows something you don't" but I have always had a problem with that kind of logic which is essentially an open-ended universal cop-out. I hope that I am wrong, but to me this does strongly suggest that Putin is on the retreat, that he has made a major mistake and that the Empire has scored a major victory. And I will gladly admit that I have yet to hear an explanation which would explain this, never mind offer one of my own.

On the external front, has Russia caved in to Israeli pressure? Ruslan Ostashko offers a very good analysis of why this is hardly the case: (I don't necessarily agree with his every conclusion, but he does make a very good case:

Yes, Netanyahu *did* with his repeated strikes on Syria, thumb his nose at Putin (that famous Israeli chutzpah at work for you!), and yes, Putin wining and dining Netanyahu was a painful sight and a PR-disaster. But on substance, did Israel get Russia to "betray Iran"? No, and not because the Russians are so heroically principled, but because Israel really has nothing to offer Russia. All Israel has is a powerful pro-Israel lobby inside Russia, that is true. But the more they use that lobby the more visible it becomes, the more questions at least Eurasian Sovereignists will ask.

The Israelis sure don't want to give the impression that the run Russia the way they run the US, and Netanyahu's reception in the Kremlin recently has already raised a lot of eyebrows and the impression that Putin caved in to the demands of this arrogant bastard are not helping Putin, to put it mildly. A lot of Russian analysts (Viktor Baranets, Maksim Shevchenko, Leonid Ivashev) wonder what kind of arguments Netanyahu used with Putin, and the list of possibilities is an outright uninspiring one.

Part five – another truism: there is a difference between excellent, good, average, bad and terrible

Even if the situation in Russia has changed for the worse, this is hardly a reason to engage in the usual "Putin sold out" hysteria or to declare that "Russia caved in". Even when things are bad, there is still a huge difference between bad and worse. As of right now, Putin is not only the best possible person to be the President of Russia, Russia also continues to be the objective leader of the resistance to the Empire. Again, the black-and-white "Hollywood" type of mindset entirely misses the dynamic nature of what is going on. For example, it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension.

For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin's personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition.

Much will depend on how the Russian economy will perform. If, courtesy of Trump's megalomaniacal policies towards Iran and the EU, Russia's economy receives a massive injection of funds (via high energy prices), then things will probably stabilize. But if the European leaders meekly cave in and join the sanctions against Iran and if the US succeeds in imposing even further sanctions on Russia, then the Medvedev government will face a serious crisis and the revival of the Russian economy promised by Putin will end up in an embarrassing failure and things could also go from bad to even worse.

... ... ...

For Hezbollah, Iran or Russia to defeat Israel, the US or the entire Empire, there is no need to plant a flag on the enemy's main symbolic building like what Soviet soldiers did in Germany. All they need to do to win is simply to survive because the other's sides survival is predicated upon their elimination, it's really that simple. Israel cannot claim victory as long as Hezbollah exists, the US cannot claim world Hegemony if Iran openly defies it, and the AngloZionist Empire cannot clain world hegemony over the our planet as long as the Russian civilizational realm openly challenges it. So while all the talk about the Iranians wanting to " wipe Israel off the map " is just a typical ziomedia invention, it is true that by their very existence Hezbollah, Iran and Russia do represent an existential threat to Israel, the US and the Empire .

This is the biggest and the fatal weakness of the AngloZionist Empire: its survival depends on the colonization or destruction of every other country out there. Every independent country, whether big and powerful, or small and weak, represents an unacceptable challenge to the hegemony of the "indispensable nation" and the "chosen people", which now try to rule over us all. This might well be the ultimate example of Hegelian dialectics at work in geopolitics: an Empire whose power generates it's own demise. Many empires have come and gone in history, but the globalized world we live in, this dialectical contradiction is tremendously potentialized by the finite conditions in which empires have to operate.

... ... ...

Right now Putin still has a lot of "credibility capital" left in spite of his recent mistakes. However, Putin recent decisions have raised a lot of unpleasant questions which must be answered and will so in time. In the meantime, as they say in the US, " hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and settle for anything in the middle ". The Scripture also warns us not to make idols of leaders: " Trust not in princes, nor in the children of men, in whom there is no safety " (Ps 145:3 LXX). The worldly evil we are fighting, today in the shape of the AngloZionist Empire, is but a manifestation of a much deeper, spiritual evil: " For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places " (Eph. 6:12). The young men and women from the Shia movement Amal got it right when they chose the name "Party of God" for their movement when they created Hezbollah in 1985. And Iran was right when it became an Islamic Republic: if we want to defeat the Empire we need to always let spiritual matters and moral crieria remain above any of our "pragmatic" worldly political considerations or national/ethnic loyalties: that is how we can defeat those who place a dollar value on absolutely everything they see in their narrow materialistic worldview.


Robert Magill , May 17, 2018 at 9:54 am GMT

A truly amazing article and the most amazing thing of all is the total lack of even one paragraph of the existence of China. This article could have been written, word for word, by a defender of the Empire and the China omission would have been identical.

The Key player on the world scene manages to wear the clock of invisibility like the Shadow of old time radio and movies. Quite a feat!
robertmagill.wordpress.com

m___ , May 17, 2018 at 10:12 am GMT

Second, each process carries within itself the seeds of its own contradiction. This is what makes processes dynamic.

"what makes processes dynamic", could it be "more then just linear"? Referring to changes of direction regardless of interaction(group dynamics) with other processes. Example: the Roman Empire process, growing then imploding?

Discard as pendantic in case.

Randal , May 17, 2018 at 3:00 pm GMT

Even the Pantsir which was recently destroyed by the Israelis (with the usual pro-Israeli PR campaign) was not even on combat alert: the unit was not even camouflaged and its crew was standing around and smoking. The Israelis are masters at making this look all very impressive and heroic, but in military terms, this is nonsense: they clearly hit a unit which was not even part of the action (whatever that "action" was).

Not sure how an AD unit can be "not part of the action" anywhere in any meaningful sense in the midst of an ongoing surge of strikes within a strategic campaign of air attacks such as Israel is waging against Syria.

Without knowing the context (how long had it been stationary and out of ammo/action, as it reportedly was at the time of the strike, and what was the context for the Israelis getting a missile through to it when it should have been covered by other operational defences), it's hard to know how much its loss should be put down to Syrian fault, and how much to Israeli/US technical competence or just to the vagaries of war.

But it certainly doesn't look good and that's of course why the Israelis are so keen to publicise it.

As for the Saker piece, as usual lots of good points and some not so good, but that's about all one can expect on such complex topics. Imo he's rather over-stating the case in excusing the Russian failure to halt the ongoing Israeli assault on Syria. Yes, Russia has no formal alliance with Syria or Iran committing it to defend them (and by the way these are attacks on Syria not just Iran, though occasionally they hit Iranian forces within Syria and allied with Syria – the claims of targeting just Iranian forces are Israeli propaganda to create a seeming pretext good enough for the pro-Israeli media in the US sphere). But to say there is no moral onus on Russia whatsoever to do so is simply overstating it – Iranians, Syrians and Russians are fighting side by side in Syria and that in itself creates some moral pressure not to stand by and watch your allies get butchered with impunity when you can do something about it.

But from a purely pragmatic point of view, failing to halt the Israeli attacks is damaging to Russia, on at least two counts. First, it unavoidably creates a perception of weakness and/or betrayal, and of unreliability and two-facedness. In a more concrete sense, though, the simple fact is that Iranian, Syrian and Russian interests are in fact fundamentally aligned in Syria and diametrically opposed to the Israeli objective, on the core issue, which is the survival and stabilisation of the Syrian state. Israeli impunity and the level of attacks it is now carrying out are incompatible with the goal of stabilising Syria, and will have to be stopped at some time if that goal is to be achieved.

If the Russian government thinks that by appeasing the Israelis it can somehow hope that they might be persuaded to slow down or halt the attacks, perhaps if the Iranians pull out, then the Russian government is profoundly naïve. Claims that the strikes are motivated by Iranian presence are pretexts, not reasons. If that pretext goes, another will be found. The Israeli goal remains to destroy the Syrian state, destroy Hezbollah and destroy Iran as a regional rival. Israel does not need to do these things – claims that it is under serious threat are outright propaganda lies. It wants to do them, in order to gain in regional power over its rivals and increase further its impunity to continue and escalate its ongoing settler colonisation programs enabled by the US.

Those objectives are important enough that it isn't going to halt in pursuing them as a favour to Russia, no matter how meek and submissive the Russian government acts, but they are not important enough for Israel to face open conflict with a major power for them. Israel does these things because it can. When it is forcefully told that it can no longer do them, it will stop doing them.

One can certainly argue (and I have done so in the past) that the time isn't right for Russia to put a halt to Israeli attempts to destabilise the Syria government, though that argument grows increasingly threadbare. One cannot argue credibly, I think, that it will not be necessary to do so at some point soon.

ohmy , May 17, 2018 at 4:07 pm GMT
This is a very good interpretation of the recent events which have confused us all. Personally I think any and, all deals Putin has made with the Western Zionists have a short shelf life as, there seems to be no contract the West will honor short of complete capitulation.

Patience is a good thing here and,, Putin knows in the end Russia is the prize. So, I believe right now he is smart to play short ball with Washington and, Tel Aviv. There's a level of immaturity in guys like Netanyahu and, Trump. Let me just say, they have their egos to protect.
Saker, what do you know about AI as it relates to Tyler, anything? Is this a topic which can excite from you an article or, two?

Mega SCI dump , May 17, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
"the "New Russia" (as I like to call it) is not based on anything other than a Constitution written mostly by US advisors"

That's a bit harsh. Judging by what the Russian command structure has been seen to say and do, they are evidently based on rights and rule of law, not on the perverted US model but on black-letter customary and conventional international law. Russia dominates US performance in terms of human rights,

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

They took over from France as the world's most articulate advocate of rule of law, and did it better. In Syria they stressed pacific resolution of disputes, notably by brokering Syrian chemical weapons disarmament through OPCW. They also press-ganged a military staff committee and enforced UN Charter Article 47 at gunpoint, using all the megatonnage needed. Now they're the world's policeman, and they're not USA-style asshole cops. They're taking the role of international civil servants in the UN Charter's sense. That may be one reason why they're not consistently kicking US ass, as we would wish: Peace is the law. Friendly relations – it's the law, A/RES/25/2625.

Not that they're perfect examples of rights or law – the indicators show that in the specific respect of invitations to special procedures, they're about as bad as the USA, and that's pretty bad. And your point about double standards on Israeli impunity is very important. But their opposition to the West is not general, but meticulously grounded in law. Recall that they justified even a vital interest, Crimean accession, in terms of the Kosovo precedent set out by the ICJ.

Per/Norway , May 17, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Randal

the pantsir was being reloaded.. no rockets in the tubes, maybe that is how it was not part of the action;)
weapons without ammo cant do their intended operations as far as i know,,

Randal , May 17, 2018 at 8:56 pm GMT
@Per/Norway

Being out of ammo doesn't mean being "not part of the action". It means you should be either be being reloaded or getting under cover to reload, or be covered by other systems, or both.

Were the autocannons out of ammo as well? If it was running low on ammo shortly before, why wasn't it already on the move towards cover, since the S1 can reportedly fire on the move? If it was under such rapid and sustained attack that its ammo was exhausted in a saturation attack (and that of its covering systems as well, bearing in mind it was reportedly located at a major airbase), and it had no time to move or be reloaded before it was hit, then it absolutely was not "not part of the action".

I take no joy in pointing it out, but this was a clear defeat for the Syrian AD systems, however you explain it. It's not the end of the world – losses are inevitable in combat. Lessons can be learned. But it can't be airily dismissed as "not part of the action".

Malcolm Tucker , Website May 17, 2018 at 10:11 pm GMT
What "cancellation" of which promise to supply the S-300?? There never was any promise to do so to start with. There were only certain questions asked by the JMSM in certain time before the long-planned visit of Netanyahu on May, 9. The Russian generals had to give some sort of replies. An ambiguous ones. But the JMSM of course made a conclusion that Russia indeed is planning the sale. Fast-forward to 9th of May, Bibi comes/Bibi leaves, and the same JMSM would ask the new questions. To which Moscow obviously had to voice a denial. As a result – Bibi is a hero at home, while Putin was made look weak. http://www.ancreport.com/report/the-phantom-s-300/
Erebus , May 18, 2018 at 2:12 am GMT
@Randal

The photos I've seen indicate that the system (if really the same one) had indeed fired off its missiles and was ready to move as its hydraulic stabilizers had been retracted, and its radar panel folded. If the crew left the system uncamouflaged and were "standing around smoking", that can suggest a number of different possibilities. It may indicate a breakdown in discipline, but they may have been awaiting orders, or even had a mechanical breakdown en route to a new location. Likely a combination. Who knows?

So, maybe not "part of the action" in the sense that it was actively targeting/firing at incoming missiles, but definitely "part of the action" in the sense that it had been obviously doing just that moments before. If its missiles and auto-cannon had seen some successes, it may even be seen to have "won" rather than been part of a "clear defeat".

In any case, it seems that surprisingly little damage was done. The system was hit in the front cab area and looked eminently repairable in the photos.

The SAA has seen some discipline problems in the field, and since a number of the the general staff defected early in the war, a disjointed command & control system. Under Russian tutelage, they're vastly better today than they were 2 years ago, but perhaps not quite there yet. If the reports from late 2015 are to be believed, the Russians were very frustrated with how the SAA operated, and basically had to impose discipline by threatening, and then actually leaving.
My guess is that that's a large part of why the Russians are reluctant to provide potent weapons such as the S300. The political implications of using them can outweigh their military utility, and so must remain under strict control. If somebody starts shooting down US or IL jets at stand-off distances, things can get uncomfortably complex very quickly. The Russians don't need that to worry about along with everything else.

byrresheim , May 18, 2018 at 3:50 am GMT
Russia and Russians will have to come to terms with the fact they are disliked in large parts of Eastern Europe, with the possible exception of Serbia.

There are reasons for this, whether just or unjust.

The reaction to comment #1 which might be seen as sarcastic seems a case in point.

I am certain that unfortunate accidents like the coup in Ukraine might in the future be avoided by a bit more self-awareness and awareness of massive prejudices inherited from an often less than glorious past.

One has to see, however, that in the Ukrainian case, like in the Georgian case before, Russia acted swiftly and decisively to reach a position which might be considered better than the status quo ante before the Free West™ started its sheganigans. So perhaps the awareness exists and the contingency planning is in place?

That is why I still have more than a little hope for Syria and by extension christendom in Syria and Lebanon. All to often it is forgotten that these wars in Arabia are also wars against the christion minorities in Arabia.

Ronald Thomas West , Website May 19, 2018 at 6:42 am GMT
Well, this guy save me the trouble of commenting:

https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/05/the-saker-isnt-just-wrong-hes-irrelevant-putins-an-excellent-warrior/

Miro23 , May 19, 2018 at 7:57 am GMT
@Randal

The Israeli goal remains to destroy the Syrian state, destroy Hezbollah and destroy Iran as a regional rival. Israel does not need to do these things – claims that it is under serious threat are outright propaganda lies. It wants to do them, in order to gain in regional power over its rivals and increase further its impunity to continue and escalate its ongoing settler colonization programs enabled by the US.

In fact it seems to go further. Planned Greater Israel expands territorially to include Jordan, Lebanon, most of Syria, western Iraq (oil producing regions), all the Gulf States, all northern Saudi Arabia (oil producing regions) and the Sinai and other parts of Egypt.

It's the Israeli Imperial dream of becoming a World Power and also controlling the world's oil supply, somewhat analogous to Hitler's dream of a German World Empire based on colonization of the East and a Greater Germany extending to the Urals.

Both are/were racist-Imperialist projects with the difference that the Germans tried to realize the dream using their own military (insufficient) while the Israelis are trying to do it using US forces.

How long the US plays along (or rather is intimidated into playing along) with this one sided project is an open question – and there's clearly the issue of how Israel is going to win these wars without troops on the ground. At least Hitler had most of his army in Russia and detailed plans for post-war ethnic German settlement.

The Americans aren't going to fight more large scale ground wars in the Middle East and Israeli/US proxy forces have failed – so that leaves the destruction of the Middle East from the air – which doesn't really further the Greater Israel project. Political control on the ground stays the same – generating even greater anti-Israeli/anti-American sentiment (if that is possible).

Russia correctly opts to keep clear of this mess, and there is only negative blowback for Israel and the United States – actually serving to isolate internally destabilize these countries.

Erebus , May 20, 2018 at 1:08 am GMT
@Randal

At the moment the Russians look either two-faced or weak (and perhaps they are both) in the face of Israel. That's not a look Russia can afford to have come to be their characterising feature, in the long run.

Yes, from certain perspectives it does indeed look like that, but I doubt many of us here are very aware of the calculi being used at the state level, and especially of Russia's. "Losing face" may be the equivalent of sacrificing a pawn.

There are some complex processes underway, involving a bewildering number of moving parts. "Russiagate" is imploding in the US at an accelerating rate, heading for a constitutional crisis. The 2 Koreas are cooking up a scheme between them (w/ support) to end the US' domination of the W. Pacific. More critical than all, in my view, is Trump's abrogation of the JCPOA. This has put the US on a trajectory at odds with its allies, and played directly into the hands of its adversaries. As evidence of the latter, Merkel and Putin have met 2x in May, and Germany's new foreign minister has also visited with Lavrov. It may well be the geo-political tipping point.

Remembering Obama's & Kerry's words at the the time the JCPOA was agreed
Obama in Aug '15:
"Instead of strengthening our position as some have suggested, Congress's rejection would almost certainly result in multilateral sanctions unraveling We'd have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system trigger(ing) severe disruptions in our own economy and, by the way, rais(ing) questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. "
John Kerry, a few days later:
"If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them, 'you're going to have to obey our rules and sanctions anyway,' that is a recipe, very quickly, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world. "

With the EU now agreeing to transact with Iran in EURs, Obama's & Kerry's words look to have been much more than hyperbole, "Losing face", in these circumstances may be nothing more than what you do as you play rope-a-dope while the big guy punches himself out.

We shall see what happens after the World Cup.

I think that's colouring current events more than we give it credit for. It's an opportune time for rogue nations to play games and throw tantrums, but I think a new set of rules will be introduced after the show is over.

Avery , May 20, 2018 at 4:23 am GMT
@Anon

{Maybe it would have been better if the Germans had defeated and occupied Russia and killed all the commies.}

Maybe it would have been much better for Nazis to have occupied whatever putrid swamp you are from and killed off pond scum like you.

Nazis invaded Soviet Union in order to exterminate the Slavic peoples, the supposed Untermenschen , take their fast, fertile lands, and populate them with the alleged "Master Race".

Except they turned out to be somewhat less than "Master", because those Untermenschen chased the pitiful remainders of the Nazi invaders all the way back to Berlin, and those Untermenschen Red Army soldiers pissed on the ashes of the supposed "Master Race" leader.

