| Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers | |
| May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) | |||||||
aThe mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military
industrial complex.
If you want to call it anything, you can call it the ‘military [industrial] media,’ The
military makes money by making war;
they buy the media to promote war... The military industrial media in the United States is depending
on being able to speak
to a captive audience of uninformed viewers… The military controls the media because they own them.-
John Bosnitch
Pseudoscience > Who Rules America
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
| Home | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 |
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
| Index | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 |
| 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 |
| "All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give
their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately,
the general population goes along with the idea... That's the issue that I've been exploring:
How did the Republic turn into the Empire ... and how does a democracy become a dictatorship?
" Star Wars filmmaker George Lucas |
 |
 |
 |
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
parrhesiastes on September 19, 2018 , · at 8:23 pm EST/EDT
Maybe the landing approach thesis works – experts in Russ aviation would know if Russ equivalent to(US/UK) AN/APS-13 aft approach radar, used since 1942 in a series of versions, was/is fitted to Il20 in question.Seems that anybody smart enough to build radar would fit tailradar in combat zone, and leave it on. Note actual radar may have been superseded by an infra red detector a question for experts. Has been long time since 1942, technical methods improve. And the search radars?
Ok, pilot, engineer, copilot are doing approach and busy and everybody else just being inattentive? F 16 were not tracked the entire time? Again, maybe. Radar works at 6000 feet and horizon still 152 km away F16 can't sneak up unseen fast but not that fast
I always maintain situational awareness in war zones, helps to live longer.
software of S200 can not target friendlies, system was is integrated.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
vot tak on September 19, 2018 , · at 1:00 pm EST/EDT
"Also, speaking of Syria: has anybody noticed that the agreement between Turkey and Russia has removed any justification for a US attack on Syria and that the Israelis have organized their latest little bloody stunt right after this deal was announced?"Larchmonter445 on September 19, 2018 , · at 1:21 pm EST/EDTExactly. The zionazis want Syria. They are activating all their options and working overtime to keep their proxies employed against Syria. If the zionazis cant take Syria, it means they don't get to have Lebanon either. It also means their attempt to wreck Iran and reduce it to a failed state is a non starter.
Syria is the keystone. The geography is a primary target for the destruction of ME. It has cultural and economic ties that bind most of the region. Destroying Syria is primary for US Hegemony and Israeli dominance.Anonius on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:06 pm EST/EDTBut Turkey, Iran, Iraq and now Russia stand in the way. With Hezbollah, Lebanon is joined to the alliance against the US-Israeli aggression. And strategically, Jordan will facilitate what it can to stabilize the region.
This alienation of Putin and the Russian military and people by Israel, the US, UK and France will long be remembered across the Motherland. Syria now more than ever is a land of sacrificed sons of Russia. The stakes are now eternal.
This is exactly the point. People, commentators, should never forget that about half of Israel's Jewish population are Russians (or used to be, I suspect dual citizens). These people have extended families in Russia. Putin knows what he is doing. He can not alienate people at home.Katherine on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:50 pm EST/EDTThe two preceding comments seem to be mutually exclusive, i .e., in direct contradiction:1. "This alienation of Putin and the Russian military and people by Israel,"
2. "This is exactly the point. People, commentators, should never forget that about half of Israel's Jewish population are Russians (or used to be, I suspect dual citizens). These people have extended families in Russia. Putin knows what he is doing. He can not alienate people at home."
But, "the point" in (1) seems, actually, to be the exact opposite.
So, has the incident alienated Russians from Israel? Or, can Russia not "afford" to be alienated from Israel because there are too many Russian Israelis?Or is it the other way around? That Russian Israelis will not stand for their government's treatment of Russia? Somehow I suspect that Russian/ex-Soviet Israelis won't give a flying eff about their govt's treatment of Russia, and the same goes for their relatives inside Russia. They hated the USSR and couldn't wait to get away. Why does Putin have to cater to the views of these emigres to Israel, Russian Israelis, or to their families back in Russia? How do the latter differ from Zionists in the USA who have dual loyaties?
BTW, it is my understanding that the USA paid for the resettlement of Soviet Jews in Israel in the eighties, not the USSR .
Katherine
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
Occasional Poster on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:00 pm EST/EDT
1.3 million Russians in Israel, are Russian jews, and are likely identify primarily as jewish.Their aims and concerns, are jewish ones. Their likely only concerns regarding Russia, are that Russia does not obstruct Israeli ambitions, and that the network of jewish influence in Russia does not diminish, but thrives. Their interest is for Russia to be another of Israel's golems, like the USA is.
I moot that true Russian interests, conflict with their own, and they will absolutely follow their own. Same as AIPAC in the USA, and equivalents everywhere else.
Their ancestral home country might be Russia, but I moot there is nothing Russian about them.