(Hitler's bloviations about Bolsheviks and all that was just a convenient excuse and to snow his military who might be less than enthusiastic about murdering civilians of SU.)

btw: it is not too late for youse and your buddies to put on your uniforms, polish up your jack-boots, grab your weapons .and invade Russia. Who know maybe youse will get lucky and will get a gift wrapped Sarmat express -delivered right to your address.

[May 20, 2018] Exclusive: Dangerous Phase of Terrorism, Trump's Israeli Connections Proved (Updated)

Notable quotes:
"... "the United States has links with terrorist 'Islamic State', also known as Daesh Daesh a tool of US After it [the US] dropped the [mother of all] bomb on Afghanistan, it did not eliminate Daesh the terrorist group has been supplied weapons by the United States forces The US Army helicopters and army bases are being used to provide assistance to ISIS terrorists I do not differentiate at all between Daesh and America Reports of American assistance to the terrorists are coming from all over the country." ..."
"... "Trump's standards, his comments about the Orlando shooting have been reckless and self-serving. They are also dangerous for the country the strongest remaining force that propels the Islamic State is the Islamophobia of Trump and his European counterparts, argue senior intelligence strategists for the U.S.-led coalition. Inflammatory, xenophobic statements about Muslims reinforce the jihadists' claims that they are Muslim knights fighting against an intolerant West. Trump unwittingly gives them precisely the role they dream about." ..."
"... "In NYC, looks like another attack by a very sick and deranged person. Law enforcement is following this closely. We must not allow ISIS to return, or enter, our country after defeating them in the Middle East and elsewhere. Enough! The United States will be immediately implementing much tougher Extreme Vetting Procedures. The safety of our citizens comes first!" ..."
May 20, 2018 | www.veteranstoday.com

By VT Senior Editors - May 20, 2018 1 1043

By Sajjad Shaukat

Modern history of terrorism shows that it has gone through distinct phases, with shifting missions, messages, and means of mobilizing. But, owing to the US President Donald Trump's Israeli connections, terrorism has entered a dangerous phase.

Everyone knows that Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban were created by the American CIA to fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

In this regard, former British Foreign secretary, Robin Cook stated, "Throughout the 1980s, he [Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan."

Osama bin-Laden (Col. Tim Osman) with Ziggy Brzezinski

The then US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and said about the militants (Mujahideen), "We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed because, you are fighting against the infidel Russians."

However, one of the alarming phases of terrorism started when, after fulfilling their interests, Washington left Afghanistan in particular and Pakistan in general to face the fallout of a prolonged conflict -- terrorism and instability.

These Mujahideen who pulled the Russians out of Afghanistan, later become the Taliban, Al-Qaeda (new version) and the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State group (also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh). They got the label of terrorists.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, former US President Bush (41), in connivance with his Zionist-advisers, saw Islamic fundamentalism as a great threat. Since then, sometimes, Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda have routinely been used by the US and some Western countries as a scapegoat to malign Pakistan for 'de-nuclearisation,' as the latter is the only nuclear country in the Muslim World. Sometimes, the bogeyman of Al-Qaeda was raised to achieve their goals of external policy, and sometimes to pacify their public, including the opposition. In all cases, the secret underlying purpose was to safeguard the interests of the Zionists and Israel.

The new frightening phase of terrorism started after the September 11 tragedy inside the United States. In this regard, US President George W. Bush (43) and neo-conservatives crossed all the limits in protecting the political, economic and religious interests of the Jews and Israel at the cost of Muslims and patriot Americans.

Just after the 9/11 catastrophe, statements of Bush, high officials of his administration and Zionist-controlled media deliberately developed chauvinism and extremism among the Americans. There had been an organised campaign against the Muslims in the US and other western countries. Its main themes were that Islam and the Muslims were the true cause of terrorism.

President Bush used the phrase, "crusade against the evil-doers", adding to the perception that the ongoing 'different war' against terrorism is actually a war against the Muslim countries. Inside the US, suddenly, every Muslim found himself divested of his nationality. Arrests, detentions and harassment of the Muslims by the CIA and the FBI in the US were other steps which still continue.

Brushing aside Israeli atrocities on the Palestinians, American unity was projected with such force as to allow no questioning of US policy.

Under the cover of the 9/11 catastrophe, a pre-planned strategy of the neo-conservatives headed towards a series of unexpected developments and events. Bush warned the world to choose sides by saying, "either you are with us or with terrorists." It was due to employment of pressure-diplomacy on the weak states – Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Libya etc. – that almost all the Arab states joined Bush's anti-terrorism war. By manipulating public emotion about the 9/11 carnage, Bush also got the sympathies of almost all the major Western countries including NATO states, which also joined the fake global war on terror.

Meanwhile, making Osama and Al-Qaeda scapegoats, a number of fake video messages were telecast on various TV channels and websites by some Zionists to obtain Israel's anti-Muslim goals. For example, during the November 2004 elections in the US, a fake video helped the incumbent president George W. Bush to gain a lead over John Kerry.

Can a leopard change its spots?

It is well-known that, in a tape released on December 27, 2001, the authenticity of which is not in question, Osama denied any involvement in the September 11 tragedy.

However, later, two video tapes appeared to validate his guilt in relation to 9/11, because the main aims of the Bush administration were to provoke American public outrage against the Muslims and to justify a global war on terror -- the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq to possess energy resources of Central Asia and Iraq, including proxy wars in other Middle Eastern countries and to get their support for a propaganda campaign against Pakistan and Iran.

Other actions of the Bush era – such as America's state-sponsored terrorism in the volatile Islamic countries; persecution of Muslims through torture, detentions and arrests; CIA and FBI-operated facilities; and radicalization of the western Christians against the Muslims – provided a golden chance for India and Israel to accelerate the systematic genocide of the Palestinians and Kashmiris, and protected the real architects of the 9/11 tragedy.

While President Barack Obama stated during his first election-campaign that he would rectify the blunders committed by his predecessor in the name of war on terror, he continued them in their worst form to secure the illegitimate interests of Israel.

The Obama Administration continued with various techniques of ruthless terror and extrajudicial killings of innocent persons through illegitimate drone attacks, as in Iraq; and created more collapsed states such as Libya, Yemen and Syria, thus opening the door for Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

If the double game of President Bush franchised Al-Qaeda at the global level, President Obama's dual policy franchised both Al-Qaeda and ISIS as part of the anti-Muslim campaign, and left no stone unturned in advancing the agenda of the Zionists, Israeli lobbies and the neoconservatives in the pretext of a phony global war on terror.

Secretly, President Obama authorized the CIA to create ISIS. His perennial, covert support of the Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. He was silent about the smuggling of oil by ISIS to some European countries whose governments have also not taken action against those companies which were exporting oil from ISIS-controlled regions of Iraq. He was silent about the CIA-assisted Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra Front), ISIS militants and rebel groups who were fighting to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government to achieve the aims of a Greater Israel. All of this comprised Obama's double game.

Training and supply of arms by CIA and Israeli Mossad to these terrorist outfits and medical treatment of their militants in Israeli hospitals, including arrests of some CIA and Mossad agents in Syria and Iraq have also verified the Western connections. Yet, as part of the dual strategy, America and its Western partners have also been waging a war against ISIS.

But at the same time, CIA and Mossad openly support this terrorist group and its linked terror outfits, in accordance with the covert aims of Tel Aviv, not of America.

In this respect, the Russian TV channel, Russia Today (RT) reported on September 24, 2017 "The Russian Ministry of Defense has released aerial images which they say show US Army special forces' equipment north of the town of Deir er-Zor, where ISIS militants are deployed. US Army special units provide free passage for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) through the battle formations of Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) terrorists Despite that the US strongholds being organized at them

"This could mean that the US military staff feel absolutely safe in the area which is held by the terrorists All of the images were taken from September 8 to 12. The photos show several Cougar infantry mobility vehicles and Hummer armored vehicles of the US Army Special Forces, according the Russian MoD data In this case, securing IS assistance for an unopposed advance of US backed SDF forces could enable the SDF, widely seen as a US proxy, to seize strategically important (and oil rich) territory in Deir ez-Zor that otherwise would soon be retaken by rapidly advancing Syrian Army. If so this once again will raise questions as to what the true purpose of US forces-purportedly in Syria to fight IS-actually is. Earlier in September, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov accused the SDF of collusion with ISIS terrorists.SDF militants work to the same objectives as IS terrorists."

According to Global Research Canada (Centre for Research on Globalization), "In other words, ISIS, al-Nusra, and so-called SDF forces are virtually the same thing – US-recruited, -armed, -funded and -directed cutthroat killers, waging naked aggression against Syria and its people

"The Pentagon's so-called Operation Inherent Resolve so far is silent on Russia's damning evidence Separately, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem accused Washington of working with its terrorist assets in Syria, including al-Nusra, to undermine Astana peace talks Russia's Defense Ministry saying its intelligence revealed US forces together with al-Nusra terrorists tried halting the successful advance of government forces east of Deir Ezzor Russian airpower smashed their offensive. Sergey Lavrov condemned the US-led coalition for refusing to combat al-Nusra, calling it absolutely unacceptable According to Russia's Defense Ministry, nearly 90% of Syrian territory held by ISIS is now liberated. Moscow will respond appropriately to any US efforts to impede the campaign to free Syria entirely from control by terrorists."

Intel Agencies' and False Flag Events

In the case of Asia and particularly South Asia, well-entrenched in Afghanistan and some Gulf states, intelligence agencies such as CIA, Indian RAW, Mossad and MI6 are assisting various terror outfits, including Al-Qaeda and particularly ISIL, in order to achieve the covert goals of the US-led countries against Pakistan, Syria, Iraq China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Somalia, Yemen etc. and even Afghanistan, which are being destabilized by various forms of terrorism-related assaults, and which have continued in one way or the other.

In this context, a news item was published by all the leading dailies of Pakistan on October 8, 2017 regarding the statement of Afghanistan's Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai who, while dismissing criticism of Russian ties with the Taliban and echoing Russian claims of American support to the ISIS terrorists, told Voice of America (VOC) that

"the United States has links with terrorist 'Islamic State', also known as Daesh Daesh a tool of US After it [the US] dropped the [mother of all] bomb on Afghanistan, it did not eliminate Daesh the terrorist group has been supplied weapons by the United States forces The US Army helicopters and army bases are being used to provide assistance to ISIS terrorists I do not differentiate at all between Daesh and America Reports of American assistance to the terrorists are coming from all over the country." (It also includes Karzai's revelations to VOC of April 20, 2017 and Newsweek's report of the same day).

In an exclusive interview with Al Jazeera's UpFrontaired on November 10, 2017, Karzai again disclosed that the US government had allowed ISIL to flourish inside Afghanistan. He said, "In my view under the full presence, surveillance, military, political, intelligence, Daesh [ISIL] has emerged And for two years the Afghan people came, cried loud about their suffering, of violations. Nothing was done the US administration of President Donald Trump used ISIL as an excuse to drop a massive bomb on Afghanistan in April 2017 And the next day, Daesh takes the next district in Afghanistan That proves to us that there is a hand in it and that hand can be no one else but them [the US] in Afghanistan."

In September 2015, the Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah started breaking the back of the ISIS terrorists, Al-Qaeda's Al-Nusra Front and the rebels in Syria and Iraq. In response, Israel's Mossad, which already had clandestine contact with ISIS, directed this outfit to plan the November 13 terror attacks in Paris in connivance with the French home-grown militants.

Similarly, when Russian-led forces began retaking many cities from the control of these insurgents, on the other side, agents of Mossad who were in collaboration with the CIA sympathizers and the ISIL militants arranged various sorts of terror attacks in Europe and the US.

Through all these false-flag terror operations, the US and Israel wanted to obtain their covert aims against Russia and the Muslims.

Mossad had also provided US President Donald Trump with an opportunity to manipulate various terror assaults of Europe and America to win the US presidential election and to reunite America and Europe, as a rift had been created between America and its Western allies, especially Europe on a number of issues, including NATO. And, President Trump left no stone unturned in implementing anti-Muslim policies, while speaking openly against the Muslims and Syrian immigrants.

Trump had started exaggerating the threat of Islamophobia, while some incidents were not linked to ISIS, but were the result of self-radicalization by individual actors.

Regarding the shooting at the gay night club in Orlando (Florida) which killed at least 49 individuals on June 12, 2016, The Washington Post in an article, under the caption, "Trump's reckless, dangerous Islamophobia helps the Islamic State", wrote on June 13, 2016,

"Trump's standards, his comments about the Orlando shooting have been reckless and self-serving. They are also dangerous for the country the strongest remaining force that propels the Islamic State is the Islamophobia of Trump and his European counterparts, argue senior intelligence strategists for the U.S.-led coalition. Inflammatory, xenophobic statements about Muslims reinforce the jihadists' claims that they are Muslim knights fighting against an intolerant West. Trump unwittingly gives them precisely the role they dream about."

In this regard, Khaled A. Beydoun opined on the Aljazeera multimedia network on March 13, 2016,

"The world brand Trump is becoming synonymous with expansion of racism and incitement of Islamophobia I think Islam hate us, said Donald Trump, 24 hours before the Republican presidential debate in Miami is a call to his voting base, to further galvanise them around a disdain for Islam that not only heightens hateful fervour at his rallies, but incites violence on American blocks and pushes bigots to the ballot box the statement is rooted in the very ignorance and hate which made him the darling of bigots and surged him up the polls Islamophobia the suspicion and fear of Islam and its 1.7 billion adherent-is political ideology for Trump."

Nevertheless, the incident of shooting at the gay club in Orlando not only exposed that false flag operation, but also endorsed other false flag terror-attacks in the US and Europe. In this connection, in an interview with Brazilian TV on June 14, 2016, the ex-wife of the Orlando shooter Omar Mateen Sitora Yusufiy revealed that American FBI pressured her to keep quiet about his homosexuality.

While Mateen had been dubbed as an Islamic terrorist by the American politicians, senior officials and commentators following reports that he had pledged allegiance to the ISIS, the FBI wanted to downplay the personal and self-hating nature of the assault.

President Obama stated on June 12, 2016, "Federal authorities had made no definitive judgment on the killer's motivation, and whether he was inspired by or directed by Islamic State or other terrorist groups."

Obama clarified by explaining "Orlando shooting was the result of Mateen's personal resentment in relation to the gay club."

Similarly, the teenager Ali David Sonboly who killed 9 people in Munich had no connection with the ISIS. Police investigation revealed that he was "a mentally troubled person" and police also discovered extremist material, linked to the attack by Andres Behring Brevik, the white supremacist who murdered 77 persons in Norway in 2011.

Likewise, the shooting in the French city of Nice was also a false flag terror-act, as CIA-Mossad arranged it with the help of ISIS, which used homegrown terrorists of France.

At least eight people were killed on October 31, 2017 when the driver of a pickup truck hit people on a cycle path in Lower Manhattan, New York City near the World Trade Centre. The vehicle then hit a school bus, injuring two adults and two children on board.

According to the US media reports,

"American investigators found ISIS-related images and videos on Saipov's cellphone handwritten notes in Arabic near the truck that indicated allegiance to the Islamic State But investigators had not uncovered evidence of any direct or enabling ties between Mr. Saipov and ISIS and were treating the episode as a case of an "inspired" attacker Police records show he was arrested in Missouri last year over a traffic fine. Almost immediately, as investigators began to look into Mr. Saipov's history, it became clear that he had been on the radar of federal authorities. Three officials said he had come to the federal authorities' attention as a result of an unrelated investigation."

However various conflicting reports show that, as with previous terror attacks in the US and Europe, the New York terror attack was likely a false flag operation conducted by Mossad in connivance with some CIA operatives and the ISIS terrorists. It might also be an individual act of Saipov, who had been inspired by the extremist agenda of ISIS.

Even then, responsibility goes to the agents of these intelligence agencies, who have already been radicalizing the Muslims and Christians by dividing them on religious lines, in order to fulfill the Zionist agenda of Israel. Contradictory and anti-Muslim statements of the pro-Israeli, Donald Trump, about the terror assaults have further verified collaboration of agencies.

Tweeting his immediate reaction, President Trump said,

"In NYC, looks like another attack by a very sick and deranged person. Law enforcement is following this closely. We must not allow ISIS to return, or enter, our country after defeating them in the Middle East and elsewhere. Enough! The United States will be immediately implementing much tougher Extreme Vetting Procedures. The safety of our citizens comes first!" He did not elaborate further.

Regarding the New York terror attack of November 2, 2017, President Trump again tweeted about immigration, calling for an end to "chain migration lets people bring their whole family with them, who can be truly evil."

President Trump first introduced the screening process during the election campaign on a pledge to indefinitely ban the Muslims from entering the United States -- his campaign aides later tried to finesse as a broader policy aimed at implementing "extreme vetting" for immigrants from certain countries. As president, he introduced a ban on arrivals to the US from a number of mainly-Muslim countries.

While America's Western partners, especially European countries had strongly condemned Trump's travel ban on the Muslim countries as discriminatory and violations of human rights, in a statement, the American Civil Liberties Union – a civil rights group – said that the term "extreme vetting" was a "euphemism for discriminating against Muslims."

It is noteworthy that 59 people were killed and more than 500 others injured on October 1, last year, when a gunman-an American national, Stephen Paddock opened fire on concertgoers from the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada. Next day , through its Amaq propaganda agency, ISIL, claimed responsibility for the incident, disclosing that, "the Las Vegas attacker is a soldier of the Islamic State in response to calls to target coalition countries -- converted to Islam several months ago" -- but provided no evidence to support the assertion." Senior US homeland security officials said that there was no evidence Paddock had links to international or domestic terror groups or ISIS.

On social media, many individuals had pointed out that if Paddock had been a Muslim, if he had shouted "Allahu akbar" before he opened fire on all those concertgoers in Las Vegas, the term "terrorist" would have been used almost immediately to describe him, as a link to Islamist terrorism would be assumed even without evidence.

To what extent President Trump wants to obtain Israeli illegitimate goals at the cost of Muslims and the patriot Americans could be judged from the terrorism-related assaults which occurred in the Spanish city of Barcelona on August 17, 2017 and in her town of Cambrils on August 18, 2017. After condemning the terror attacks and offering US assistance to Spain, the US President Trump suggested "fighting terrorism by executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pigs blood."

India's Anti-Muslim and Anti-Pakistan Agenda

It also deserves particular attention that since the fundamentalist party BJP led by the Indian Prime Minister Narindra Modi came to power in India, it has been implementing anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan agenda. Encouraged by the BJP, assaults on Muslims, Christians and other minorities by the Hindu extremist parties might be cited as instance. India which has strategic partnership with Israel has perennially been manipulating the double game of the US-led West regarding world phenomena of terrorism in connection with Pakistan and Afghanistan.

In wake of Modi's aggressive diplomacy, India has continued shelling in Pakistani side of Kashmir which remains a nuclear flashpoint between both the neighbouring countries.

Emboldened by the President Trump, both Tel Aviv and New Delhi have been equating the 'wars of liberation' in Palestine and Kashmir with terrorism. Their main purpose is to divert the attention of the West from their own state terrorism, while employing delaying tactics in the solution of these issues.

Israel Criticizes the UN and Obama

It is worth-mentioning that Obama's anti-Muslim policies were clearly exposed. Therefore, before the end of his tenure, President Obama wanted to rectify his blunders. In this context, on December 23, 2016, the US abstained and allowed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction in the occupied territories of the Palestinians to be adopted, defying extraordinary pressure from Israeli PM Netanyahu's government, which was in alliance with the US President-elect Donald Trump.

In a statement, Netanyahu's office accused the Obama administration of "colluding" with the UN and said it looked forward to working with Trump, as well as Israel-friendly members of Congress, "to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution."

Netanyahu called the resolution "shameful" and said Israel would not abide by its terms and continue the construction of the settlements.

In this connection, in a series of tweets, posted on December 28, 2016, Donald Trump harshly criticized the Obama's policies on the settlement issue and reiterated his support for Israel. He questioned the effectiveness of the UNO, saying, "it's just a club for people to have a good time."

US' Jerusalem Embassy and Palestinian Massacre

Despite criticism, Trump Administration announced the opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, this year.

The same day witnessed a ceremony attended by Netanyahu and the administration of President Trump who buried the peace process and the two-state solution, killing any hope in the minds of the people of the Middle East as a whole with the possibility of peace in the region.

On the same day, Israeli security forces shot and killed at least 58 Palestinians and wounded more than 2700 during mass protests along the Gaza border.

Donald Trump tweeted, "A great day for Israel", as he delivered on his promise to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Trump who had already vowed to move the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and had nominated an ambassador in David Friedman who was supportive of settlers by pledging that the Palestinians would no longer have a platform at the UN when he becomes president on January 20, had said, last year, "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S the beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.) Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching."

Besides, Trump's strong backing of the NATO-like alliance by the Saudi Arabia -- the Sunni-countries against Iran and accusing Tehran of promoting terrorism and motivating religious extremism among the Muslims and Christians, Jews and Hindus show his clear links with Tel Aviv.

Nonetheless, President Trump's Israeli connections were undoubtedly proved on May 14, this year, when he implemented his decision of December 6, 2018 by officially recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and reversed nearly seven decades of American foreign policy and set in motion a plan to move the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to the fiercely contested Holy City.

In this regard, Trump had stated, last year, "Today we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel's capital This is nothing more or less than recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It's something that has to be done."

America's Western allies who had disavowed Trump's move, which reversed decades of US neutrality on the status of Jerusalem have again denounced Trump's move.

Over the US Embassy move, perennial killings of the Palestinians, strong reaction was seen in the Islamic World in particular and the Western World in general.

The European Union's foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, called on Israel to respect the principle of proportionality in the use of force and show restraint, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres issued a similar appeal.

President of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Mahmoud Abbas, furious over the embassy ceremony, stated that he would not accept any peace deal proposed by the Trump administration. He also urged the international community to condemn the massacres carried out by Israeli troops in Gaza, and officials of the PLO said that the Palestinians would file a war crimes complaint against Israel in the International Criminal Court over settlement construction.

Egypt, a key Israeli ally, condemned the killings of Palestinian protesters, while the UN human rights chief, Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, decried the shocking killing of dozens.

Turkey recalled its ambassador to the United States, saying it "disregarded the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people" and would "not serve peace, security and stability in the region." It also recalled its ambassador to Israel after a massacre of Palestinians on the Gaza border. South Africa, a fervent supporter of the Palestinians, also recalled its ambassador for consultations.

Muslim leaders called on May 18, 2018 for an international force to be deployed to protect Palestinians after hundreds of protesters were shot dead by Israeli forces on the Gaza border.

At a special summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) held in Istanbul on May 18, this year, following the call of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to address the Israeli-Palestinian crisis in Gaz. The OIC has condemned the US decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem as part of the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Israeli state, and decried the deaths of more than 60 Palestinians. Earlier, Erdoğan stated that Israel will never be permitted to "steal" Jerusalem.

The OIC leaders also pledged to take appropriate political and economic measures against countries that followed the United States in moving their Israel embassies to contested Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. It said that the violence should be put on the agenda of the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly, and called on the United Nations to investigate the killings.

The summit was also attended by Jordan's King Abdullah, a US close ally whose Hashemite dynasty is custodian of Muslim sites in Jerusalem. Abdullah stated: "The U.S. decision five months ago to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital had weakened the pillars of peace and deepened the despair that leads to violence."

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani called on Muslim countries "to totally cut their relations with the Zionist regime [Israel] and also to revise their trade and economic ties with America".

Trump's Israeli connections could also be judged from the unrealistic statement of Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UNO, who told an emergency meeting of the Security Council that Israel had acted with restraint. She dismissed suggestions that the violence was related to the opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem.

In condemnation of Trump's unilateral step to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, besides protests and rallies which were held in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, thousands of pro-Palestinian protesters held demonstrations in other Islamic countries such as Iran, Turkey, Pakistan etc. where the protesters burnt American and Israeli flags. Even in Jordan, protesters near the heavily-defended US Embassy in Amman chanted: "America is the head of the snake. No U.S. Embassy on Jordanian soil."

Hamas leader Ismail Haniya have stated the US decision on recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and transfer of the American Embassy to Jerusalem are a war declaration against Palestinians.

At present, savage crimes committed by the US-backed Israeli forces against the Palestinians continue unabated.

Undoubtedly, angry elements within the Islamic countries, especially the pro-Arab states may react against America and its interests in the form of terrorism and other violent actions. Unquestionably, the US president's move on Jerusalem will create new risks for all of Washington's allies in the Middle East, as the decision will offer extremist groups a valuable opportunity to capitalise on anti-US sentiment and direct such anger towards regimes which are close to the US and non-confrontational towards Israel.

Notably, Akayed Ullah, a 27-year-old Bangladeshi immigrant with a pipe bomb strapped to his body set off an explosion at one of New York's busiest commuter hubs on December 11, 2017, leaving five people injured. According to the US media, the suspect told investigators that he detonated a crude bomb after he spotted a holiday display and did it in the name of ISIS to avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world, law enforcement officials said. The concerned American officials stated that there is no evidence that Ullah, an electrician, had any direct contact with the ISIS. But, he said "his anger over U.S. bombings in ISIS-controlled territory and recent Israeli actions in Gaza , fueled his desire to carry out a suicide bombing."

Now, we can witness that terrorism-related attacks in the Middle East, South Asia, Africa, Europe, America and elsewhere in the world have, rapidly, been increasing.

Mossad is playing a key role in terror assaults, as Israel will prefer a nuclear war between Russia and the US-led West to avoid the two-state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Atomic war could also erupt between Pakistan and India, as New Delhi also avoids solution of the Kashmir issue. While fanatic leaders are in power in the US, India and Israel, their connivance may culminate into 'clash of civilizations', particularly between the Muslim and the Christians worlds.

We can conclude that terrorism has entered the dangerous phase and Trump's Israeli connections have undoubtedly been proved.

It is the right hour that loyalist Americans, non-Zionist Jews and peace-loving citizens of every other religious community should play their positive role for global peace by stopping the division of the international community on religious and cultural lines.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjadshaukat7@gmail.com

[May 20, 2018] Is Wikipedia An Establishment Psyop Zero Hedge

May 20, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Until recently I haven't been closely following the controversy between Wikipedia and popular anti-imperialist activists like John Pilger, George Galloway, Craig Murray, Neil Clark, Media Lens, Tim Hayward and Piers Robinson. Wikipedia has always been biased in favor of mainstream CNN/CIA narratives, but until recently I hadn't seen much evidence that this was due to anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is a crowdsourced project and most people believe establishment-friendly narratives. That all changed when I read this article by Craig Murra y, which is primarily what I'm interested in directing people's attention to here.

The article, and this one which prompted it by Five Filters , are definitely worth reading in their entirety, because their contents are jaw-dropping. In short there is an account which has been making edits to Wikipedia entries for many nears called Philip Cross. In the last five years this account's operator has not taken a single day off–no weekends, holidays, nothing–and according to their time log they work extremely long hours adhering to a very strict, clockwork schedule of edits throughout the day as an ostensibly unpaid volunteer.

This is bizarre enough, but the fact that this account is undeniably focusing with malicious intent on anti-imperialist activists who question establishment narratives and the fact that its behavior is being aggressively defended by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales means that there's some serious fuckery afoot.

"Philip Cross", whoever or whatever that is, is absolutely head-over-heels for depraved Blairite war whore Oliver Kamm, whom Cross mentioned as a voice of authority no fewer than twelve times in an entry about the media analysis duo known collectively as Media Lens. Cross harbors a special hatred for British politician and broadcaster George Galloway, who opposed the Iraq invasion as aggressively as Oliver Kamm cheered for it, and on whose Wikipedia entry Cross has made an astonishing 1,800 edits.

me title=

Despite the overwhelming evidence of constant malicious editing, as well as outright admissions of bias by the Twitter account linked to Philip Cross, Jimmy Wales has been extremely and conspicuously defensive of the account's legitimacy while ignoring evidence provided to him.

"Or, just maybe, you're wrong," Wales said to a Twitter user inquiring about the controversy the other day. "Show me the diffs or any evidence of any kind. The whole claim appears so far to be completely ludicrous."

"Riiiiight," said the totally not-triggered Wales in another response. "You are really very very far from the facts of reality here. You might start with even one tiny shred of some kind of evidence, rather than just making up allegations out of thin air. But you won't because trolling."

"You clearly have very very little idea how it works," Wales tweeted in another response. "If your worldview is shaped by idiotic conspiracy sites, you will have a hard time grasping reality."

As outlined in the articles by Murray and Five Filters , the evidence is there in abundance. Five Filters lays out "diffs" (editing changes) in black and white showing clear bias by the Philip Cross account, a very slanted perspective is clearly and undeniably documented, and yet Wales denies and aggressively ridicules any suggestion that something shady could be afoot. This likely means that Wales is in on whatever game the Philip Cross account is playing. Which means the entire site is likely involved in some sort of psyop by a party which stands to benefit from keeping the dominant narrative slanted in a pro-establishment direction.

A 2016 Pew Research Center report found that Wikipedia was getting some 18 billion page views per month . Billion with a 'b'. Youtube recently announced that it's going to be showing text from Wikipedia articles on videos about conspiracy theories to help "curb fake news". Plainly the site is extremely important in the battle for control of the narrative about what's going on in the world. Plainly its leadership fights on one side of that battle, which happens to be the side that favors western oligarchs and intelligence agencies.

How many other "Philip Cross"-like accounts are there on Wikipedia? Has the site always functioned an establishment psyop designed to manipulate public perception of existing power structures, or did that start later? I don't know. Right now all I know is that an agenda very beneficial to the intelligence agencies, war profiteers and plutocrats of the western empire is clearly and undeniably being advanced on the site, and its founder is telling us it's nothing. He is lying. Watch him closely.

* * *

Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is to get on the mailing list for my website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Vote up! 13 Vote down! 0


Cardinal Fang Sun, 05/20/2018 - 21:47 Permalink

Of course it's a psyop

No1uNo -> Cardinal Fang Sun, 05/20/2018 - 21:51 Permalink

reading the "talk" tab page background on ANY wiki page is ALWAYS recommended - it shows the content war by different editors. - Anything on Israel / Palestine for example.

Bitchface-KILLAH -> No1uNo Sun, 05/20/2018 - 21:53 Permalink

Yes.

Post or edit anything on that shit site that goes against the ziomaster's narrative and you will be blocked. Wikipedia just rehashes all the bullshit from the corporate media on Television.

Metabunk and Rationalwiki are the exact same thing too.

cheka -> Bitchface-KILLAH Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:05 Permalink

(((yes)))

look up the wiki definition of hate group

hint - white, conservative.... nothing else even gets a passing mention

Leakanthrophy -> cheka Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:15 Permalink

Does the pope shit in the woods after playing with little boys?

95% of things placed in top 3 of Google search are PSYOP. The remaining 5% are those pesky old school blackhat SEO guys that know how to game the search engine.

Wikipedia is as fake as WWE is. But at least WWE has some juicy stuff:

WWE Diva Zelina Vega Nude Photos Leaked

https://celebrity-leaks.net/wwe-diva-zelina-vega-nude-photos-leaked/

Cognitive Dissonance -> Leakanthrophy Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:23 Permalink

The method is as old as the hills.

To maintain Empire, truth must be co-opt, controlled or crushed.

ClickNLook -> Cognitive Dissonance Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:31 Permalink

Was it really smart to put history on internet and make it editable?

robertsgt40 -> ClickNLook Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:35 Permalink

Is that a trick question? I'll check with Snopes.

DownWithYogaPants -> robertsgt40 Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:39 Permalink

The Zionist side is ALWAYS the side that is presented.

Eustace Mullins was a truly kind individual. His only crime was to not swallow the hogwash Koolaid of the ZioNAZI. For that he was followed by the FBI for 30 years.

But of course all the standard tropes are trotted out on Wikipedia. I suspect that Wiki / Wales gets a lot of funding from YOU KNOW WHO. Same people who has the Germans put people in jail for thought crimes.

You are only safe when you are looking at a page regarding theoretical mathematics. But not mathematics about global warming.

Automatic Choke -> DownWithYogaPants Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:43 Permalink

among scientists, wiki is well known for utility and accuracy of boring stuff like the thermal conductivity of copper. any controversy involved, and it is worthless.

The First Rule -> Leakanthrophy Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:34 Permalink

Wikipedia is completely unreliable. Especially when it comes to politics.

You can find LIES GALORE. You can edit the Lies out, document them and backup with sourced justification; but within an hour they will have reset the Lie.

They simply don't care about the Truth.

VWAndy Sun, 05/20/2018 - 21:51 Permalink

Full spectrum dominance folks. Its not like they are short on cash.

911bodysnatchers322 Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:03 Permalink

People are finally catching up

Aaaand finally: James Corbett of Corbettreport.com, a prolific documentary filmmaker--whose docs are always top rated on topdocumentaryfilms.com, doesn't have a wikipedia page, despite MANY people trying to create one for him. Why is that, you ask? Because they are extremely subversive to the CIA and the established globalist order, and therefore that fact of suppression of Corbett suggests coordination between Wikipedia and the globalist thalassocracy of the empire of the city

Urban Roman Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:09 Permalink

More to the point:

How close is ZH to being a limited hangout?

How much 'filtering' is being done, and through what channels do filtering requests arrive? (if any)

Lots of news outlets have changed over the last few years. Formerly respected papers have been reduced to tabloids. The Washington Post is now the Bezos Blog, for example. Twitter is popping up 'warnings' about 'fake news'. All the radio and TV channels run identical bullshit war stories within minutes of each other. And Wikipedia has been going downhill for years.

So, is ZH immune to the effluvia from the ministry of truth?

David Rockefeller Sun, 05/20/2018 - 22:24 Permalink

Nice article, but there is a much better way of proving that Wikipedia=CIA. It's true, everybody can edit Wikipedia, but not everyone gets to keep their edits. Here is an experiment that everyone can carry out :

If you edit well or create a new informative page on something of no interest to the FBI or CIA, say astronomy or physics, no problem, your contribution stays. But try to provide evidence--and there is plenty--that the government was involved in the assassinations of MLK, JFK, RFK or the demolitions of 9/11, and you'll be "reverted" (their term) within FIVE minutes. Try to quote Russia's version of the Crimeans' overwhelming vote to join Russia, and you'll be "reverted" lickety split. Provide evidence that Winston Churchill--lionized by our rulers--was an imperialist, a racist, a champion of inequality, and the contribution will disappear while you pause your honest labors for a cup of tea! Our rulers are masters of propaganda, and Wikipedia is just one of their brilliantly vicious outlets--created, controlled, and edited to brainwash us!

[May 20, 2018] Real political power in this world is the ability to control the dominant narrative about what's going on

May 20, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The reason we are not given a straight answer as to why we're meant to want our institutions fighting an information war on our behalf (instead of allowing us to sort out fact from fiction on our own like adults) is because the answer is ugly.

As we discussed last time , the only real power in this world is the ability to control the dominant narrative about what's going on. The only reason government works the way it works, money operates the way it operates, and authority rests where it rests is because everyone has agreed to pretend that that's how things are. In actuality, government, money and authority are all man-made conceptual constructs and the collective can choose to change them whenever it wants. The only reason this hasn't happened in our deeply dysfunctional society yet is because the plutocrats who rule us have been successful in controlling the narrative.

Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. This has always been the case. In many societies throughout history a guy who made alliances with the biggest, baddest group of armed thugs could take control of the narrative by killing people until the dominant narrative was switched to "That guy is our leader now; whatever he says goes." In modern western society, the real leaders are less obvious, and the narrative is controlled by propaganda.

Propaganda is what keeps Americans accepting things like the fake two-party system, growing wealth inequality, medicine money being spent on bombs to be dropped on strangers in stupid immoral wars, and a government which simultaneously creates steadily increasing secrecy privileges for itself and steadily decreasing privacy rights for its citizenry. It's also what keeps people accepting that a dollar is worth what it's worth, that personal property works the way it works, that the people on Capitol Hill write the rules, and that you need to behave a certain way around a police officer or he can legally kill you.

And therein lies the answer to the question. You are not being protected from "disinformation" by a compassionate government who is deeply troubled to see you believing erroneous beliefs, you are being herded back toward the official narrative by a power establishment which understands that losing control of the narrative means losing power. It has nothing to do with Russia, and it has nothing to do with truth. It's about power, and the unexpected trouble that existing power structures are having dealing with the public's newfound ability to network and share information about what is going on in the world.

[May 20, 2018] Greenwald as Vichy left. The real left to be those that prioritize the welfare of the working class over others, and that the public purse is the determinant of the General Welfare, not markets.

May 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: fast freddy | May 20, 2018 2:59:30 PM | 14

While Greenwald promulgates something of value (like this) occasionally, he is at best a limited hangout. The Snowden crap (in the long run) has effectively made people comfortable with full spectrum domestic surveillance and data mining & storage generally.

The American Left is a joke. Doesn't exist. Points made above. The D Party stopped supporting working people when they stabbed the Unions in the back. A more recent betrayal is indicated in its support of Charter Schools. The Party is also a Warmonger Party.

However, for a common man to align himself or identify himself with the Republican Party is a different kind of joke.


Babyl-on , May 20, 2018 3:52:01 PM | 20

The Greenwald story near the beginning, as usual, is 90% gossip and smarmy carping about the journalism of others, (one can justly criticize without the theatrics) unlike the perfection at his Neoliberal rag, he could have made that report in three paragraphs.

Herbert Marcuse has written extensively about how the dominate institutionalized power reaches out and incorporates seemingly dissident voices which sound hip but are actually delivering the imperial message, the Intercept, Vox and Vice all fit that bill.