All my humble opinion. I stand to be corrected. Russia does not have a fifth column in Israel, it is the other way round.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
Bob on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:31 pm EST/EDT
Look, I'm not a military expert, but I have followed the events in the Middle East fairly closely for over 30 years. I, and many others, have stated repeatedly that Russia's clearly demonstrated unwillingness to use its military forces to protect Syria from Western and US strikes can only lead to disaster.Christian W on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:23 pm EST/EDTThe entire Russian policy in Syria has been confused and riddled with contradictions from the very beginning. The situation in 2015 was:
1. The Syrian government was on the verge of losing a war against jihadi forces.
2. Those jihadi forces were largely foreign and were organized, funded and directed by the
Anglo/zionists.
3. The Russians could not match the conventional forces that could be brought to bear in the region by the Anglo/zionists.
4. Any Russian intervention could only succeed if the Anglo/zionists were deterred from intervening directly by the presence of Russian forces and the fear of a wider war (that could go nuclear).Now given those four facts, which I presume nobody seriously disagrees with, the Russian operation in Syria was always based upon maintaining the fear in the minds of the military planners in Tel Aviv and Washington that any direct interference with Russian forces in Syria would mean war with Russia. This was the most important single job of the Russian forces in Syria maintaining the deterrent capability vis-a-vis the Anglo/zionists.
How do you maintain deterrence? You do so by enforcing your red lines EVERY TIME they are challenged. Russian inability to clearly define their red lines in Syria and to enforce those red lines each and every time they were tested has led us to a point where the Russians no longer have any credibility in Syria.
My crystal ball says that within the next 30 days, not only will the US massively strike the SAA and the Assad government, but that they will impose a no fly zone over all of Syria to ground the Russian and Syrian air forces. What will the Russians do in response? They will have a choice between war and defeat Everything they have done to this point, indicates that they will do whatever they need to do to avoid a direct military confrontation with the Anglo/zionist forces. Imagine if you were a military planner in Tel Aviv or Washington, how could you convince anyone that there was any credible threat that Russia would go to war over Syria?
You couldn't and hence we are now faced with the imminent threat of either an Anglo/zionist victory in Syria or WW3.
The Anglo-Zionists are losing in Syria. Russia, Syria and Iran are winning. That is why the ZioNazis are desperate and moving in themselves, now that their proxies have been defeated. There is no way the ZioNazis can impose a no-fly zone over Syria. If they start shooting at Russian jets the answer will come in the form of nuclear armed missiles. Israel will be taken out in a matter of minutes and made uninhabitable as it has no strategic depth. It does not even take nuclear missiles to achieve the destruction of Israel. If I were Israeli I would not be best pleased with the insane Netanyahu, but Israel at this point seems quite psychotic.Occasional Poster on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:25 pm EST/EDTThe Russian forces have a standing order to defend themselves with the strongest means available to any attack. Israel managed to create a situation where the fog of war made things less clear but Israel still attacked Russia directly. It is in Israel's and NATO's interest to confuse things in Syria to keep Russia from pursuing it's strategies to the end. It's only Idlib left now, once the remaining Jihadi proxies have been blown out of their holes (a matter of a few months, much less if Turkey lends a hand) the turn will then come to the turncoat Kurds in the East and they will be dealt with just like the jihadis were dealt with.
This is the scenario that is giving Israel and NATO fits, but they cannot stop it without going to war with Russia. Israel cannot possibly survive such a war, so they want to pull in NATO to do the dirty work while Israel itself sits it out on the sidelines. It won't work of course.
@ Bob,I am one of the armchair warriors, but hell I don't know, I could be wrong, and I sincerely hope that I am.
That said, I do understand the 'wait and see' logic. My only concern with it, is that if the slow and steady strategy is superior to enforcing red lines, then the problem is that the enemy is not stupid.They in turn will see that either a greater provocation is needed, else they need to find a new weak spot to poke.
Zog wants the Russians to fail, and Assad replaced by their puppet, really badly. They are not going to sit back and think 'dammit, we lost, out-smarted by those pesky Russians.'
Again, I hope to be wrong. But the nasties in ZOG HQ are as devious, nasty, and fanatical as they come. If plan A fails, plans B, C and D are lined up.
Big picture, the Shia crescent needs Iraq fully on board, and the yanks out. Then Russia (and Iran) has an uninterrupted air corridor to the theatre, and that doesn't rely on the ever unreliable Turkey..
Zog sees this too. I'm not aware that anybody really focuses on this, but Iraq is really the key. The Sunnis won't like it, but ISIS was their gambit, and it failed. If Iraq becomes free of US control, and joins the Shia Crescent, we will hear Zog's screams all over the world.
That's worth waiting for.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
Littlejohn on September 19, 2018 , · at 6:02 pm EST/EDT
I have to agree up to a point that this attack was a "full test of the EW capabilties of the western & Israel armies". This was not just an Israeli attack. Israel just supplied four attack jets. The French were (as Russia observed) firing missiles. British aircraft were high overhead providing surveillance and attack data. U.S. surveillance aircraft similar to the IL-20 are more or less full-time orbiting off the Lebanon/Syria coasts gathering data, probing electronic systems and providing aerial data link relays for the planes and ships below. We should all stop calling this an "Israeli attack". It was basically a NATO attack on Syria.It's evident that the Russian and Syrian forces were not prepared for such a combined attack as this.