Piotr Berman , May 20, 2018 5:18:21 PM | 25
liberals, who are the advance guard of capitalism, can hardly be called 'of the left'.
Posted by: bevin | May 20, 2018 3:04:03 PM | 16

On one hand, I guess liberals are not "the advance guard". Most of the time that stand "true to liberal principles", meaning, not standing for anything too much. That said, the "triangulated" positions of American liberals make some difference in lives of average people, for example, Affordable Care Act does provide affordable health insurance to millions that had no access to it. "Principled conservatives" are outright scary by comparison. From their point of view, Canada is an Arctic Stalinist Gulag, inflicting "socialized medicine" on brainwashed subjects. In any case, liberal ambition is not to be in the van, nor in the lead but in "the middle ground". On foreign policy, it translates into "believe or not, it could be even worse".

Obama was less obnoxious than Bush the Lesser (a wee bit), Trump ... is too confusing to rank at this stage.

ben , May 20, 2018 5:38:45 PM | 27
bevin @ 16 said:"Anyone who sees the fascists and crooks surrounding Trump as being opponents of anything except the human race is almost as daft as someone who sees the Democrats as part of the left.
But the real prize for idiocy goes to those sad souls who see the FBI, CIA, MI6 and their clones as anything but- deepest apologies here to the Mafia and their ilk- criminal gangs, of the worst kind."

Well stated, and true. Big organised corporate money rules most of the known world now, and also the criminal gangs, plus the US military, enforce their hegemony.

At least here in the U$A, the "left" is nonexistent..

paulmeli , May 20, 2018 5:42:25 PM | 28
The Affordable Care Act also forced many who couldn't afford insurance to either purchase crappy insurance that was little better than nothing or pay a penalty on their income taxes.

The ACA was funded largely by the cohort that could least afford it.

There was virtually no increased public expenditure for health care.

In other words it was an exercise in cost-shifting, which in this case hurt one group (a big group) and kinda sorta maybe helped another group.

Insurance companies were rewarded with more marks to con.

Change we can believe in.

paulmeli , May 20, 2018 5:53:18 PM | 29
Personally I consider the left to be those that prioritize the welfare of the working class over others, and that the public purse is the determinant of the General Welfare, not markets.

The left lost any power it once had when it conceded finance to others because they felt is was beneath them and not worth their time or effort. The left failed to understand that money drives everything in a Capitalist system.

Another unforced error.

[May 20, 2018] Here Comes Tesla's Next Big "Ask" from Taxpayers

May 20, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Economic analysis often uses the term ceteris paribus -- all other things being equal -- but all other things are not equal. The worker Tesla employed might have found employment elsewhere; it may have even been more stable, safer employment that did not entail payment in Tesla equity, that is subject to some uncertainty as to its ultimate value.

To highlight this point, it may be helpful to consider the economic activity generated by Tesla's competitors in California. These competitors' operations are being impaired by Tesla's sale of deeply subsidized cars in the state. While Tesla's competitors do not manufacture cars in the state, they account for

On a more minor point, the IHS Markit report assumes that the $2.1 billion in "wages" paid to Tesla workers is spent in the California economy. As discussed above, the report includes in these "wages" Tesla equity granted to employees without quantifying what percentage of wages this equity represented. We are skeptical as to how many employees spent their Tesla stock to boost local economic activity.

snblitz Sat, 05/19/2018 - 22:20 Permalink

But Elon's Teslas consume twice the fossil fuel per mile driven and produce more pollution than light duty diesels.

https://www.finitespaces.com/2018/02/14/electric-cars-use-twice-as-much-oil-as-diesel-vehicles/

Why would anyone give Tesla a break? Sure the fossil fuel industry is happy to double their income, but why would anyone else?

[May 19, 2018] FBI Spy-Op Exposed, Trump Campaign Infiltrated By Longtime CIA And MI6 Assete

May 19, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

... ... ...

Thanks to Friday's carefully crafted deep-state disclosures by WaPo and the Times , along with actual reporting by the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross, we now know it wasn't a mole at all - but 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election .


Billy the Poet -> Keffus Sat, 05/19/2018 - 13:50 Permalink

the "American academic who teaches in Britain" described by The Times,

Seems like Carter Page knew what he was talking about in this May 11 tweet.

Carter Page, Ph.D. @carterwpage

No @JackPosobiec, not me. But if what I'm hearing alleged is correct, it's a guy I know who splits most his time between inside the Beltway and in one of the other Five Eyes countries.

And if so, it'd be typical: swamp creatures putting themselves first.
4:17 AM - May 11, 2018

Mycroft Holmes IV -> unrulian Sat, 05/19/2018 - 10:17 Permalink

I think Rudy's flipped seeking redemption for his role in 911.

The deep state is not going down quietly or without a fight and they are in full attack mode. Multiple questionable instances yesterday to change news cycle, plus a week worths of leaks by major media mouthpieces justifying their crimes.

What's great is they are so caught up in their nest of lies, each new lie just contradicts previous ones and exposes more of the truth.

Now the question is: How do you bring these people to justice without starting a violent backlash / Civil War?

The cognitive dissonance is very strong on the left and they've fallen victim to hive mentality, simply regurgitating talking points they hear through pop culture and media. We are so afraid of not fitting in (as a society) that we will willingly accept completely contradicting "facts", defend them, and deride those who disagree. Further, there is no room for disagreement, for they are the party of tolerance, and if you disagree with them, you are intolerant, which cannot be tolerated in an open and free society (see how that works?).

The real hope is people are able to break the spell and think for themselves again. But I worry it's too late. A generation of children assaulted with excessive vaccination are now adults and it shows...

Dickweed Wang -> brianshell Sat, 05/19/2018 - 15:34 Permalink

People in the USA better get a grip real fast and realize that it's not Russia, China or Iran that is the real enemy of Americans, it's the British . . . the money gnomes in London and the "Queens men". They've caused more problems for the USA in the last 100+ years than the other three combined many times over.

mccvilb -> Americano Sat, 05/19/2018 - 18:41 Permalink

Let's see. Money was exchanged, foreign govt agents and contractors hired. The FBI knew about Hillary's criminal enterprises and illegal dissemination of classified documents and apparently has been complicit in helping or protecting her. The NYT and WaPo along with the network media regurgitated much of the anti-Trump rhetoric together in sync with the tsunami of fake news, either in creating it or knowingly participating in it. No wonder the news media in a sudden shift have been trying to paint themselves as now being on the other side of this Russkie Fubar after they promoted it 24/7 for two years without let-up. What's the penalty for trying to overthrow the President of the United States? Lots of folks here are sitting on potential indictments for treason. Enough talk. With all they got from the Congressional hearings, and now this, it's time!!!... for Trump to start draining.

T-NUTZ -> DingleBarryObummer Sat, 05/19/2018 - 10:12 Permalink

Why do dual citizens get to "serve" in our high positions of government??

44magnum -> T-NUTZ Sat, 05/19/2018 - 11:32 Permalink

Because that is what (((they))) want. Do a little research on how that came about in the US you will find that the same ole (((culprits))) got the law changed to their benefit of course.

[May 19, 2018] Trump Doesn't Have North Korea 'Cornered' by Daniel Larison

May 19, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

The larger problem with Thiessen's "analysis" is that it fails to grasp that North Korea's government won't accept the "offer" Trump is making because accepting it means giving up the one thing that does more to guarantee the regime's security than any promise that the U.S. could ever make. Trump talked about giving Kim "very strong protections" if he agreed to get rid of the nuclear weapons, but there are no protections that the U.S. could offer that would be any stronger than the ones he currently possesses. Kim is coming to the summit as the leader of a nuclear-weapons state conducting talks at the highest level with the global superpower, and he isn't going to agree to give up that status in exchange for obviously worthless promises from Donald Trump. The more that the Trump administration and its boosters delude themselves into thinking that they have North Korea on the defensive, the worse the summit will go for the U.S. and its allies.


SF Bay May 18, 2018 at 11:14 pm

" The more that the Trump administration and its boosters delude themselves into thinking that they have North Korea on the defensive, the worse the summit will go for the U.S. and its allies."

This summit can really only go one way. Trump, ever the fool, will swagger in, offer nothing, bluster, and in the end be handed his hat. I don't think there's anyway to spin this as anything other than the poop storm that it is. No Nobel is Trump's future. Sad.

b. , says: May 19, 2018 at 10:50 am
"giving up the one thing that does more to guarantee the regime's security than any promise that the U.S. could ever make"

It could be argued at this point that nuclear proliferation in a world of unipolar aggression might well be stabilizing not only whichever regimes the US decides to destabilize on a given day, but also the international order and even peace. Certainly, China's modest arsenal of minimum means of reprisal and Russia's outsized arsenal matching US folly warhead for warhead and warhead for interceptor demonstrate that US impunitivism is not even deterred by that. But Iraq was attacked precisely because Bush and his cronies were certain Saddam had no effective WMD deterrent – no nukes, everything else a desirable post-hoc justification.

Trump has the EU "cornered", and only fools will believe that this is to the benefit of the world, or even the US – unless the EU finally recognizes the magnitude of its "ally" problem, and their captive populations elect politicians that, for good or ill, will break with the US.

Trump has zero leverage over Iran and North Korea, not only because he is already committed to acts of aggression including all-out economical warfare and soon naval blockade, but also because both nations – and their backers in China and Russia – have long realized that any possible "appeasement" on their part will have as much impact on US conduct as EU "consultations" or South Korean "coordination" – now with a US theater commander as "ambassador". The Moon government has relegated itself to the bleachers as the welfare of South Korea is at stake because, just like the EU3, it does not dare question the unilateral "alliance" it has acquiesced to over decades.

We live in the age of a nation unhinged. But Guatemala, Paraguay and Romania are following from ahead, demonstrating that the US might be acting unilaterally, but not alone, and this "coalition of the unseemly eager" is, in terms of outcomes, no different from posturing collaborators in Germany, France and the UK, or the hapless hostages in South Korea.

Surely, Thiessen and Trump have the world outnumbered and surrounded. What could possibly go wrong, with leaders of such sparkling brilliance in charge?

b. , says: May 19, 2018 at 10:54 am
The most pathetic display here is the establishment biparty published opinion applauding Trump for pursuing the purest expression of Godfather Diplomacy, turned into farce. America's sickening fascination with and glorification of organized crime and racketeering aside – prosperity gospel wins – it is quite obvious that we cannot make "offers they cannot refuse" by putting a horse's ass on a pillow.
A. G. Phillbin , says: May 19, 2018 at 2:32 pm
@b.

America's sickening fascination with and glorification of organized crime and racketeering aside – prosperity gospel wins – it is quite obvious that we cannot make "offers they cannot refuse" by putting a horse's ass on a pillow.

Actually b., that was a horse's head on a pillow in "The Godfather." Were you thinking of Trump or Bolton when you wrote that?

Blimbax , says: May 19, 2018 at 6:24 pm
Speaking of horses, John Bolton is the south end of a north-bound horse.

[May 18, 2018] WSJ Asks Was Trump's Campaign 'Set Up' Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem." ..."
"... government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened. ..."
"... Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment? ..."
"... Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress. ..."
"... Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine: ..."
"... You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
"... Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election? ..."
May 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The Wall Street Journal continues to counter the liberal mainstream media's anti-Trump-ness with Kimberly Strassel leading the charge , dropping uncomfortable truth-bombs in a forum that is hard for the establishment to shrug off as 'Alt-Right' or 'Nazi' or be 'punished' by search- and social-media-giants.

Earlier in the week, with Trump now calling out the debacle as "possible bigger than Watergate," Strassel tweet-stormed some key points that everyone - leftist and right - should consider ... (that's wishful thinking)...

1. So a few important points on that new NYT "Hurricane Crossfire" piece. A story that, BTW, all of us following this knew had to be coming. This is DOJ/FBI leakers' attempt to get in front of the facts Nunes is forcing out, to make it not sound so bad. Don't buy it. It's bad.

2. Biggest takeaway: Govt "sources" admit that, indeed, the Obama DOJ and FBI spied on the Trump campaign. Spied . (Tho NYT kindly calls spy an "informant.") NYT slips in confirmation far down in story, and makes it out like it isn't a big deal. It is a very big deal.

3. In self-serving desire to get a sympathetic story about its actions, DOJ/FBI leakers are willing to provide yet more details about that "top secret" source (namely, that spying was aimed at Page/Papadopoulos) -- making all more likely/certain source will be outed. That's on them

4. DOJ/FBI (and its leakers) have shredded what little credibility they have in claiming they cannot comply with subpoena . They are willing to provide details to friendly media, but not Congress? Willing to risk very source they claim to need to protect?

5. Back in Dec., NYT assured us it was the Papadopoulos-Downer convo that inspired FBI to launch official counterintelligence operation on July 31, 2016. Which was convenient, since it diminished the role of the dossier. However . . .

6. Now NYT tells us FBI didn't debrief Downer until August 2nd. And Nunes says no "official intelligence" from allies was delivered to FBI about that convo prior to July 31. So how did FBI get Downer details? (Political actors?) And what really did inspire the CI investigation?

7. As for whether to believe line that FBI operated soberly/carefully/judiciously in 2016, a main source for this judgment is, um . . .uh . . . Sally Yates. Who was in middle of it all. A bit like asking Putin to reassure that Russia didn't meddle in our election.

8. On that, if u r wondering who narrated this story, note paragraphs that assure everybody that hardly anybody in DOJ knew about probe. Oh, and Comey also was given few details. Nobody knew nothin'! (Cuz when u require whole story saying u behaved, it means u know you didn't.)

And now Strassel is asking "Was Trump's Campaign 'Set Up'?"

At some point, the Russia investigation became political. How early was it?

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes appeared on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday, where he provided a potentially explosive hint at what's driving his demand to see documents related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump-Russia probe. "If the campaign was somehow set up," he told the hosts, "I think that would be a problem."

Or an understatement. Mr. Nunes is still getting stiff-armed by the Justice Department over his subpoena, but this week his efforts did force the stunning admission that the FBI had indeed spied on the Trump campaign. This came in the form of a Thursday New York Times apologia in which government "officials" acknowledged that the bureau had used "at least one" human "informant" to spy on both Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. The Times slipped this mind-bending fact into the middle of an otherwise glowing profile of the noble bureau -- and dismissed it as no big deal.

But there's more to be revealed here, and Mr. Nunes's "set up" comment points in a certain direction. Getting to the conclusion requires thinking more broadly about events beyond the FBI's actions.

Think of the 2016 Trump-Russia narrative as two parallel strands -- one politics, one law enforcement. The political side involves the actions of Fusion GPS, the Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials -- all of whom were focused on destroying Donald Trump. The law-enforcement strand involves the FBI -- and what methods and evidence it used in its Trump investigation. At some point these strands intersected -- and one crucial question is how early that happened.

What may well have kicked off both, however, is a key if overlooked moment detailed in the House Intelligence Committee's recent Russia report .

In "late spring" of 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed White House "National Security Council Principals" that the FBI had counterintelligence concerns about the Trump campaign. Carter Page was announced as a campaign adviser on March 21, and Paul Manafort joined the campaign March 29. The briefing likely referenced both men, since both had previously been on the radar of law enforcement. But here's what matters: With this briefing, Mr. Comey officially notified senior political operators on Team Obama that the bureau had eyes on Donald Trump and Russia. Imagine what might be done in these partisan times with such explosive information.

And what do you know? Sometime in April, the law firm Perkins Coie (on behalf the Clinton campaign) hired Fusion GPS, and Fusion turned its attention to Trump-Russia connections. The job of any good swamp operator is to gin up a fatal October surprise for the opposition candidate. And what could be more devastating than to paint a picture of Trump-Russia collusion that would provoke a full-fledged FBI investigation?

We already know of at least one way Fusion went about that project, with wild success. It hired former British spy Christopher Steele to compile that infamous dossier. In July, Mr. Steele wrote a memo that leveled spectacular conspiracy theories against two particular Trump campaign members -- Messrs. Manafort and Page. For an FBI that already had suspicions about the duo, those allegations might prove huge -- right? That is, if the FBI were to ever see them. Though, lucky for Mrs. Clinton, July is when the Fusion team decided it was a matter of urgent national security for Mr. Steele to play off his credentials and to take this political opposition research to the FBI.

The question Mr. Nunes's committee seems to be investigating is what other moments -- if any -- were engineered in the spring, summer or fall of 2016 to cast suspicion on Team Trump. The conservative press has produced some intriguing stories about a handful of odd invitations and meetings that were arranged for Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos starting in the spring -- all emanating from the United Kingdom. On one hand, that country is home to the well-connected Mr. Steele, which could mean the political actors with whom he was working were involved. On the other hand, the Justice Department has admitted it was spying on both men, which could mean government was involved. Or maybe . . . both.

Which brings us to timing. It's long been known that Mr. Steele went to the FBI in early July to talk about the dossier, and that's the first known intersection of the strands. But given the oddity and timing of those U.K. interactions concerning Messrs. Page and Papadopoulos, and given the history of some of the people involved in arranging them, some wonder if the two strands were converging earlier than anyone has admitted. The Intelligence Committee subpoena is designed to sort all this out: Who was pulling the strings, and what was the goal? Information? Or entrapment?

Whatever the answer-whether it is straightforward, or whether it involves political chicanery-Congress and the public have a right to know. And a Justice Department willing to leak details of its "top secret" source to friendly media can have no excuse for not sharing with the duly elected members of Congress.

bowie28 One of We Permalink

Thanks for stopping by, Bob. Before you ask me your questions I need you to answer a few of mine:

You have had a full year to investigate the allegations that my campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in our election. Has anyone obstructed you from doing this job to the best of your ability? If so, who have you notified of this and what corrective action have you taken or requested be taken?

Have you found any evidence that I personally committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election?

Have you found any evidence that any member of my campaign committed any crime involving collusion with the Russians to interfere with the election?

Assuming the answers to all 3 are "No" (which they likely are or such evidence would have already leaked to CNN via Clapper) or if he refuses to answer, inform Muller the meeting and his investigation are over. He is will be escorted to his office to turn over all records gathered in the investigation to the appropriate DOJ officials, debrief them on his findings and then is fired and all security clearances revoked.

Let the MSM and Dems bitch and cry all they want. You had a year to find evidence for your phony allegations with your top investigator on the job, access to millions of documents and millions of taxpayer dollars. You failed because there was no crime committed. Time to move on.

Of course this is assuming the Mueller investigation is actually what it is purported to be which I have serious doubts about. I think it's more likely Mueller cut an immunity deal for himself when he met with Trump the day before being appointed as SC and this whole thing was nothing but a charade to keep Trump's enemies believing Mueller is their guy. This way they put all their attention and energy into this investigation only to have it blow up in their faces just before the midterms when Trump is fully vindicated by the guy all his enemies said was above reproach. If that happens watch how fast they all turn on Mueller and every MSM outlet starts running hit pieces on him the next morning.

The First Rule bowie28 Permalink

And no real justice is going to come until Trump cleans house at our corrupt and out of control DOJ; starting with Sessions and Rosenstein.

beemasters Richard Chesler Permalink
Team_Huli beemasters Permalink Has anyone seen or heard from Comey lately? May want to keep an eye out for him dangling from some branches somewhere...

[May 18, 2018] Was it Trump political inexperience or yet another shrwed Obama-style bait and switch operation ?

Lemmings get what they deserve. Almost always as the iron law of oligarchy implies. Period of revolution and social upheaval are probably the only exceptions.
In 2018 there is no doubt that Trump is an agent of Deep State, and probably the most militant part of neocons. What he the agent from the beginning or not is not so important. He managed to fool electorate with false promises like Obama before him and get elected.
May 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

bowie28 -> The First Rule Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:18 Permalink

" Of course it was setup. Rod Rosenstein & Co. have been in on this from the beginning. "

Rosenstein was appointed by Trump. If he is involved in a setup it's more likely it is a setup organized by Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Rosenstein

President Donald Trump nominated Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on February 1, 2017. [25] [26] He was one of the 46 United States Attorneys ordered on March 10, 2017, to resign by Attorney General Jeff Sessions ; Trump declined his resignation. [ 27] Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate on April 25, 2017, by a vote of 94–6

In May 2017, he authored a memo which President Trump said was the basis of his decision to dismiss FBI Director James Comey . [5] Later that month, Rosenstein appointed special counsel Robert Mueller to investigate alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election and related matters.

Ask yourself why Sessions ordered Rosenstein to resign and Trump declined his resignation? Likely because Sessions was recused from Russia investigation and could not be told Rosenstein was working for Trump from day 1.

(Mueller also met with Trump the day before Rosenstein appointed him SC.)

Also relevant, Rosenstein is Republican and in 2007/8 was blocked from getting a seat on appeals court by Dems. Doesn't seem he would be loyal to the Obama crowd and trying to take down Trump with a phony investigation.

In 2007, President George W. Bush nominated Rosenstein to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit . Rosenstein was a Maryland resident at the time. Barbara Mikulski and new Democratic Maryland senator, Ben Cardin , blocked Rosenstein's confirmation, stating that he did not have strong enough Maryland legal ties, [24] and due to this Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy did not schedule a hearing on Rosenstein during the 110th Congress and the nomination lapsed. Later, Andre M. Davis was renominated to the same seat by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2009.

Kayman -> bowie28 Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:59 Permalink

Rosenstein slithered in via Sessions.

Withdrawn Sanction -> bowie28 Fri, 05/18/2018 - 18:16 Permalink

"...a cabal of ruthless and dishonest people..."

You better believe it. What's happened to the NYC detectives who viewed the "insurance policy" on Weiner's laptop? The kiddie stuff is the real hot potato here. The power "elite" are pure unadulterated filth.

rosiescenario -> WarPony Fri, 05/18/2018 - 15:55 Permalink

Yes....when you start to add up various facts coming from this investigation it is easy to argue that the prime beneficiary has been Trump. Why would Trump even consider firing this guy? The more Mueller digs the more crap surfaces about the Dems, and they are in full support of it without any seeming awareness of the results. They are so blinded by their hatred they cannot see reality.

The info from Weiner's computer is really going to make for major popcorn sales. All Hitlery's "lost" emails are in there. All the names in his address book will also make for some interesting reading. Just a guess but there are a lot of very nervous NYC elected officials and pedos making sure their passports are up to date. The Lolita Express to Gitmo....

GoingBig -> bowie28 Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:22 Permalink

You guys see everything through Trump colored glasses. Trump is dirty and just because the evidence hasn't been shown to you doesn't mean it isn't there. Mueller has the dirt on Trump. It will show. Does everyone here forget that Watergate took 2 1/2 years to play out?

Kayman -> GoingBig Fri, 05/18/2018 - 12:04 Permalink

Watergate was about a burglary and missing tapes.

It wasn't about the Department of Justice and the FBI being rotten to the core.

Emergency Ward -> GoingBig Fri, 05/18/2018 - 13:50 Permalink

Being in the business he is in, there is little doubt that Trump has paid out millions of dollars over the years in bribes and payoffs to greedy politicians, regulators, and zoning commissioners given to filthy lucre in return for building permits, zoning variances, and law changes.

I know he is but what are they? This could be one reason the politicians, regulators, and zoning commissioners hate him so much. He knows what they know.

Trump is no dirtier than other politicians and much less than some. He is just dirty in a way (he was usually the payer, they were the payees) that bothers the other ones.

Honest Sam -> GoingBig Fri, 05/18/2018 - 14:32 Permalink

All politicians and most of humanity 'is dirty'.

There is no man or woman who has or ever will run for office that is not dirty.

As Dershowitz so acutely pointed out, every one of them with an opposition Special Counsel on his case, can find at least 3 crimes they committed.

The only reason theBamster wasn't probed at all is because no one dared go after the only black man to ever run and win for POTUS. HE instead, was protected from any probes.

You're an idiot that doesn't know anything about what this is really all about. Or pretending to. Or a troll. Fuck you for being any of them.

jmack -> One of We Fri, 05/18/2018 - 12:13 Permalink

Obama has a history of taking out his opponents in their personal life, so that he doesnt have to meet them in the political arena, just look at his state campaigns, and then his senate campaign. Look at how he used the bureaucracy during his admin to preempt opposition, not allowing opposition groups to get tax exempt status and sending osha/fbi/treasury etc to harrass people that were more than marginally effective.

With that context set I would like to know the following.

1. Did the brennan/comey/clapper cabal have investigations running on all the gop primary front runners?

2. Did they promote Trump to win the GOP primary, to eliminate those rivals from consideration, just to attempt to destroy him in the general with the russian collusion narrative and his own words.

3. Was Comey's failure to ensure Hillary's victory due to incompetence or arrogance? I say arrogance, because his little late day announcement of the new emails was obviously ass covering so that he could pass whatever senate hearing that would be required for his new post in the hillary administration.

NoDebt Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:04 Permalink

Having to learn how to deal with mobbed-up lawyers and unions in NYC turns out the be pretty damned good preparation to be President Of The United States. I love watching this guy work.

DingleBarryObummer Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:05 Permalink

The illegitimate liberal MSM is sucking all the oxygen out of the room for legitimate criticism of Trump. This Russian Collusion stormy daniels stuff is a bunch of bologna, and it's making a smokescreen for Trump to carry out his zio-bankster agenda.

Hegelian dialectic, Divide and conquer, kabuki theater

A real left would be covering this===>

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-15/no-one-watched-trump-pardoned
As No One Watched, Trump Pardoned 5 Megabanks For Corruption Charges

Buy they won't because there is no left or right. It's one big uniparty club, and they work together to rob us and lie to us.

Picturing The March Of Tyranny | Zero Hedge

DingleBarryObummer -> brain_glitch Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:11 Permalink

In the second half of peter schiff's most recent podcast he goes on a good rant/lecture about this topic.

I know Peter Schiff is a controversial figure, and I don't agree with a lot of what he does or says, but sometimes he nails it.

Rex Titter -> DingleBarryObummer Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:45 Permalink

For the most part I like Peter Schiff. I don't think he talks enough about the criminal manipulation of commodities by the banksters and the seemingly endless reluctance by our glorious leaders to prosecute them.

On this topic: The lawlessness of the 17 agencies is beyond the pale. They have set themselves apart and for this they will have to pay eventually. I have no doubt that in the minds of the Bureau principals there was motive and there was opportunity. I don't believe anything that comes out of their mouths. Robert Mueller is a three letter word for a donkey. He is a criminal and a totally owned puppet of the deep and dark state. Last I heard, the FBI planted a mole in the Trump campaign. Iff true, that speaks volumes...

Pollygotacracker Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:05 Permalink

It is amazing that President Trump is still standing on his feet and still out there swinging. The man is no coward. I'm glad I voted for him, although I am disappointed in some of his failings.

Son of Captain Nemo -> Pollygotacracker Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:56 Permalink

"although I am disappointed in some of his failings."...

Yeah I know just what ya mean...

The treason of war crimes he's committed exceeding all of his predecessor(s) in his short assed existence as President and threatening war on two nuclear superpowers that could easily wipe his office and 4 thousand square miles of CONUS " off the map "!...

Endorsing a torturer murder to head the CIA condoning her efforts in public "thumbing his nose" at Article 3 Geneva the U.S. Constitution and for his military to tacitly continue disobeying the UCMJ as a response to that "selection"!...

Telling the parasitic partner that owns him through blackmail that Jerusalem is the Capital of IsraHell as over 200 Palestinians are murdered and 3 thousand others injured in joyous celebration of that violation of international law which is the equivalent of pouring "gasoline" on a building that has already been reduced to "ash"...

And speaking of "buildings" and "ash"... The pledge he ignored before being "anointed" that he said he would investigate but of course DID NOT ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/11/14/trump-im-reopening-911-inve )

... ... ...

ioniancat21 Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:16 Permalink

They didn't really think things through when they plotted against Trump and figured Hillary would win and they could sweep this under the rug and then she lost. Funnier is that many expected her to lose as she never won an election in her life despite her being "The Most Qualified" candidate as her parrots in the media lovingly called her. Now Trump and his team will stomp them all into the ground. My guess is that he'll pinch others in her gang who have big egos so that they'll talk and drop a dime which they will. The libtards are turning on themselves in every area now. Look at Hollywood and the sexual harassment cases in the pipeline.

It's just so pleasurable watching your enemy fall on their sword while you sit back and enjoy life and smile....

Chief Joesph Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:21 Permalink

Was the Trump campaign "Set-up"? It's just another way the oligarchy is deflecting what the real problem is. Americans are fed up with the political status quo in this country, and wanted a change. Neither political party offers any change for the better. It is also why Bernie Sanders had a huge following, but no one is calling his campaign a "set-up", and he would have been the more likely choice the Russians would have helped.

It really doesn't make any sense why the Russians would have selected Trump, but it makes a lot of sense why the oligarchy would want to discredit Trump any means availble to them. And since they have always hated Russia so much, that is the big tip-off of who comes up with these stupid stories about Russians meddling in our elections.

GRDguy Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:15 Permalink

We voted against the powers that be. With Truman, we got a decent man that was manipulated by the Deep State. With Trump, we got a not-so-decent man, but still manipulated by the Deep State. Sigh.

hooligan2009 Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:57 Permalink

there needs to be a schedule drawn up of charges against individuals. it's all very well talking and talking anf talking around the water cooler, but until the charges are drawn up and a grand jury empowered, it is all pissing into the wind.

the individuals range from obama through clinton, through the loathsome slimebags in the alphabet soup, through foundations, through DNC leaders/politicians, through Weiner, Abedin, Rice and the witches cabal (Wasserstein Schulz etc), UK intel agencies, awan brothers, pakistan intel supplying Iran with classified documents and so on.

there are charges (of treason, sedition, wilful mishandling of classifed documents, bribery, corruption, murder, child trafficking, election rigging, spying for/collusion with foreign powers, funding terrorism, child abuse, election rigging/tampering, misappropriation of federal funds, theft etc as well as general malfeasance, failure to perform duties and so on) that are not being brought that are so obvious, only a snowflake would miss them.

what charges can be brought against the MSM for propaganda, misdirection, lying, fabrication and attempting to ovetthrow a legitimately elected president using these techniques to further their own ends? there is no freedom of the press to lie and further civil unrest.

a list of charges against individuals in the DNC/alphabet soup is what is needed. if the DoJ is so incompetent or corrupt that it is unable to do its job, private law suits need to be brought to get all the facts out in the open.

someone needs to write the book and make it butt hole shaped to shove up all those that try to make a living out of making up gossip in the NYT, WaPo, CNN, BBC, Economist, Madcow, SNL, Oliver and so on.

these people are guilty of being assholes and need their assholes (mouths) plugged with a very think fifteen inch book.

Anonymous_Bene Fri, 05/18/2018 - 11:57 Permalink

Divide and conquer playing out in front of your faces. Trump, Hitlary, Obama, DiGenova, Giuliani, etc. etc...all "deep state".

Mission accomplished.

Anonymous_Bene Fri, 05/18/2018 - 12:01 Permalink

It's amazing that you fools still believe in your hearts that Trump is not a deep stater. LOL

insanelysane -> Anonymous_Bene Fri, 05/18/2018 - 13:04 Permalink

Trump might become a deep stater but he definitely wasn't one of them. Google "offer to pay trump to drop out of election" and see how many stories there were. Here is one of them.

http://fortune.com/2017/12/05/donald-trump-2016-race-mike-pence-preside

RedDwarf Fri, 05/18/2018 - 12:45 Permalink

"At some point, the Russia investigation became political. How early was it?"

I am going to go out on the shortest limb in history and say it was political from the beginning.

insanelysane Fri, 05/18/2018 - 13:13 Permalink

I hope someone writes a book on this with all of the timing and all of the "little" things that happened on the way to the coronation of Hillary. Comey "interviews" Hillary on 4th of July weekend. Wraps up case by 9am Tuesday after 4th of July. By noon, Hillary and Obama are on Air Force 1 to begin campaign. Within a few weeks Seth Rich is dead and DWS avoids being "killed in an armed robbery gone bad" when she steps down as head of DNC. Above article forgets to mention that GPS also hired the wife of someone in the government as part of the "fact gathering" team.

[May 18, 2018] IG Horowitz Finds FBI, DOJ Broke Law In Clinton Probe, Refers To Prosecutor For Criminal Charges

Notable quotes:
"... On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton." ..."
"... On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview. ..."
"... And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel. ..."
"... Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years. ..."
May 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

As we reported on Thursday , a long-awaited report by the Department of Justice's internal watchdog into the Hillary Clinton email investigation has moved into its final phase, as the DOJ notified multiple subjects mentioned in the document that they can privately review it by week's end, and will have a "few days" to craft any response to criticism contained within the report, according to the Wall Street Journal .

Those invited to review the report were told they would have to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to read it , people familiar with the matter said. They are expected to have a few days to craft a response to any criticism in the report, which will then be incorporated in the final version to be released in coming weeks . - WSJ

Now, journalist Paul Sperry reports that " IG Horowitz has found "reasonable grounds" for believing there has been a violation of federal criminal law in the FBI/DOJ's handling of the Clinton investigation/s and has referred his findings of potential criminal misconduct to Huber for possible criminal prosecution ."

Who is Huber?

As we reported in March , Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber - Utah's top federal prosecutor, to be paired with IG Horowitz to investigate the multitude of accusations of FBI misconduct surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The announcement came one day after Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed that he will also be investigating allegations of FBI FISA abuse .

While Huber's appointment fell short of the second special counsel demanded by Congressional investigators and concerned citizens alike, his appointment and subsequent pairing with Horowitz is notable - as many have pointed out that the Inspector General is significantly limited in his abilities to investigate. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) noted in March " the IG's office does not have authority to compel witness interviews, including from past employees, so its investigation will be limited in scope in comparison to a Special Counsel investigation ,"

Sessions' pairing of Horowitz with Huber keeps the investigation under the DOJ's roof and out of the hands of an independent investigator .

***

Who is Horowitz?

In January, we profiled Michael Horowitz based on thorough research assembled by independent investigators. For those who think the upcoming OIG report is just going to be "all part of the show" - take pause; there's a good chance this is an actual happening, so you may want to read up on the man whose year-long investigation may lead to criminal charges against those involved.

In short - Horowitz went to war with the Obama Administration to restore the OIG's powers - and didn't get them back until Trump took office.

Horowitz was appointed head of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April, 2012 - after the Obama administration hobbled the OIG's investigative powers in 2011 during the "Fast and Furious" scandal. The changes forced the various Inspectors General for all government agencies to request information while conducting investigations, as opposed to the authority to demand it. This allowed Holder (and other agency heads) to bog down OIG requests in bureaucratic red tape, and in some cases, deny them outright.

What did Horowitz do? As one twitter commentators puts it, he went to war ...

In March of 2015, Horowitz's office prepared a report for Congress titled Open and Unimplemented IG Recommendations . It laid the Obama Admin bare before Congress - illustrating among other things how the administration was wasting tens-of-billions of dollars by ignoring the recommendations made by the OIG.

After several attempts by congress to restore the OIG's investigative powers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz successfully introduced H.R.6450 - the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 - signed by a defeated lame duck President Obama into law on December 16th, 2016 , cementing an alliance between Horrowitz and both houses of Congress .

1) Due to the Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016, the OIG has access to all of the information that the target agency possesses. This not only includes their internal documentation and data, but also that which the agency externally collected and documented.

TrumpSoldier (@DaveNYviii) January 3, 2018

See here for a complete overview of the OIG's new and restored powers. And while the public won't get to see classified details of the OIG report, Mr. Horowitz is also big on public disclosure:

Horowitz's efforts to roll back Eric Holder's restrictions on the OIG sealed the working relationship between Congress and the Inspector General's ofice, and they most certainly appear to be on the same page. Moreover, FBI Director Christopher Wray seems to be on the same page

Here's a preview:

https://twitter.com/DaveNYviii/status/939074607352614912

Which brings us back to the OIG report expected by Congress a week from Monday.

On January 12 of last year, Inspector Horowitz announced an OIG investigation based on " requests from numerous Chairmen and Ranking Members of Congressional oversight committees, various organizations (such as Judicial Watch?), and members of the public ."

The initial focus ranged from the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, to whether or not Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe should have been recused from the investigation (ostensibly over $700,000 his wife's campaign took from Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe around the time of the email investigation), to potential collusion with the Clinton campaign and the timing of various FOIA releases. Which brings us back to the OIG report expected by Congress a week from Monday.

On July 27, 2017 the House Judiciary Committee called on the DOJ to appoint a Special Counsel, detailing their concerns in 14 questions pertaining to "actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."

The questions range from Loretta Lynch directing Mr. Comey to mislead the American people on the nature of the Clinton investigation, Secretary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the (mis)handling of her email investigation by the FBI, the DOJ's failure to empanel a grand jury to investigate Clinton, and questions about the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, and whether the FBI relied on the "Trump-Russia" dossier created by Fusion GPS.

On September 26, 2017 , The House Judiciary Committee repeated their call to the DOJ for a special counsel, pointing out that former FBI Director James Comey lied to Congress when he said that he decided not to recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton until after she was interviewed, when in fact Comey had drafted her exoneration before said interview.

And now, the OIG report can tie all of this together - as it will solidify requests by Congressional committees, while also satisfying a legal requirement for the Department of Justice to impartially appoint a Special Counsel.

As illustrated below by TrumpSoldier , the report will go from the Office of the Inspector General to both investigative committees of Congress, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and is expected within weeks .

Once congress has reviewed the OIG report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees will use it to supplement their investigations , which will result in hearings with the end goal of requesting or demanding a Special Counsel investigation. The DOJ can appoint a Special Counsel at any point, or wait for Congress to demand one. If a request for a Special Counsel is ignored, Congress can pass legislation to force an the appointment.

And while the DOJ could act on the OIG report and investigate / prosecute themselves without a Special Counsel, it is highly unlikely that Congress would stand for that given the subjects of the investigation.

After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis, the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "

Meanwhile, recent events appear to correspond with bullet points in both the original OIG investigation letter and the 7/27/2017 letter forwarded to the Inspector General:

... ... ...