NATO "won" overwhelmingly.
And this was just a "warmup" for the next, bigger attack to come. Russia must up it's game drastically or it's going to face a crushing defeat in the next attack.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
JJ on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:48 pm EST/EDT
"Israeli military delegation led by air force commander to travel to Moscow to share information on Il-20 plane crash.The Israeli military delegation led by Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin will travel to Moscow on September 20 with information about the crash of a Russian Il-20 reconnaissance aircraft off the Syrian coast that killed 15 military personnel, the IDF press service said Wednesday."
Will be interesting to see how or maybe if it correlates with Russian intelligence?
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
The entire Russian policy in Syria has been confused and riddled with contradictions from the very beginning. The situation in 2015 was:
1. The Syrian government was on the verge of losing a war against jihadi forces.
2. Those jihadi forces were largely foreign and were organized, funded and directed by the
Anglo/zionists.
3. The Russians could not match the conventional forces that could be brought to bear in the region by
the Anglo/zionists.
4. Any Russian intervention could only succeed if the Anglo/zionists were deterred from intervening
directly by the presence of Russian forces and the fear of a wider war (that could go nuclear).Now given those four facts, which I presume nobody seriously disagrees with, the Russian operation in Syria was always based upon maintaining the fear in the minds of the military planners in Tel Aviv and Washington that any direct interference with Russian forces in Syria would mean war with Russia. This was the most important single job of the Russian forces in Syria maintaining the deterrent capability vis-a-vis the Anglo/zionists.
How do you maintain deterrence? You do so by enforcing your red lines EVERY TIME they are challenged. Russian inability to clearly define their red lines in Syria and to enforce those red lines each and every time they were tested has led us to a point where the Russians no longer have any credibility in Syria.
My crystal ball says that within the next 30 days, not only will the US massively strike the SAA and the Assad government, but that they will impose a no fly zone over all of Syria to ground the Russian and Syrian air forces. What will the Russians do in response? They will have a choice between war and defeat Everything they have done to this point, indicates that they will do whatever they need to do to avoid a direct military confrontation with the Anglo/zionist forces. Imagine if you were a military planner in Tel Aviv or Washington, how could you convince anyone that there was any credible threat that Russia would go to war over Syria? You couldn't and hence we are now faced with the imminent threat of either an Anglo/zionist victory in Syria or WW3. Reply
Christian W on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:23 pm EST/EDT
The Anglo-Zionists are losing in Syria. Russia, Syria and Iran are winning. That is why the ZioNazis are desperate and moving in themselves, now that their proxies have been defeated. There is no way the ZioNazis can impose a no-fly zone over Syria. If they start shooting at Russian jets the answer will come in the form of nuclear armed missiles. Israel will be taken out in a matter of minutes and made uninhabitable as it has no strategic depth. It does not even take nuclear missiles to achieve the destruction of Israel. If I were Israeli I would not be best pleased with the insane Netanyahu, but Israel at this point seems quite psychotic.Occasional Poster on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:25 pm EST/EDTThe Russian forces have a standing order to defend themselves with the strongest means available to any attack. Israel managed to create a situation where the fog of war made things less clear but Israel still attacked Russia directly. It is in Israel's and NATO's interest to confuse things in Syria to keep Russia from pursuing it's strategies to the end. It's only Idlib left now, once the remaining Jihadi proxies have been blown out of their holes (a matter of a few months, much less if Turkey lends a hand) the turn will then come to the turncoat Kurds in the East and they will be dealt with just like the jihadis were dealt with.
This is the scenario that is giving Israel and NATO fits, but they cannot stop it without going to war with Russia. Israel cannot possibly survive such a war, so they want to pull in NATO to do the dirty work while Israel itself sits it out on the sidelines. It won't work of course.
@ Bob,I am one of the armchair warriors, but hell I don't know, I could be wrong, and I sincerely hope that I am.
That said, I do understand the 'wait and see' logic. My only concern with it, is that if the slow and steady strategy is superior to enforcing red lines, then the problem is that the enemy is not stupid.They in turn will see that either a greater provocation is needed, else they need to find a new weak spot to poke.
Zog wants the Russians to fail, and Assad replaced by their puppet, really badly. They are not going to sit back and think 'dammit, we lost, out-smarted by those pesky Russians.'
Again, I hope to be wrong. But the nasties in ZOG HQ are as devious, nasty, and fanatical as they come. If plan A fails, plans B, C and D are lined up.
Big picture, the Shia crescent needs Iraq fully on board, and the yanks out. Then Russia (and Iran) has an uninterrupted air corridor to the theatre, and that doesn't rely on the ever unreliable Turkey..
Zog sees this too. I'm not aware that anybody really focuses on this, but Iraq is really the key. The Sunnis won't like it, but ISIS was their gambit, and it failed. If Iraq becomes free of US control, and joins the Shia Crescent, we will hear Zog's screams all over the world.
That's worth waiting for.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
Woogs on September 19, 2018 , · at 1:39 pm EST/EDT
Which is why the provocations won't stop. Honestly, I don't see how Putin can think he can shrug them off and continue with the job at hand in Syria. He will try but Zion will continue to double-down.I believe the West has seen enough of their schemes foiled by Putin and his playing the long game. The strategy now is to take the long game from him. The advantage in this goes to the West as they can be as provocative as they want while Russia has to be careful not to be seen as an aggressor lest it wreck Nord Stream, Turk Stream and the thaw in relations with Germany.
Putin has sounded conciliatory, maybe even weak in some eyes. He did, however, note that Russia's attitude towards this incident is expressed in the MoD statement, which is noticeably less conciliatory.
Perhaps that, along with some concrete actions (I favor a limited no-fly zone), will deter outside interference while the essential work at Idlib can continue. We can only hope.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
Stanley Laham on September 19, 2018 , · at 5:24 pm EST/EDT
May I remind you Saker that this incident was not just a provocation. It is a promise or threat being honored. For months we have we have been hearing high ranking American officials openly advocating that their goal in Syria was to make as many as possible Russian military return home in body bags. From Senators to directors of intelligence have unabashedly and unapologetically said so openly on American TVs. And they are doing it whenever possible.Kampfbeobachter on September 19, 2018 , · at 6:49 pm EST/EDT
So the question for Mr. Putin is whether he's gonna let them continue with impunity. I don't know how old most commentators on this site are, but for those who remember the denouement of the Vietnam war you will remember that the only war the US ever lost was when the American people had enough of hundreds of their soldiers returning home every week in body bags.remember the Tu 20 was used a RADAR shield for the 4 Israeli F-16. These are obviously aircraft and operate from an Israeli military base.The Russians know the geographical coordinates of these bases to the accuracy of a few meters. The Russian SSBM can stay in the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea Flotilla can repeat their Deir ez Zoor feat again testing the Iron Dome an Davids Sling in the process.bored muslim on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:49 pm EST/EDT
This potential threat will cause the Israeli military planers some sleepless nights.
I have read that the fire works capabilities of Hezbollah have somewhat improved in recent years. The possible components of a "no fly zone" over Israel and western Syria. Not that it will happen but making the protection racket in Washington foam at their Snouts is worth something too. IMHOLets not forget China has people (Special Forces, Logistics people, medics etc) on the ground in Syria. Some brigades of the special forces are embedded with the Syrian Arab Armies Tiger Division and 4th Armored Division. The spearheads of most campaigns.Rob from Canada on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:34 pm EST/EDTChina has major plans foe the Levant, as far as connectivity with the OBR Silk Roads. They already have plans to rebuild Syria.
With cheap Chinese weapons, and a large volume of such, the Arabs, Assyrians of Syria will achieve their ultimate victory. The same applies to Iraq, where the U.S. , British and French position looks more and more precarious.
By 2030, the U.S., Britain and France will have been expelled from the MENA/Central Asian regions, only to have China fill the vacuum. Russia or not, China is coming, its rising fast.
I agree with you 100% that there is no hope for the Western globalist elite. That's because they're incompetent, psychopathic, loser scum who are only a few bricks short of a load and their ponzi scam is only a few moves from mate.cstahnke on September 19, 2018 , · at 6:59 pm EST/EDTI wouldn't say that at all. They are still in positions of power with enormous economic and military sources. They are in decline but not that far down the road. Russia won't act strongly because the US/NATO/Israel/Saudi alliance is waaaaay more powerful and still very united in the Imperial project. Only a very tight China-Russia-Iran alliance would cause the Empire to hesitate to play their current game of continual micro-aggressions against Russia/Syria/Iran. Putin will not respond because he does not have as close an alliance with the Chinese as the US has with their "allies (vassals)." Washington can no longer dictate terms in world affairs but is more influential than Russia/China/Iran and any other minor players.B.F. on September 19, 2018 , · at 2:25 pm EST/EDTKfetobored muslim on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:38 pm EST/EDT
You need to do your homework before posting comments. Erdogan had nothing to do with with the shooting of that Russian SU-24. This was done behind his back, with pro-US elements in Turkey hoping to create a rift between Russia and Turkey. It was a provocation. The pilot of that Turkish F-16 was a Turk of Albanian origin, who was subsequently placed under arrest. When the US instigated that coup d'etat against Erdogan, it was the Russians who both warned him and saved his life, as his plane was targeted by Turkish F-16's flown by conspirators, who backed off, having Russian Sukhois behind them and Russian missiles in Syria pointing at them.The shooting of that Russian reconnaissance plane in Syria was another provocation, Israel hoping to provoke Putin to retaliate and starting a mass war in Syria, bearing in mind that NATO brought additional ships to the Syrian coast. It did not work, as Putin stayed cool. However, Russian and Syrian AA missile systems have now become integrated. When it comes to this latest provocation, it could have been greater than it appeared. Commentators have pointed to that French frigate firing a missile. What kind of missile was that ? An AA missile, or a cruise missile ? Did the French shoot that Russian plane down ? If so, then we were facing a very real threat of wider war, because had the Russians retaliated, then NATO would have had an excuse to attack Syria, now that it's little false flag plan has been exposed, another chemical "attack" by Assad, as if Assad was foolish enough to do such a thing.