With the wheels set in motion last week seemingly align with Congressional requests and the OIG mandate, and the upcoming OIG report likely to serve as a foundational opinion, the DOJ will finally be empowered to move forward with an impartially appointed Special Counsel.


IntercoursetheEU -> Shitonya Serfs Thu, 05/17/2018 - 14:41 Permalink

"To save his presidency, Trump must expose a host of criminally cunning Deep State political operatives as enemies to the Constitution, including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and Robert Mueller - as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton."

Killing the Deep State , Dr Jerome Corsi, PhD., p xi

nmewn -> putaipan Thu, 05/17/2018 - 19:21 Permalink

I've been more than upfront about my philosophy. I have said on more than one occasion that progs will rue the day they drove a New Yorker like Trump even further to the right.

Now you see it in his actions from the judiciary to bureaucracy destruction to (pick any) and...as I often cite... some old dead white guy once said ..."First they came for the ___ and I did not speak out. Then they came for..."

Now I advocate for progs to swim in their own deadly juices, without a moment's hesitation on my part, without any furtive look back, without remorse or any compassion whatsover.

Forward! ...I think is what they said, welcome to the Death Star ;-)

nmewn -> IridiumRebel Fri, 05/18/2018 - 06:19 Permalink

Absolutely.

There have been (and are) plenty on "our side"...Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Romney and the thinly disguised "social democrat" Bill Kristol just to name several off the top of my head but the thing is, they always have to hide what they really are from us until rooted out.

That's what I try to point out to "our friends" on the left all the time, for example, there was never any doubt that Chris Dodd, Bwaney Fwank and Chuck Schumer were (and are) in Wall Streets back pocket. But for any prog to openly admit that is to sign some sort of personal death warrant, to be ostracized, blacklisted and harassed out of "the liberal community" so, they bite their tongue & say nothing...knowing what the truth really is.

Hell, they even named a "financial reform bill" after Dodd & Frank...LMAO!!!

It's just the dripping hypocrisy that gets me.

For another example, they knew what was going on with Weinstein, Lauer, Spacey, Rose etal but as long as the cash flowed and they towed-the-prog-BS-line outwardly, they gladly looked the other way and in the end...The Oprah...gives a speech in front of them (as they bark & clap like trained seals) about...Jim Crow?

Jim Crow?!...lol...one has nothing to do with the other Oprah! The perps & enablers are sitting right there in front of you!

It's just friggin surreal sometimes.

G-R-U-N-T -> Newspeaktogo Thu, 05/17/2018 - 21:06 Permalink

"After the report's completion, the DOJ will weigh in on it. Their comments are key. As TrumpSoldier points out in his analysis, the DOJ can take various actions regarding " Policy, personnel, procedures, and re-opening of investigations. In short, just about everything (Immunity agreements can also be rescinded). "

Rescind Immunity, absolutely damn right, put them ALL under oath and on the stand! This is huge! Indeed this goes all the way to the top, would like to see Obama and the 'career criminal' testify under oath explaining how their tribe conspired to frame Trump and the American people.

Hell, put them on trial in a military court for Treason, what's the punishment for Treason these days???

Also would like to see Kerry get fried under the 'Logan Act'!

Gardentoolnumber5 -> BigSwingingJohnson Thu, 05/17/2018 - 18:50 Permalink

As are half of their fellow travelers in the GOP. Neocon liars. Talk small constitutional govt then vote for war. Those two are direct opposites, war and small govt. The liars must be exposed and removed. The Never Trumpers have outed themselves but many are hiding in plain sight proclaiming they support the President. It appears they have manipulated Trump into an aggressive stance against Russia with their anti Russia hysteria. Time will tell. The bank and armament industries must be removed from any kind of influence within our govt. Most of these are run by big govt collectivists aka communists/globalists.

jin187 -> IridiumRebel Fri, 05/18/2018 - 05:33 Permalink

NO ONE IS GOING TO JAIL OVER THIS.

Who cares how many task forces, special prosecutors, grand juries, commissions, or other crap they throw at this black hole of corruption? We all know the score. The best we can hope for is that the liberals and neo-cons are embarrassed enough to crawl under a rock for awhile, and it slows down implementation of their Orwellian agenda for a few years.

[May 18, 2018] The UK s obsession with the Russian bogeyman doesn t stack up by Mary Dejevsky

Notable quotes:
"... Now, it is hard to know what to make of all this, other than to point out that he was speaking to fellow security chiefs. Maybe, among themselves, they find it more morale-boosting to demonise an old enemy than to take on adversaries that have emerged more recently, are more complicated and against which they have so far perhaps had less success. ..."
"... the conclusion has to be that Russia is considered a "safe", useful, and almost eternal enemy by the UK's powers-that-be. Some of us may hope for something better, but it seems a long way away. ..."
May 14, 2018 | www.theguardian.com

The UK's obsession with the Russian bogeyman doesn't stack up Mary Dejevsky The head of MI5 has joined the security establishment's anti-Putin onslaught. But his organization agrees that Moscow is not the greatest threat

Today's speech by the head of MI5 , Andrew Parker, has been presented as a first – the first time the head of the UK's domestic intelligence service has delivered a speech abroad, specifically at a conference of security heads in Berlin. But this is the only respect in which it is a first. It might as accurately be described as the latest in a series of public utterances by UK intelligence chiefs and top brass, which began last autumn and continued with the head of GCHQ addressing a cybersecurity conference in Manchester last month.

"MI5 chief: Kremlin is 'chief protagonist' in campaign to undermine west" Read more

In part, this reflects a deliberate decision by the intelligence services and the government that they should be more open about what they do, with a view to gaining greater public understanding – and expanding recruitment at a time when they face competition for tech-savvy graduates from richer and less restrictive employers. But this season of intelligence and military speeches has also facilitated the communication of an apparently co-ordinated message. As a country, the UK now sees Russia as its prime adversary.

The poisoning of Sergei Skripal , the former Russian spy, and his daughter in Salisbury took the UK's official anti-Russia stance to new heights. And its diplomatic success in persuading so many other countries to expel Russian diplomats in protest – the biggest ever "collective expulsion of security agents", we were told – seems to have emboldened London to view itself as the potential leader of an international anti-Russia front, as the Guardian recently reported .

The invective produced by Parker today – and heavily sold to the media – was, in its way, extraordinary. In tone, it was quite different from the cold war register, which was formal and, well, cold. This attack was populist, direct, and far outside the diplomatic register. Here is just a sample.

The Kremlin was engaging in "deliberate, targeted, malign activity intended to undermine our free, open and democratic societies". The west had to "shine a light through the fog of lies, half-truths and obfuscation that pours out of their propaganda machine". Russia, he said caustically, had as one of its "central and entirely admirable aims to build Russian greatness on the world stage". But it had repeatedly chosen "to pursue that aim through aggressive and pernicious actions by its military and intelligence services". In so doing, it risked becoming "a more isolated pariah".

So long as the UK refuses consular access to Yulia Skripal, Russia can – with some justification – ask just who has a monopoly on a fog of lies.'

Now, it is hard to know what to make of all this, other than to point out that he was speaking to fellow security chiefs. Maybe, among themselves, they find it more morale-boosting to demonise an old enemy than to take on adversaries that have emerged more recently, are more complicated and against which they have so far perhaps had less success. There is a sense too, for the UK at least, that relations with Russia have been so bad for so long that magnifying the supposed Russia threat is a cost-free enterprise in diplomatic terms.

It might also be worth considering whether there are budgetary and Brexit angles. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US and the UK, in particular, scaled back their government-backed research on Russia and lost a great deal of expertise, which they are now trying to rebuild. That means they have to make a case for more taxpayers' money, and scare tactics are one way to do that. For the UK, there may also be the fear that it will find the European Union less inclined to keep London in the intelligence loop, and – at a time when the US is looking a far less reliable ally – it might make sense to play up the Russian bogeyman, not least as Vladimir Putin begins his fourth term in office. Nothing like starting as you intend to go on.

Yet it is still difficult to see the sense in this. Russia has become inured to UK scolding of this kind, and treats it with contempt – as its social media response to Parker's speech shows. What is more, so long as the UK maintains its silence on the Skripals' fate and refuses consular access to Yulia Skripal, Russia can – with some justification, I would argue – ask just who has a monopoly on a "fog of lies".

Nor will the tone necessarily chime well with official views of Russia in Germany and France, which are not necessarily less tough in practice, but certainly more nuanced, and better informed. The UK seems intent – despite recent legislation about dubious money in London – in keeping its diplomatic and business relations with Russia in separate boxes. Germany, for one, does not have that luxury.

The conclusion has to be that Russia is considered a 'safe', useful, and almost eternal enemy by the UK's powers-that-be

The UK's rhetorical onslaught on Russia is even more puzzling when you examine the security services' own priorities. "Is terrorism the biggest threat facing the UK?" visitors to the MI5 website are asked in a pop-up called "fact or fiction". Click no, and this is the response: "The biggest threat we currently face comes from international terrorist groups and individuals inspired by them. Terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland also continue to pose a serious threat."

Now it is true that the threat from terrorism and Islamic State was also broached by Parker in his speech, but this was not the section spun in advance to the media; it was not the aspect MI5 wanted above all to be noticed. So the conclusion has to be that Russia is considered a "safe", useful, and almost eternal enemy by the UK's powers-that-be. Some of us may hope for something better, but it seems a long way away.

• Mary Dejevsky is a former foreign correspondent in Moscow

[May 18, 2018] Guardian fake news. UK media tries to keep Skripal poisoning hoax alive (Video)

May 18, 2018 | theduran.com

Alex Christoforou with Alexander Mercouris discuss a recent Guardian post that claims 100 police have received psychological help after Salisbury attack.

Fake news, trying to create false connections between police psychological issues and a rather dubious UK poisoning false flag. Via The Guardian

Almost 100 Wiltshire police officers and staff have sought psychological support after the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, the Guardian can reveal.

Among those who have asked for help were officers who initially responded to the collapse of the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, and those who were at or close to the various investigation sites in subsequent days and weeks.

Some reported feeling disorientated and anxious while others were concerned about the possible long-term health effects on the public.

While the Skripal poisoning story has faded from much of the mainstream media news cycle, as it was increasingly exposed as a complete hoax and embarrassment for the May government, the Guardian appears to be trying to resurrect "the Russians did" Novichok narrative.


Rick Oliver 3 hours ago ,

It is about time your stupid leader and her clown were put on the stage to explain to all the world why they chose to defame the integrity of Russia in such an unbelievable set of circumstances that only children under the age of ten would not understand !! How can any Nation since this demonic happening , ever trust this self - centred Bozo from ever making a sensible judgement for the future of mankind !

louis robert 13 hours ago ,

What a shameful staging! At the very least, try and respect children!... Keep them away from all that nonsense, Ms May!

André De Koning an hour ago ,

UK has lost it completely and the Guardian has fallen prey to the CIA Mockingbird Operation (infiltration and manipulation of media). Used to be a good paper under Alan Rushbridger and protection of Snowden, Assange etc. Now it has lost it altogether with useless editorial board. The woman in charge must have something in common with Nikki Haley: incapable of nuance and irrationally convinced of her being right (without research lots of claims about Assad, Putin etc.).

Wesa F. André De Koning 35 minutes ago ,

When ever I read such nonsense it always brings a smile as I think of what Clint Eastwood said in his summing up of Politicians and not in General.

[May 18, 2018] MAGA = Mueller Ain't Going Away

This cat fight between two factions of the US elite is not even that funny anymore...
May 18, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Insurrector -> yaright Fri, 05/18/2018 - 12:27 Permalink

MAGA = Mueller Ain't Going Away

[May 18, 2018] Foreign Policy Insiders try to Scuttle Trump-Kim Nukes Deal by Mike Whitney

With so little and so controversial information it is impossible even to judge what is true and wht is not in NK-US confrontation.
May 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

The biggest obstacle Donald Trump is going to face in his upcoming negotiations with Kim Jong-un, is not Kim's unwillingness to abandon his nuclear weapons program, but resistance from powerful elements in the foreign policy establishment who will do everything they can to scuttle the agreement. We've already seen an example of this just this week when US nuclear bombers were included in the US-Korea joint military drills that are currently underway in the south. The B-52′s were clearly added to the massive "Max Thunder" exercises to provoke the DPRK leadership, increase tensions, and convince Kim that it was pointless to trust Washington. The move was bitterly criticized in North Korea's state media which summed up the situation like this:

"At a time when the DPRK-U.S. summit is approaching, the U.S. has launched the largest ever drill involving B-52 strategic nuclear bomber, F-22 Raptor stealth fighters and other nuclear strategic assets. This is an extremely provocative and ill-boding act going against the trend for peace and security on the Korean peninsula .The extremely adventurous 2018 Max Thunder joint air combat exercises are aimed at precision strike on key strategic objects of the DPRK and the seizure of the air control together with the U.S ."

The North's assessment is entirely correct. The drills are a simulation of a preemptive attack on North Korea that would annihilate the military, level Pyongyang and "decapitate" the leadership. They are a deliberate provocation designed to poison the atmosphere prior to the June 12 summit in Singapore. They're also a clear violation of the Panmunjom Declaration which affirms the mutual commitment of the North and South "to completely cease all hostile acts against each other in every domain, including land, air and sea, that are the source of military tension and conflict." (Panmunjom Declaration)

What we'd like to know is whether Trump was consulted about the drills? Did he give the go-ahead? Was it his decision to tweak Kim's nose after Kim had just made a number of conciliatory gestures including the total banning of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles tests, the returning of three US prisoners to US custody, and meeting with leaders in the south in order to end hostilities and normalize relations? Is Trump responsible for this diplomatic disaster?

Of course not. Trump's objectives are completely clear. He wants to win the Nobel Prize and he wants to be recognized as a foreign policy genius, both of which are within his grasp if he persuades Kim to ditch his nukes. Trump does not want to provoke Kim who, so far, has acted in good faith. He wants to cut a deal with him. The exercises represent the interests of some other constituency, some deeper faction within the national security state who have a stake in the outcome of future negotiations. They want the talks to fail so they can preserve the status quo. They want a divided Korea that "languishes in a permanent state of colonial dependency". That works just fine for them, which is why the military drills were not postponed or cancelled. It's also why John Bolton has been making incendiary comments about the "Libya model", and why the media has been fueling public pessimism while misrepresenting US position. According to many media reports, the North will be expected to 'totally decommission its nuclear weapons, missiles and biochemical weapons' without any immediate compensation.

That's not the deal. That's never been the deal. No one on the North Korean side ever said that Washington was going to get something for nothing. And it's not going to happen either. Kim is looking for a tradeoff, a decommissioning of his nuclear weapons in exchange for basic security guarantees. That's the deal.

So who's spreading all these false rumors and what is their objective? Here's more from North Korea's state media:

"The U.S. is miscalculating the magnanimity of the DPRK as signs of weakness and trying to embellish and advertise as if these are the product of its sanctions and pressure.

The U.S. is trumpeting as if it would offer economic compensation and benefit in case we abandon nukes. But we have never had any expectation of U.S. support in carrying out our economic construction and will not make such a deal in future .

If the Trump administration takes an approach to the DPRK-U.S. summit with sincerity for improved DPRK-U.S. relations, it will receive a deserved response from us. However, if the U.S. is trying to drive us into a corner to force our unilateral nuclear abandonment, we will no longer be interested in such dialogue and cannot but reconsider our proceeding to the DPRK-U.S. summit." (End of statement)

The North doesn't want Washington's money or its economic inducements. The North wants assurances that the US will not attack it in the future. That's it. That's what Kim wants. He wants an end to the hostilities so he can move ahead with a regional economic-integration plan that will draw the two Koreas closer together, end the North's isolation, strengthen the North's economy, and pave the way for prosperity. In other words, Kim is offering to give up his nuclear weapons to (essentially) get Washington off its back and out of its hair.

None of this has anything to do with Trump's absurd "maximum pressure" campaign, which had no impact on Kim's decision at all. The North is not motivated by Trump's hysterical threats of "total destruction", but by a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to emerge from its long-term seclusion and become an active participant in an ambitious economic integration plan that will link North and South Korea to the rest of Asia via massive infrastructure and energy projects. The only catch to this proposal, is that the DPRK must abandon its nuclear weapons program and agree to resolve its issues with Seoul. In other words, Kim's eagerness to denuclearize is not an attempt to placate Washington, but an effort to meet the minimal requirements of his economic partners in Beijing, Moscow and Seoul.

The United States is not central to the critical economic-political developments on the peninsula, in fact, the region is making a concerted effort to sever its ties with Washington by creating a giant free trade zone that will connect the region through " large trilateral infrastructural and energy projects," to Japan, Southeast Asia, Central Asia and Europe. Check this out from the Kremlin website:

"The Korean Government has recently created the Northern Economic Cooperation Committee This has completed the creation of a management system that will make Korea the leader in the development of the Far East. The Committee is tasked with strengthening economic cooperation with Northeast Asian and Eurasian countries. In the future, cooperation between the Committee and Russia's Far Eastern Federal District and the Ministry for the Development of the Russian Far East will play a key role in the development of the Far East.

Next year, we will create a Korean-Russian Regional Cooperation Forum. It should bolster contacts between regional governments in Korea and the Russian Far East. Cooperation channels between regional economic communities and small and medium-sized businesses will greatly expand contacts between people and promote practical cooperation ..

The North Korean nuclear and missile ambitions are the biggest threat to the development of the huge potential of the Korean Peninsula and the Russian Far East. This is why we have come to the conclusion that this problem must be settled as soon as possible." (Kremlin website)

See what's going on? Kim has been asked to choose between prosperity or nukes, and he has wisely chosen prosperity. He has decided to participate in a common economic space that allows commerce to flourish without the bulk of the profits to be siphoned off by the voracious western corporations. Is it any wonder why powerful members of the foreign policy establishment want to torpedo the plan?

The integration plan is not some pie-in-the-sky apparition, but a broad and detailed economic blueprint for regional development; power plants, highways, high-speed rail, and pipeline corridors. It's the whole nine yards. Here's more from The South China Morning Post:

"President Moon Jae-in gave the North's leader Kim Jong-un a USB drive containing a "New Economic Map of the Korean Peninsula" at the fortified border village of Panmunjom on April 27. The initiative included three economic belts – one connecting the west coast of the peninsula to China, making the region a centre of logistics; one connecting the east coast to Russia for energy cooperation and one on the current border to promote tourism.

"The new economic map includes railway links between the two Koreas and China's northeast stretching all the way to Europe ."

"The plan would have a huge impact on China's northeastern region as it would transform the region as a centre of logistics in East Asia, which could function as a driving force for the rapid economic growth of the region .A railway connection would bring a myriad of investments from overseas and would help the economy take off."

Yet observers added that the initiatives were dependent on Kim accepting Seoul's definition of denuclearisation – namely the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantling of the North's nuclear programme." (The South China Morning Post)

Kim must denuclearize in order to take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity, which is why he is eager to make hefty concessions to Trump while getting very little in return. Think about it: Trump gets the nukes and the Nobel Prize while Kim gets a lousy piece of paper with Washington's guarantees for security. That's a great deal for Trump but not a very good deal for Kim. Even so, Kim is prepared to cooperate in order to meet his obligations and move forward with an economic plan that will strengthen his economy and improve the lives of his people. He's making the right choice.