The point is that Putin does not fall for provocations. He has proved it again.
I concur. Israel is a rogue state, and this was a provocation.A firm response is required. The world is watching. Anything short of a firm response would negate Vostok 2018.
Does Putin stand with, and behind his own Minister of Defense, who layed the blame firmly on Israel.
Russia needs to secure Syrian and Lebanese airspace to Israeli provocations. AS a starting point. And Russia should make a lot of noise at the U.N., giving them a headache there, as well as points against the U.S..
Israeli arrogance should not be let go by superpower Russia.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
B.F. on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:19 pm EST/EDT
amarynthStanley on September 19, 2018 , · at 5:48 pm EST/EDT
You are correct. I am wondering what really happened. Officially that Russian plane was mistakenly shot down by Syrians, who were targeting Israeli F-16's that were hiding behind the Russian plane. Both the Syrian radar operators and their Russian advisors must have known about that Russian reconnaissance plane, making such a mistake improbable, but not impossible. Then we have reports of that French frigate firing a missile. What kind of missile was that ? An AA missile, or a cruise missile ? No additional data has been provided. I wonder why.NATO ships are still off the Syrian coast. Why ? For what purpose ? Just keeping them at sea must cost millions of dollars. Are they waiting for something ?
That false flag chemical "attack" which the US planned, hoping to frame Assad, has been exposed. Putin and Erdogan make a deal on Idlib. After that we have that Israeli attack, with the French giving a helping hand. Was NATO provoking Putin to make a retaliatory attack, either against Israel or against that French frigate ? Time will tell. However, as The Saker has stated, Russians have patience.
Patience is not always a virtue. Stalin paid dearly for his patience with Hitler even though his plans for Lebensraum and expansion eastward were not hidden. Careful Mr. Putin that you not pay dearly for your patience with the American Empire when it's plan "Project for a New American Century" has been clearly spelled out.Veritas on September 19, 2018 , · at 3:32 pm EST/EDTYes Saker as you say let's wait and see what the Russian response will be.Over the years – this always is the knee jerk reaction of the armchair warriors and anti-Putin/Russia trolls – whenever Russia is attacked in Syria or elsewhere. Some still don't learn that Russia is slow to saddle and quick to ride. The MOD statements have already set down who is to blame and a reply to this disgusting provocation will be answered in their own way and in their own time. Putin also agreed with the MOD statements and hinted himself to watch this space.
"Also, speaking of Syria: has anybody noticed that the agreement between Turkey and Russia has removed any justification for a US attack on Syria and that the Israelis have organized their latest little bloody stunt right after this deal was announced?"
This was a very important point, I also noted. I also read that the II-20 plane was returning from reconnaissance over Idlib and was just coming into land .take from that what you will ..
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
Edward on September 19, 2018 , · at 4:26 pm EST/EDT
I think a basic question here is whether the Israelis were deliberately trying to down the II-20. Is it a coincidence that the Israeli attack took place precisely when that plane was landing? The Israelis have done worse. I think they had foreknowledge of 9-11, for example, and were unwilling to help their American "friends".darkmoon on September 19, 2018 , · at 5:21 pm EST/EDTGiven that 15 Russians were killed Russia probably does need to respond. The challenge will probably be to avoid actions that restrict Russian choices, especially given that Trump & Co. are willing to play nuclear chicken. The Russians want to avoid being forced into a sequence of actions that lead to WWIII or other bad outcomes. They want to make the choices, not others.
The Israelis have a history of trying to provoke others. For example, before they invaded Lebanon they tried to provoke a PLO military response to some attacks so that they could claim their invasion was self-defense against PLO "aggression". The PLO didn't take the bait but the Israelis invaded Lebanon anyway.
I haveto challenge your cleverly hidden piece of misinformation. The WTC was brought down by controlled demoliton and the sheer scope of the operation (3 sites, NORAD exercise) clearly points to the involvment of state actors. So about what should the the Israelis warn their US comrades?Edward on September 19, 2018 , · at 6:13 pm EST/EDTIts true building #7 appears to have been destroyed by a controlled demolition but we don't know for sure at this point who was responsible, although Israel is high on my list of suspects. (Incidentally, there is evidence that the 1993 WTC bombing was an Israeli black op. too.) However, we do know that an Israeli spy ring followed the 9-11 hijackers for months and a group of these spies cheered during the 9-11 attack. This convinces me that while the plot was carried out by Al Queda, the Israelis were in the background making sure they succeeded. It also convinces me that the Israelis are perfectly capable of deliberately downing the II-20 or worse.parrhesiastes on September 19, 2018 , · at 8:35 pm EST/EDTWe know who said this: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."That's who did it, no?
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
Christian W on September 19, 2018 , · at 7:15 pm EST/EDT
@ Occassional PosterI know the US is in the grip of AIPAC, the Neocon's and their Billionaire masters etc (including Trump). But it's time for the American people to accept responsibility for their part in what is happening. It is not OK to accept medals and money for military service overseas to support the Empire. Occupying foreign nations and killing foreign people in order to pay for college and to pay the mortgage and set up an retirement plan is weakness, not strength. "Thank you for your service", indeed. Too many Americans still worship at the altar of the Pentagon.
It's time for Americans to kick the MIC to the curb, give up the Petrodollar and corruption that comes with it, and come up with a saner national business model and way of life. I know that many, many American soldiers have paid a heavy price for their "service" or even "servitude", but not more so than the nations they have ruined during their service. It's time for the American people to come together and accept that "War" cannot be the solution to every problem facing America in it's foreign or domestic policies. It is time to Down Tools and clean up the corruption in DC and on Wall Street and in the US establishment in general.
I believe these sentiments are not shocking to most Americans, but this also means the sense of desperation in the US/Zio elites wedded to War is growing, another reason they push so hard and so frantically. They know time is running out for them. On this front and many others.
Occasional Poster on September 19, 2018 · at 8:16 pm EST/EDT
@ Christian,
I have Serbian roots, and US & its NATO poodles bombed and finished their decade long job of destroying my country in 1999. That nightmare just doesn't end.
But my definition of evil is worth noting. Evil can put a bullet in your head, but where is the fun in that? Put the gun in the hand of a good person, deceive them, and get them to do it. THAT's true evil, and there in a nutshell is what has been done to the US.
I struggled to understand as a child, why lying was as great a crime in Christianity as murder and stuff, but I later understood; deceit is the greatest evil, it turns good people into monsters. There is no anger like righteous anger.
All that evil needs to thrive, is ignorance. The American people as a whole, are grossly ignorant, but they are not evil; they are simply deceived, just like Brits actualy. A good number of yanks on Zerohedge wish Putin was their own president, so some are awake. Overall, the US citizenry actually can't give a hoot about Russiagate. There is no mass ill will towards Russia.
So those are just my thoughts. I just want the American, and European people to wake out of their trance.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | thesaker.is
I gave up on the Guardian's comment site myself, 10 years ago, as the censorship on there made it pointless. Has something changed?
There was one prolific commenter there, MrPikeBishop, who was so popular, he was even commissioned to write articles above the line. Then one day, bam, he is banned, and his entire posting history gone. That did it for me; little emperors not fit to clean his boots, just rubbed him out. I spat on the site that day and never went back. Proclaiming themselves the bastion of free speech, when they actually the enemies of it.
Actually, I was caught out here in the UK, by the demise of the old five pound note, and then the ten pound note, because I stopped reading and watching MSM years ago. It's worth it, to get their irritating buzzing out of my head.
Back to the linked Guardian article; this is indeed interesting – these questions asked by the journalist:
– Who really did shoot down this plane? Was it an accident or did France and/or Israel attack?
– Are Russia publicly accepting a false narrative to avoid having to retaliate?
– Do they even understand how close we're coming to global war, whenever a NATO country operates in Syria?
– How long can we rely on Russian common sense to avoid WWIII?
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | www.unz.com
Greg Bacon , says: Website September 19, 2018 at 7:59 am GMT
There is an ongoing coup against not only Trump, but the entire nation, as this video by "Project Veritas" proves. This State Department subversive claims to be a Democratic Socialist, which are just Antifa terrorists in suits. Antifa was too radical for SANE Americans so they re-branded their putrid form of Communism to call it DSA. They're traitors & saboteurs and should be treated as such .As for Nutty Nikki Haley, Israeli PM Netenyahu wanted Haley in that spot, both for her rabid pro-Israel stance and to give her the chance to 'make her bones.' To see if she has the right traitorous qualities Israel needs in the WH. Nutty has passed that test with honors, so look for Nutty to get promoted to POTUS, where she'll be a loyal & faithful servant to our Colonial Overlord, Israel.
Many Americans labor under the delusion that we're an independent democratic republic, with a USG that honors the cherished Constitution and serves We the People. But that is a fiction, created by a motley assortment of gangsters, think tanks, the MSM and their mighty Wurlitzer organ, Hollywood.
The USA is under Israeli occupation, with our American neoCON & Zionist Jew Overseers still cracking that whip on our backs, but a digital one, not leather. The NWO Plantation owner is Israel, aided and abetted by the money power of those Rothschild central banks, like the FED, which is the biggest counterfeiting outfit on the planet.
The only way to fix this sordid mess would be a repeat of what happened back in 1776. Either that, or resign ourselves–and offspring–to a life of misery, poverty, endless wars and terror .
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | www.unz.com
Wall Street did not let the Lehman Brothers crisis go to waste. The banks that have paid the largest fines for financial fraud are now much bigger and more profitable. The victims of their junk mortgage loans are poorer, and the economy is facing debt deflation.
Was it worth it? What was not saved was the economy.
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2018 | www.unz.com
anonymous , [340] Disclaimer says: September 16, 2018 at 7:34 am GMT
None of this should have come as a surprise.peterAUS , says: September 19, 2018 at 5:55 am GMT"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016
The election's only apparent benefit to the people of this country has been the exposure of corruption and sedition within the Establishment. But that, too, may be part of the show, another way to channel dissidence into another meaningless election. Even here at The Unz Review, some columnists and many commenters tell the readership that this November is critical to protecting President Trump and his agenda, blah, blah, blah.