Some of Trump's deep state opponents probably think that they can derail Kim's plans by sabotaging the June 12th Summit. But that's not entirely true. Kim does not need to reach an agreement with Trump, he merely has to convince his main trading partner, Beijing, that he's made a sincere effort that was rejected by an unreasonable and tyrannical Washington. If Kim proves that he's willing to go the extra mile for peace– by offering to decommission his nuclear arsenal– then Beijing is going to reward his behavior by easing the sanctions and restoring the DPRK's economic lifeline. Bottom line: Kim is going to win one way or another.

In my opinion, the cat-n-mouse game Kim is playing with Trump is a bit of a ruse because, in truth, Kim is going to have to give up his nukes whether he makes a deal with Trump or not. As we said earlier, Moscow, Beijing and Seoul have all made denuclearization a basic requirement for participation in their economic integration plan, so it's a done deal. Kim is going to have to abandon his nuclear weapons. The fact is, Russia and China don't want the smaller, surrounding nations to have nukes any more than the US wants Mexico, Canada or Cuba to have them. It dramatically impacts regional security.

Finally, it wouldn't surprise me if Washington's deep state powerbrokers are more concerned about the proposed regional free trade zone, then they are about the North's nuclear weapons. In order for the US to be a major player in the most populous and prosperous region in the world, it must implement its "pivot to Asia" strategy that controls China's explosive growth and prevents the emergence of an economic or military rival. The so called "Putin Plan" for vast economic integration is a direct threat to Washington's dream of maintaining its dominant position in the global economy. If successfully implemented, the Putin Plan will greatly accelerate the pace of imperial decline.

So far, I don't see any indication that Washington knows how to deal with this threat. ← Did Trump Scrap the Nuke's Deal to Pay ... Category: Foreign Policy Tags: China , Donald Trump , North Korea Recently from Author

Related Pieces by Author Of Related Interest Reasons Trump Breaks Nuclear-Sanction Agreement with Iran, Declares Trade War with China, and Meets with North Korea James Petras 46 Comments Reply Trump Did NOT Convince Kim to Ditch His Nukes. China Did Mike Whitney 134 Comments Reply Herding Hamsters and Other Cosmic Reflections Fred Reed 101 Comments Reply ← Did Trump Scrap the Nuke's Deal to Pay ... Hide 56 Comments Leave a Comment 56 Comments to "Foreign Policy Insiders Try to Scuttle Trump-Kim Nukes Deal" Commenters to Ignore Commenters to ignore (one per line)

Save ListCancel ...to Follow Commenters to follow (one per line)

Save ListCancel Endorsed Only Trim Comments? []

Carlton Meyer , Website May 18, 2018 at 4:17 am GMT

North Korea has been trying to cut a peace deal for decades, but our Deep State blocks all such efforts. I documented the wasteful and aggressive efforts of US Army generals to thwart peace in a series of articles. This was the latest:

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

Taxpayers are shocked to read what's been going on this past decade to stop peace and profit from warmongering!

Monty Ahwazi , May 18, 2018 at 4:59 am GMT
The MIC will be under tremendous amount of pressure from the American people if it didn't create phony and perceived enemies by propaganda! The MIC knows that if it didn't do that the military budget will erode over time meaning less money in the MIC pockets!
renfro , May 18, 2018 at 5:35 am GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Very informative and disgusting.
Thanks.

MEFOBILLS , May 18, 2018 at 5:47 am GMT
So far, I don't see any indication that Washington knows how to deal with this threat.

America pivots away from Atlantacist doctrine.

America turns away from finance capitalism (state sponsored usury) and resurrects the "American System" of Peshine Smith and Henry Clay. The American System is internal growth using Industrial Capitalism, where Treasury Money (not corporate bank credit) channels into the commons and industry.

In other words, America resurrects Constitutional Money and Industry. This type of economy was at the birth of the U.S., especially in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania colonies.

America can make all it needs internally, it doesn't need Atlantacist "ship-borne" movement of minerals and goods. America is a continental country like Russia with everything it needs.

Island countries like U.K. need "Atlantacist" doctrine to control the world. BIZWOG (Britain and Israel World Government) is the core of Atlantacism, not the U.S.

Oligarchs in America who benefit from the Atlantacist system will have to be ejected by force. A good parasite makes its host think said parasite is beneficial.

jilles dykstra , May 18, 2018 at 6:16 am GMT
I suppose Kim understand quite well that giving away his atomic bombs and missiles is the beginning of his end like Saddam and Ghadaffi.
In the good old days deposed dictators went to their south of France mansions and died in their beds.
The USA changed this custom.
This change does have repercussions.
A USA at crossroads, dominating the world or not, causes much uncertainty in the world.
Anon [178] Disclaimer , May 18, 2018 at 6:54 am GMT
The same kind of thing happened back during the Cuban Missile Crisis: elements of the government attempted to provoke the Soviets into attacking American reconnaissance aircraft so they'd have an excuse to fire back and invade.

Bolton's comments about "Libya" were a transparent attempt to scuttle the deal. He knew that the N. Korean leadership had watched the tapes of Qaddafi being killed; N. Korea directly stated that Libya was the reason for them developing nukes, so Bolton knew how the comments would be taken. He was hoping to sneak them by unnoticed. Meanwhile, neocons like William Krystal say "we need to be willing to walk away from negotiations." That's what they are hoping for.

Anonymous [392] Disclaimer , May 18, 2018 at 8:06 am GMT
Interesting.

I think the author might be saying that Kim might cut out Trump from all de-nuke talks and instead go around him.

In this case, Kim would ignore Trump and the US altogether and turn his nukes over to China. China and Russia would give security guarantees to N Korea which is worth a million times more than a US guarantee and China and Russia have a clear incentive to back it up.

Meanwhile the US and especially Trump would look bad. Trump would be viewed as having a Nobel prize within his grasp but bungling it at the goal line while letting China and Russia steal his thunder.

The US, if they tried any funny business, would look really bad. What could they do amyway?

Ironically, it could actually be Kim that gets the Nobel prize instead. Lol if it goes down that way.

animalogic , May 18, 2018 at 8:25 am GMT
Great article.
As per usual, msm misrepresents reality of Nth Korea's reaction to military drills: no mention of the added full compliment of strategic air force. Failure to properly explain the meaning of "Libyia solution". No wonder the Nth questions the competence & good faith of the Sth.
I believe its time for China-Russia etc to come out of the shadows: how can the Nth agree to discarding its nuclear shield without security guarantees from its friends ? That the US can't be trusted with its enemies -- OR its friends is obvious to all but the self-interested & the fanatic.
jacques sheete , May 18, 2018 at 10:15 am GMT
Here, no doubt is the problem as the rulers of the USA see it.

[Kim] wants an end to the hostilities so he can move ahead with a regional economic-integration plan that will draw the two Koreas closer together, end the North's isolation, strengthen the North's economy, and pave the way for prosperity.

None of that must be allowed to happen unless it's under the authority of our jealous commercial and political G-ds. It's essentially the big reason for all US involvement in foreign wars since 1898 if not earlier. Probably the big reason for the Lincoln's War of Northern Bankers Against Southern Planters as well.

What was needed to make the world safe for peace, [the old liberals] argued, was to implement economic freedom, free trade and goodwill among the nations, and popular government. I want to stress the importance of both of these requirements: free trade at home and in international relations, and democracy. The fateful error of our age has consisted in the fact that it dropped the first of these requirements, namely free trade, and emphasized only the second one, political democracy. In doing so, people ignored the fact that democracy cannot be permanently maintained when free enterprise, free trade, and economic freedom do not exist.

-Ludwig von Mises, Economic Causes of War

https://www.mises.org/profile/ludwig-von-mises

I would also add that people ignored the fact that peace cannot be permanently maintained when free enterprise, free trade, and economic freedom do not exist and I believe that's the point Mises was making. Neither can peace be maintained when we allow ignorant crackpots to pilot the ship, and that's what "we've" been doing since the institution of the so called "democratic republic."

Also, I'm not a huge fan of democracy, especially for a large state, and there should be no large states especially world government. All states claim a monopoly on force and all inevitably lead to political and economic slavery. They are not compatible with either freedom or peace.

jacques sheete , May 18, 2018 at 10:20 am GMT
Oops, I should have read further before posting my comment, above.

Mike already made the point and is spot on, here

He has decided to participate in a common economic space that allows commerce to flourish without the bulk of the profits to be siphoned off by the voracious western corporations. Is it any wonder why powerful members of the foreign policy establishment want to torpedo the plan?

jacques sheete , May 18, 2018 at 10:41 am GMT
@Anon

The same kind of thing happened back during the Cuban Missile Crisis: elements of the government attempted to provoke the Soviets into attacking American reconnaissance aircraft so they'd have an excuse to fire back and invade.

True, and there is a pattern.

" this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions "

Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Time
Mr. Rothbard was an American Jew and an historian of the very highest caliber.

http://mises.org/daily/2592

Nowadays we can add Saddam, Qadaffi, Kim, Putin, and others to the list.

Renoman , May 18, 2018 at 10:43 am GMT
America is simply evil. Evil evil evil.
The Alarmist , May 18, 2018 at 11:07 am GMT

"So far, I don't see any indication that Washington knows how to deal with this threat."

Sure they do: They plan to act like the proverbial chess-playing pigeon, wings-a-flapping, knocking down all the pieces, and shitting all over the board.

They will keep emphasizing the grave threat the Norks pose to the American people, they will ratchet up sanctions on the nations that "prop up" the Nork regime by trade (though they will continue to be lenient to South Korea as long as it buys US arms), they will start locking those other nations out of SWIFT, etc., and ultimately they will strike to decapitate the Norks, even if they have to go it alone. They are banking on the belief that the Chinese and South Koreans will stand down in the face of all of our awesomeness.

Cold N. Holefield , Website May 18, 2018 at 11:59 am GMT
It's not the Libya Plan , it's the Chile Plan . Trump promises Kim he can be Dictator for Life , like Putin and Trump if he has his druthers and Xi too, if he promises to drop his Nuke Program .

This is where the world is headed. The Post Carbon World is to be divvied up into Fiefdoms run by Oligarch Tyrants and they all belong to the Consortium known as The Worldwide Oligarch Network . A Confederacy of Oligarchic Fiefdoms .

In otherwords, a giant Global Plantation of sorts.

Here's yah julip, Massa Hawkins, all minty & frosty, jus like you like it!!

Get accustomed to saying that or something akin to it because it's coming to a theater near you in the not-too-distant future.

Cold N. Holefield , Website May 18, 2018 at 12:12 pm GMT

See what's going on? Kim has been asked to choose between prosperity or nukes, and he has wisely chosen prosperity. He has decided to participate in a common economic space that allows commerce to flourish without the bulk of the profits to be siphoned off by the voracious western corporations. Is it any wonder why powerful members of the foreign policy establishment want to torpedo the plan?

Stop with this nonsense. Yes, you're correct, Kim doesn't want that prosperity siphoned off by Western Corporations . Why? Because he and his cronies will be doing the siphoning, thank you very much. Let's not paint this tyrant as a Goody Two Shoes , because he's not.

Fyi, my criticism of Kim doesn't mean I agree with threatening North Korea or that I agree with how the Western Foreign Policy Establishment has treated North Korea historically. What it means is, there are no Good Guys in this equation. They're ALL Bad Guys .

Say Goodnight To The Bad Guy

Sean , May 18, 2018 at 12:27 pm GMT
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/Trump-backs-off-China-tariff-threat-as-China-pumps-money-into-a-Trump-family-project_168320640

The biggest obstacle Donald Trump is going to face in his upcoming negotiations with Kim Jong-un, is not Kim's unwillingness to abandon his nuclear weapons program, but resistance from powerful elements in the foreign policy establishment of China who will use Trump's desire for a foriegn policy success to weaken the trade agreement so China can continue deindustrialising Ameraica and the rest of the West .

Kim put Trump in the land of the promised, then went back on his word to get Trump to concede on trade, and of course Trump is doing just that. The deep state will sell out the long term interests of their country in the name of security consideration. Politicians want to get that foreign policy coup, which the North Koreans are perennially dangling. They Koreans will never give up the nukes that China effectively gave them unless the Chinese order them to, and that will only happen isTrump completely sells out the US on trade. The US would not dare attack North Korea and risk Chinese military intervention AGAIN. China is holding all the cards unless Trump just refuses to play diplomatic dupe to decepticon Korea (north and south for South Korea also wants access to the Western market) . Korean diplomacy basically consists of giving America false hope. The best thing is would be to leave North Koreato stew in their own juice, and impose tariffs on China, Japan and South Korea too. They are all aggressor states.

How courteous is the Japanese;
He always says, "Excuse it, please."
He climbs into his neighbor's garden,
And smiles, and says, "I beg your pardon";
He bows and grins a friendly grin,
And calls his hungry family in;
He grins, and bows a friendly bow;
"So sorry, this my garden now."

Ogden Nash,The Japanese (1938)

DESERT FOX , May 18, 2018 at 12:38 pm GMT
Trump is a puppet of the Zionists who are the controllers of every facet of the U.S. gov and these warmongers want the America people kept in a world of continual hysteria and war to further the Zionist goal of a NWO.

The zionist warmongers created the wars in the mideast by Israels attack on 911 and blaming it on the muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq and thus started the bombing and invasion of these countries and then the zionists included Syria and followed their plan of regime change in 7 countries , all for the greater Israeli goal and their NWO goal.

If anyone doubts that Israel and their zionist dual citizens control the U.S. gov , just remember they did 911 and got away with it.

EliteCommInc. , May 18, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
Assuming all of this isn't merely "drama queening" for the nobel prize gambit. And I have my suspicions that it is.

An article that posits as major contention a Nobel peace prize for this president is not going to taken seriously by me.

As for the joint exercises -- and the President's ignorance, that's a very hard sell. No sale at all. At this juncture that President Moon Jae-in did not put a halt of a postponement on the matter leaves his decision making in doubt. Certainly there are those in S. Korea and the US who prefer to maintain the status quo. But neither President Trump nor President Moon get to cry foul play by their subordinates on this question.

A nobel peace prize -- good grief.

bob sykes , May 18, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT
@Anonymous

This would work if the Russians and Chinese made their security guarantees visible by putting some token ground forces in the DMZ.

EliteCommInc. , May 18, 2018 at 12:53 pm GMT
The US has shrifted North Korea before on the question of disarmament.

This all smells like Kabuki theater of sorts. My subordinates made me do it in this case does not wok for me. -- laugh. Given the lean on the use of force, I suspect that the admin wanted to make a show of force to the point and if I buy any this -- it backfired.

Z-man , May 18, 2018 at 1:00 pm GMT
Yeah the Deep State. Isn't it ridiculous, even Trumps own advisers are sidetracking him. Trump and the Chinese president should make a grand bargain . Denuclearize Korea, help them unify make a 100 mile wide demilitarized zone against the Chinese border and reduce and keep US forces well south of the current DMZ or get them out completely. Let the Koreans, mostly the South pay, for the unification.
Seamus Padraig , May 18, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
@Anon

N. Korea directly stated that Libya was the reason for them developing nukes, so Bolton knew how the comments would be taken.

Really? But didn't the Norks proliferate back in the mid-1990s, years before Khaddaffi cut his disarmament deal with Washington?

Seamus Padraig , May 18, 2018 at 1:20 pm GMT

Think about it: Trump gets the nukes and the Nobel Prize while Kim gets a lousy piece of paper with Washington's guarantees for security. That's a great deal for Trump but not a very good deal for Kim.

I'm sure there's something missing from your formula, Mike. In order for this deal to make sense from a N. Korean perspective, they would have to have been extended security guarantees by China, Russia, or perhaps both. Washington's promises aren't worth jack. Go ask Iran. Hell, go ask Libya.

Otherwise, spot on!

anon [217] Disclaimer , May 18, 2018 at 2:03 pm GMT
Bolton is doing his job, being the neocon mouthpiece. His bosses figured out that in order for NK to denuke, the US might have to demilitarize in S.Korea altogether, while China will reap the benefit of modernizing NK. Neocons need to constraint China as much as possible. They do not accept a multi-polar world.

Trump again shows himself as the weak minded fool controlled by neocons. He is blaming China for this fall out, instead of his own generals for staging the unnecessary military exercises and John Bolton for his maniacal zeal to create trouble the world over.

Mike P , May 18, 2018 at 2:04 pm GMT
@Sean

China who will use Trump's desire for a foreign policy success to weaken the trade agreement so China can continue deindustrialising Ameraica and the rest of the West.

Any kind of trade agreement can be reneged upon at any time; so, extorting concessions on trade cannot be a long-term strategy. China isn't "deindustrialising Ameraica and the rest of the West" – the West is doing it all to itself; and it doesn't really affect all Western countries: the industry in South Korea, Germany, and Taiwan is humming along just fine. Within Europe for example the common currency has done much more damage in this regard than the Chinese.

It is clear that China doesn't see trade with the U.S. as the foundation of future prosperity, but instead focuses on trade with everyone else , particularly in Eurasia and Africa; kind of like a reverse Monroe doctrine. As part of that strategy, they want to push the U.S. out of Korea, and they are probably quite prepared to cut their losses if the Americans choose to respond by severing financial and trade relations. It is very clear that the U.S. are unable and unwilling to engage in honest dealings with anyone anyway.

Mike P , May 18, 2018 at 2:07 pm GMT
@bob sykes

This would work if the Russians and Chinese made their security guarantees visible by putting some token ground forces in the DMZ.

The U.S. MIC would be in raptures if that happened. Overnight, the military budget would double again.

Mike P , May 18, 2018 at 2:14 pm GMT
@Seamus Padraig

In order for this deal to make sense from a N. Korean perspective, they would have to have been extended security guarantees by China, Russia, or perhaps both. Washington's promises aren't worth jack.

Precisely, and they likely already have obtained those guarantees (whatever they may be worth). The North Koreans (in coordination with China and Russia) are trying to trade their nukes for a complete U.S. withdrawal from South Korea.

Anonymous [392] Disclaimer , May 18, 2018 at 2:15 pm GMT
@Cold N. Holefield

So what. Better his countrymen profit than the guy holding a gun to your head.

Name me a country that doesn't practice cronyism. You cant. So your objection is a moot point.

c matt , May 18, 2018 at 2:20 pm GMT
convince Kim that it was pointless to trust Washington.

Because Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, and just about everything else the US has done was not enough. If anyone is stupid enough to trust Washington, they deserve what's coming to them.

c matt , May 18, 2018 at 2:23 pm GMT
basic security guarantees

Hahahahahaha – used toilet paper would be more valuable than the paper any US "basic security guarantee" was written on.

anonymous [478] Disclaimer , May 18, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
It's possible that Kim's own military might force him to pull out of this de-nuke proposal. They'd be giving up their one major deterrent in return for promises of riches which may never be delivered. Their fears of being double-crossed are grounded in reality. Also, a Korea that's unified may not be desired by other countries. It might become too much of a regional power and want to ease the US out. The calculation may be that it's best to continue to see it divided and at loggerheads with each other. What's good for the Koreans may not be considered good for other interested parties.
AnonFromTN , May 18, 2018 at 2:50 pm GMT
The biggest obstacle Trump will face is non-trustworthiness of the US. One agreement with the NK was already reached more than 10 years ago, and the US pulled out of it under Bush Jr. Now the US pulled out of the Iran deal. Basically, the US consistently demonstrates that it is useless to come to any agreements with it, as it cannot be trusted to abide by them. That's yet another example that no enemy did as much damage to the US as its own governments (all of them).
jacques sheete , May 18, 2018 at 3:29 pm GMT
@Cold N. Holefield

They're ALL Bad Guys.

Yup.

Ol' Ben commented to the effect that scum floats to the top in politics and bad government. He should have added that "bad government" is a redundancy, since all of them are all bad too.

jack daniels , May 18, 2018 at 3:41 pm GMT
The best guarantee of security, of course, is to have a nuclear deterrent. A US promise not to attack would be a poor substitute. America's main concern is that NK not sell arms to Iran or Syria, thereby menacing Israel. If Kim formally agrees to that, maybe we can make a deal. It's largely up to China, since we don't want to fight them in order to get rid of Kim.

Bolton's role may well be to scare Kim. He's pretty scary.

jack daniels , May 18, 2018 at 3:56 pm GMT
@Sean

In general the bad guys are telling Trump to bargain away the MAGA agenda in return for traditional Republican goals, e.g. tax cuts for the rich and anything that is good for Israel, such as an NK that can't sell WMD to Iran. Since Trump is all too willing to go along. The RINOs and the Big Donors always win because money talks louder than votes, or that's the way professional politicians insist on looking at it.

YourBunnyWrote , May 18, 2018 at 4:12 pm GMT
Zerohedge is reporting the B-52s have been withdrawn from the exercise.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-18/us-scrapped-b-52-military-drill-south-korea-after-kim-jong-un-complained

mike k , May 18, 2018 at 4:15 pm GMT
Beautifully done Mike W! Your writing is so clear and compact. The question remains as to how far the US will go to stop the peace and prosperity process from unfolding in Korea? Are the neocons crazy enough to attack N. Korea? We can only stay tuned
Sean , May 18, 2018 at 4:57 pm GMT
@Mike P

Any kind of trade agreement can be reneged upon at any time; so, extorting concessions on trade cannot be a long-term strategy.

North Korea has been using its on/off nuke program to trick the US into concessions for decades now. Trump is just the latest.

https://moneyweek.com/kim-jong-un-north-korea-wavers-over-nuclear-talks/

"Welcome, President Trump, to the infuriating, indecipherable game of North Korean nuclear diplomacy," says CNN's Stephen Collinson. An "unexpected series of threats" has "threatened to nix next month's planned summit in Singapore between Trump and North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un". Kim lashed out at US-South Korea military drills, cancelled a high-level meeting with South Korean officials, and warned that there was "little point" in the US summit if the White House was going to require its nuclear arsenal to be dismantled "up front".

Korean diplomacy is underrated As Mearshimer says, following the treaty of "Kang-wah (February 1876), which opened three Korean ports to Japan . Neither Japan nor Russia was able to gain the upper hand in Korea, mainly because Korean policymakers skillfully played the two great powers off against each other ". Eventually the Russia-Japan war resulted and you could make an argument that WW1 (and even 2) stemmed from the Russian deterrent being removed from the international equation in 1905.

China proved to the US it would not stand for North Korea being crushed, and the US would not dare test that again. In 2000, China openly threatened the US mainland with a nuclear strike in any war over Taiwan declaring independence.

China isn't "deindustrialising Ameraica and the rest of the West" – the West is doing it all to itself; and it doesn't really affect all Western countries: the industry in South Korea, Germany, and Taiwan

China is deindustrialising the West , and Germany is deindustrialsing Europe while being deindustrialize itself by China . The only difference is that the process started later in Germany and there is more resistance. The EU single market is a barrier to non EU trade and is about creating a Germany dominated area. the capital goods China uses are bought from Germany in a great many cases.

South Korea, Taiwan and Japan are happy to have the North Korean nuke menace ,

https://www.unz.com/efingleton/north-korea-why-trump-should-kims-feet-to-the-fire/

North Korean nuclear distraction has long had unwelcome ramifications way beyond military policy. Repeatedly since the Clinton era, it has cramped Washington's style on international trade, for instance. And trade, of course, is absolutely central to the new administration's program.

It is fair to say that all the more important East Asian nations have a vested interest in exaggerating the North Korean threat. The more terrifying North Korea is made to appear, the more desperately Washington will seek out advice and help from China, Japan, and South Korea. That tends to ensure that trade talks with these mercantilist nations are consigned to the backburner.

Moreover at times of tension, Pentagon officials inevitably take charge. As the East Asians have gleefully realized for generations, the Pentagon is a remarkably soft touch on trade, and in return for the merest hortatory support for its military objectives will pull the rug from under the most carefully conceived plans drawn up elsewhere in Washington to get East Asia to open up.,/b>

The business class of the West love the returns they get in China, they are not going to switch to investing in the West, but rather will wait out the era of Trump, whereupon the investing in China will resume apace. It won't be possible to slow the growth of China down and so America will be eclipsed. The military won't be much use then, because China will have bigger and better toys.

Per/Norway , May 18, 2018 at 5:12 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

informative, thnx:)

EliteCommInc. , May 18, 2018 at 5:15 pm GMT
Thee is a logical hole in the article that I was going to leave alone -- but as yet no one else noted it, I will.

The article pushes some press for a nobel peace prize *that really bugs me -- I voted and have defended this president, even being called a moral reprobate and utterly unchristian in doing so.

Despite the press for this so called prize. The author never states what the president contributed to the peace process the than the president's contend of "massive pressure." But in this the article athe cleanly indicates no such pressure had any effect. If the pressure failed, I am unclear why thee is any talk at all about nobel awards.

This president has done one monumental shift in our North Korean policy -- open and direct talks including both heads of state and staff. While long over due and laudable -- one of the jobs of the white house is manage policy to our advantage that taps down on the use of force. It doesn't take a genius IQ to figure out direct talks is a key step in that process. And as such requires no special recognition. I took a look at why President Roosevelt received a novel peace prize -- and if that is the model neither Presidents on the this or the previous administration should be so honored.

If they have removed the bombers, it's a double fault. The response should have been.

We conducted these exercises routinely as preparation for the unfortunate worst case scenario. And while we are disappointed our routine has been misinterpreted -- It is our intention to proceed forward in peace negotiations.

deception fo deception's sake is a foul practice.

Sean , May 18, 2018 at 5:21 pm GMT
@jack daniels

North Korea's sudden nuclear and ICBM twin leap is a function of how useful China finds it to have Trump asking them for help. North Korea does nothing on its own account.

The smart money wants to be in China that is where the big returns are, so business is waiting out Trump. Subordinating the well being of the nation's population to profit is called economic rationality. The alternative is called fascism. Trump does not have the popular support to go against economic rationality.

AnonFromTN , May 18, 2018 at 5:31 pm GMT
@Sean

Toys don't win wars, people do. In Afghanistan, the US and NATO troops with all their fancy toys are scared to stick their noses out of the bases, whereas Taliban with medieval mindset and automatic rifles roam the country freely.

Mike P , May 18, 2018 at 5:39 pm GMT

China is deindustrialising the West The business class of the West love the returns they get in China, they are not going to switch to investing in the West

So whose fault is it – China's, or the Western capitalists? Pick one.

Germany is deindustrialsing Europe while being deindustrialized itself by China. The EU single market is a barrier to non EU trade and is about creating a Germany dominated area. the capital goods China uses are bought from Germany in a great many cases.

The EU common market as such wasn't a problem; as long as each European country had its own currency that was allowed to float, the trade imbalance problem was mitigated. It was the Euro, which was foisted on Germany by the French as a price for their consent to German reunification, that caused the trade imbalances within Europe to explode.

But with or without the Euro, Germany's manufacturing sector will survive and thrive. China's labour cost advantage over Germany will vanish, just like Japan's did. Just wait and see.

republic , May 18, 2018 at 5:46 pm GMT
@Anon

Bolton's remarks sound like an updated version of the Melian dialogue
When Athens gave Melos an ultimatum during the Peloponnesian War.

Sean , May 18, 2018 at 6:44 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

Cannon fodder wins wars. The first born tend to be cleverer and less likely to fight because they get and inherit the best of everything (including first place in the womb).. There are a lot of big families in Afghanistan. Many young men of the burgeoning population are second sons and are thus reckless. The Taliban roam and die freely, but there are a lot of them growing up and stepping into the place of the dead,.

JVC , May 18, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
the Trump/Kim meeting was not instituted by the USG. China, Russia, and SK have all been in negotiation with Kim, and they all realize that the USG word is essentially worthless. I suspect Kim has agreed with his neighbors to de-nuclearize in return for some robust security agreements along with the opening of trade in the region. The U.S. will need to think hard and long about doing anything to disrupt what is essentially a regional policy shift. I think Trump has been invited along on the ride just to stroke his and the USG's sense of self importance. The world is changing, and the future lies in the east. Unfortunately, too many of those behind the curtain controlling USG foreign policy are too blinded by their arrogance and hubris to realize that, and instead of welcoming a peaceful multi-centered world, will continue on their chosen path of aggression, demands and sanctions until we become the isolated one.
EliteCommInc. , May 18, 2018 at 7:12 pm GMT
@JVC

Since President Moon Jae-in has been working in this matte with North Korea for more than twenty yeas, I find it hard to believe he intends to allow an opportunity to slip by based on training routine exercises.

Sean , May 18, 2018 at 7:43 pm GMT
@Mike P

China's, or the Western capitalists?

Trump was elected to punish both, so a lot of Americans apparently blame both.

The EU common market as such wasn't a problem; as long as each European country had its own currency that was allowed to float, the trade imbalance problem was mitigated.

At the cost of throwing people out a job, which only worked when people knew things would eventually get better. Things are not going to get better for the lower orders of West, they are good and getting better for the financial elite and China.

But with or without the Euro, Germany's manufacturing sector will survive and thrive. China's labour cost advantage over Germany will vanish, just like Japan's did. Just wait and see .

China is 10 times larger than Japan, hence the economies of scale are probably going to become more salient than labour costs (there is a new factory complex in China making laptops that has a bigger workforce than the British Army). German business are going to do well out of China's rise. American business have no objection to China making everything and America being supreme in financial services. Unfortunately the country would become weaker than China while a substantial part of the population became increasingly disgusted with their lot in life (in real terms worse of than their parents). The majority ethnic population and state institutions must object to a policy that creates ever increasing numbers of unemployed and ignores state power for the profit of a minority. Therefore the people (there a lot of them) and the deep state are diverging from the business community–increasingly seen as an fifth column with interest in destroying the country as a nation-state. But nation states are a thing with emergent properties not found in their parts. Hence untrammeled capitalism with money sloshing around the world wrecking states and the people who make up nations is a fundamentally unstable system that leads to ethnic nationalism and militarism. The deep nation-state is nothing you can put your finger on. but at bay it will turn on the business elite and try to wrest control from them.

Art , May 18, 2018 at 7:45 pm GMT
@Anon

Meanwhile, neocons like William Krystal say "we need to be willing to walk away from negotiations." That's what they are hoping for.

Sorry but the Jew's trash talking days are over. There is NO there there!

The Jew is losing his power. Truth is starting to gain strength. The world's attitude is turning away from Jew coercion, through their control of the US government.

Jew power is a function of US government power. And US power is losing out, all around the world.

Trump's overbearing, tuff talking sing-song, is losing its steam. Bolton's big mouth has complicated the NKorea nuke deal. He illustrates to the world, the dishonesty of the US foreign policy under Jew control.

The Israeli embassy deal was a total embarrassment. Innocent blood was flowing as Jarrad and Ivanka were speaking their hollow words. Gaza innocence won the day.

Europe is fighting to preserve the Iran nuke deal. They are passing laws to protect their businesses from US sanctions. China and Russia are stepping up with deals to counter Trump's Jew favoring sanctions.

Jew led America is getting no respect.

Think Peace -- Do No Harm -- Maintain Hope -- Art

AnonFromTN , May 18, 2018 at 8:39 pm GMT
@JVC

The world does not revolve around the US any more. The US elites still did not realize that – they degenerated too much after 1991. However, some of the US vassals are even more deluded than the US elites. Grown up Europeans (like Germany, France, and even the UK) are learning, judging by their refusal to follow the US lead on the Iranian deal, which is totally illegal from the point of view of the international law (when there was one, before it was repeatedly trampled by the US). But the pathetic inconsequential poodles, like Poland, Ukraine, and Baltic vaudeville states, refuse to learn. More fools them.

Anonymous [400] Disclaimer , May 18, 2018 at 10:06 pm GMT
@Sean

China is deindustrialising the West , and Germany is deindustrialsing Europe while being deindustrialize itself by China . The only difference is that the process started later in Germany and there is more resistance. The EU single market is a barrier to non EU trade and is about creating a Germany dominated area. the capital goods China uses are bought from Germany in a great many cases.

How is China deindustrializing Germany if the EU is a barrier to non EU trade? You don't see many US, Japanese, or Chinese goods in Europe.

Realist , May 18, 2018 at 10:10 pm GMT

Trump's objectives are completely clear. He wants to win the Nobel Prize and he wants to be recognized as a foreign policy genius

Trumps chances of being recognized as any kind of genius by intelligent people are slim and none.

That's not the deal. That's never been the deal. No one on the North Korean side ever said that Washington was going to get something for nothing. And it's not going to happen either. Kim is looking for a tradeoff, a decommissioning of his nuclear weapons in exchange for basic security guarantees. That's the deal.

If Kim has any intelligence at all he will demand full denuclearization of the Korean peninsula (South Korea has had US nuclear weapons stationed there for decades) and removal of all US military personnel and material.
US guarantees are worthless.

Anonymous [400] Disclaimer , May 18, 2018 at 10:32 pm GMT
@Sean

North Korea's demands are pretty clear: a formal end to the Korean War and a peace treaty with the US, and the removal of the US military from the Korean peninsula.

These demands are supported by China and many South Koreans. They're opposed by Japan and some South Korean conservatives. I don't think your notion that China, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan are all aligned on the North Korea issue is true.

If the US wanted to satisfy most of the parties here, and satisfy the isolationists and anti-foreign policy adventurers that supported Trump, then obviously the US would agree to North Korea's demands. This would also, by the way, satisfy Russia. You would only upset Japan and some South Korean hardliners.

So why doesn't the US make a deal that agrees to NK's demands, satisfies most of the parties involved and many Trump supporters and Americans? Clearly Trump, being an astute negotiator and businessman with an instinct for what people like and is popular, is inclined towards such a deal. Obviously what's holding the US back from such a deal are American foreign policy hawks and the deep state, who want to maintain the US military presence globally.

Rabbit , May 18, 2018 at 10:43 pm GMT
Kim's laughing his ass off. Americans are so stoopid. What makes anyone think NK will go out of it's way to get along with the US? Why would they? Kim's doing just fine and he has Trump as jester to amuse him. I'm sure he's enjoying the hell out of this.
Trump's fans really thought he had the Nobel sewed up. That's really funny. What's funnier is they think he's helping them.
All of these morons ripe for milking. I should have become a preacher and had an easy, rich life.
EliteCommInc. , May 18, 2018 at 11:24 pm GMT
"If the US wanted to satisfy most of the parties here, and satisfy the isolationists and anti-foreign policy adventurers that supported Trump, then obviously the US would agree to North Korea's demands. This would also, by the way, satisfy Russia. You would only upset Japan and some South Korean hardliners."

As someone who supports this admin and the agenda that was advanced during the campaign, you description is fa afield from why I voted. I am not an isolationist, though the county could use some minding its own affairs for a time. Nor was my vote premised on being anti-foreign policy. In fact, I have never head of anyone being anti-foreign policy. A policy less reliant on the use of force as its main thrust was and is the issue.
,

ohmy , May 19, 2018 at 12:10 am GMT
@MEFOBILLS

How to get the banksters out of their position. It seems they have printed enough cash to buy everyone. Top to bottom.

[May 18, 2018] A Trump Doctrine for Singapore and Beyond by Pat Buchanan

Trump acts as a bully. That might work in some cases, but probably not in NK case...
Notable quotes:
"... North Korea wants a step-by-step approach, each concession by Pyongyang to be met by a U.S. concession. And Bolton sitting beside Trump, and across the table from Kim Jong Un in Shanghai, may be inhibiting. ..."
"... If we expected Kim to commit at Singapore to Bolton's demand for "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization," and a swift follow-through, we were deluding ourselves. ..."
May 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

After Pyongyang railed this week that the U.S.-South Korean Max Thunder military drills were a rehearsal for an invasion of the North, and imperiled the Singapore summit, the Pentagon dialed them back. The B-52 exercises alongside F-22 stealth fighters were canceled. But Pyongyang had other objections.

Sunday, NSC adviser John Bolton spoke of a "Libyan model" for the North's disarmament, referring to Moammar Gadhafi's surrender of all his weapons of mass destruction in 2004. The U.S. was invited into Libya to pick them up and cart them off, whereupon sanctions were lifted.

As Libya was subsequently attacked by NATO and Gadhafi lynched, North Korea denounced Bolton and all this talk of the "Libyan model" of unilateral disarmament.

North Korea wants a step-by-step approach, each concession by Pyongyang to be met by a U.S. concession. And Bolton sitting beside Trump, and across the table from Kim Jong Un in Shanghai, may be inhibiting.

What was predictable and predicted has come to pass.

If we expected Kim to commit at Singapore to Bolton's demand for "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization," and a swift follow-through, we were deluding ourselves.

At Singapore, both sides will have demands, and both will have to offer concessions, if there is to be a deal.

What does Kim Jong Un want?

An end to U.S. and South Korean military exercises and sanctions on the North, trade and investment, U.S. recognition of his regime, a peace treaty, and the eventual removal of U.S. bases and troops.

He is likely to offer an end to the testing of nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, no transfer of nuclear weapons or strategic missiles to third powers, a drawdown of troops on the DMZ, and the opening of North Korea's borders to trade and travel.

As for his nuclear weapons and the facilities to produce them, these are Kim's crown jewels. These brought him to the attention of the world and the Americans to the table. These are why President Trump is flying 10,000 miles to meet and talk with him.

And, unlike Gadhafi, Kim is not going to give them up.

Assuming the summit comes off June 12, this is the reality Trump will face in Singapore: a North Korea willing to halt the testing of nukes and ICBMs and to engage diplomatically and economically.

As for having Americans come into his country, pick up his nuclear weapons, remove them and begin intrusive inspections to ensure he has neither nuclear bombs nor the means to produce, delive