@Diversity Heretic I applied through the GreatAgain website and never received the courtesy of a reply despite having conributed to the Trump campaign before Iowa, nine years working on Capitol Hill (for Republicans) and seven years in a regulatory commission (working for a Republicaén commissioner), a JD and an MBA. So I'm not surprised to hear that applications through the website were not even considered and jobs filled with Washington insiders. (The first inclination that I had that something was seriously wrong in the staffing area was when Calista Gingrich was named as ambassador to the Vatican.) Trump has the classic problem of the outsider: no institutional mechanism to staff an administration. (Jesse Ventura had a similar problem when he was elected as governor of Minnesota as an independent). He compounds that problem by making poor choices that involve his personal judgment and consideration (e.g., John Bolton and Nikki Haley?!).Biff , says: September 19, 2018 at 7:57 am GMTIncreasingly, I see no electoral way to influence or remove the Deep State. I think we're in for a rough ride and hope that things don't get nuclear with Russia.
Increasingly, I see no electoral way to influence or remove the Deep State. I think we're in for a rough ride and hope that things don't get nuclear with Russia.
Pretty much.
"Rough ride" in particular.@Haxo Angmark before June 2015,Proud_Srbin , says: September 19, 2018 at 9:47 am GMTwhen he put on a populist mask to run for Prez
and fool the White people in flyover country, Trump
was a life-long (((NY))) lib democrat
and (((Wall Street))) Zionist stooge.
all the rest is dog-and-pony show.
suckers
and (((Wall Street))) Zionist stooge.
If you go over to the comment section at USAToday, they call him an anti-Semite.
It is astonishing that after all the fraudsters and con masters masquerading as politicians there are huge numbers who claim to believe in the system where humans have voluntarily given away their freedoms.DanFromCT , says: September 19, 2018 at 11:54 am GMT
Hope and Change, replaced by MAGA.
Do you honestly believe that your Founding Fathers would rebel against King's Tyranny if it were possible to change it by peaceful means?@anonymous None of this should have come as a surprise."In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016
The election's only apparent benefit to the people of this country has been the exposure of corruption and sedition within the Establishment. But that, too, may be part of the show, another way to channel dissidence into another meaningless election. Even here at The Unz Review, some columnists and many commenters tell the readership that this November is critical to protecting President Trump and his agenda, blah, blah, blah. Voting in our national elections has become another example of evil paraded before us as a moral duty. It ironically results in disenfranchisement by perpetually legitimizing a federal government as much at war with its own citizens as with every other people who oppose the new American Proposition -- the antithesis of a fulfilling human culture wherever it's found, and which today amounts to claiming that freedom and democracy equate to owning stuff and vicariously participating in unbridled avarice, sexual depravity, war, torture, and mass murder. Either party and all that horror is a constant.
So, instead of girding middle America mentally, spiritually, and physically to fight to the death for what's worth living for, and while there's still some chance to save ourselves and our nation, we get the Republican leadership, Fox News, and Conservatism Inc blowing smoke in our eyes, temporizing on behalf of the Deep State by pretending these veiled and overt calls for white genocide are just in bad taste or that curtesy and cowardice are an effective policy toward a wildly homicidal left.
|
|
|
Jun 02, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
In early June of 1967, at the onset of the Six Day War, the Pentagon sent the USS Liberty from Spain into international waters off the coast of Gaza to monitor the progress of Israel's attack on the Arab states. The Liberty was a lightly armed surveillance ship.
Only hours after the Liberty arrived it was spotted by the Israeli military. The IDF sent out reconnaissance planes to identify the ship. They made eight trips over a period of three hours. The Liberty was flying a large US flag and was easily recognizable as an American vessel.
Soon more planes came. These were Israeli Mirage III fighters, armed with rockets and machine guns. As off-duty officers sunbathed on the deck, the fighters opened fire on the defenseless ship with rockets and machine guns.
A few minutes later a second wave of planes streaked overhead, French-built Mystere jets, which not only pelted the ship with gunfire but also with napalm bomblets, coating the deck with the flaming jelly. By now, the Liberty was on fire and dozens were wounded and killed, excluding several of the ship's top officers.
The Liberty's radio team tried to issue a distress call, but discovered the frequencies had been jammed by the Israeli planes with what one communications specialist called "a buzzsaw sound." Finally, an open channel was found and the Liberty got out a message it was under attack to the USS America, the Sixth Fleet's large aircraft carrier.
Two F-4s left the carrier to come to the Liberty's aid. Apparently, the jets were armed only with nuclear weapons. When word reached the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara became irate and ordered the jets to return. "Tell the Sixth Fleet to get those aircraft back immediately," he barked. McNamara's injunction was reiterated in saltier terms by Admiral David L. McDonald, the chief of Naval Operations: "You get those fucking airplanes back on deck, and you get them back down." The planes turned around. And the attack on the Liberty continued.
After the Israeli fighter jets had emptied their arsenal of rockets, three Israeli attack boats approached the Liberty. Two torpedoes were launched at the crippled ship, one tore a 40-foot wide hole in the hull, flooding the lower compartments, and killing more than a dozen American sailors.
As the Liberty listed in the choppy seas, its deck aflame, crew members dropped life rafts into the water and prepared to scuttle the ship. Given the number of wounded, this was going to be a dangerous operation. But it soon proved impossible, as the Israeli attack boats strafed the rafts with machine gun fire. No body was going to get out alive that way.
After more than two hours of unremitting assault, the Israelis finally halted their attack. One of the torpedo boats approached the Liberty. An officer asked in English over a bullhorn: "Do you need any help?"
The wounded commander of the Liberty, Lt. William McGonagle, instructed the quartermaster to respond emphatically: "Fuck you."
The Israeli boat turned and left.
A Soviet destroyer responded before the US Navy, even though a US submarine, on a covert mission, was apparently in the area and had monitored the attack. The Soviet ship reached the Liberty six hours before the USS Davis. The captain of the Soviet ship offered his aid, but the Liberty's conning officer refused.
Finally, 16 hours after the attack two US destroyers reached the Liberty. By that time, 34 US sailors were dead and 174 injured, many seriously. As the wounded were being evacuated, an officer with the Office of Naval Intelligence instructed the men not to talk about their ordeal with the press.
The following morning Israel launched a surprise invasion of Syria, breaching the new cease-fire agreement and seizing control of the Golan Heights.
Within three weeks, the Navy put out a 700-page report, exonerating the Israelis, claiming the attack had been accidental and that the Israelis had pulled back as soon as they realized their mistake. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara suggested the whole affair should be forgotten. "These errors do occur," McNamara concluded.
***
In Assault on the Liberty , a harrowing first-hand account by James Ennes Jr., McNamara's version of events is proven to be as big a sham as his concurrent lies about Vietnam. Ennes's book created a media storm when it was first published by Random House in 1980, including (predictably) charges that Ennes was a liar and an anti-Semite. Still, the book sold more than 40,000 copies, but was eventually allowed to go out of print. Now Ennes has published an updated version, which incorporates much new evidence that the Israeli attack was deliberate and that the US government went to extraordinary lengths to disguise the truth.
It's a story of Israel aggression, Pentagon incompetence, official lies, and a cover-up that persists to this day. The book gains much of its power from the immediacy of Ennes's first-hand account of the attack and the lies that followed.
Now, decades later, Ennes warns that the bloodbath on board the Liberty and its aftermath should serve as a tragic cautionary tale about the continuing ties between the US government and the government of Israel.
The Attack on the Liberty is the kind of book that makes your blood seethe. Ennes skillfully documents the life of the average sailor on one of the more peculiar vessels in the US Navy, with an attention for detail that reminds one of Dana or O'Brien. After all, the year was 1967 and most of the men on the Liberty were certainly glad to be on a non-combat ship in the middle of the Mediterranean, rather than in the Gulf of Tonkin or Mekong Delta.
But this isn't Two Years Before the Mast. In fact, Ennes's tour on the Liberty last only a few short weeks. He had scarcely settled into a routine before his new ship was shattered before his eyes.
Ennes joined the Liberty in May of 1967, as an Electronics Material Officer. Serving on a "spook ship", as the Liberty was known to Navy wives, was supposed to be a sure path to career enhancement. The Liberty's normal routine was to ply the African coast, tuning in its eavesdropping equipment on the electronic traffic in the region.
The Liberty had barely reached Africa when it received a flash message from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to sail from the Ivory Coast to the Mediterranean, where it was to re-deploy off the coast of the Sinai to monitor the Israeli attack on Egypt and the allied Arab nations.
As the war intensified, the Liberty sent a request to the fleet headquarters requesting an escort. It was denied by Admiral William Martin. The Liberty moved alone to a position in international waters about 13 miles from the shore at El Arish, then under furious siege by the IDF.
On June 6, the Joint Chiefs sent Admiral McCain, father of the senator from Arizona, an urgent message instructing him to move the Liberty out of the war zone to a position at least 100 miles off the Gaza Coast. McCain never forwarded the message to the ship.
A little after seven in the morning on June 8, Ennes entered the bridge of the Liberty to take the morning watch. Ennes was told that an hour earlier a "flying boxcar" (later identified as a twin-engine Nord 2501 Noratlas) had flown over the ship at a low level.
Ennes says he noticed that the ship's American flag had become stained with soot and ordered a new flag run up the mast. The morning was clear and calm, with a light breeze.
At 9 am, Ennes spotted another reconnaissance plane, which circled the Liberty. An hour later two Israeli fighter jets buzzed the ship. Over the next four hours, Israeli planes flew over the Liberty five more times.
When the first fighter jet struck, a little before two in the afternoon, Ennes was scanning the skies from the starboard side of the bridge, binoculars in his hands. A rocket hit the ship just below where Ennes was standing, the fragments shredded the men closest to him.
After the explosion, Ennes noticed that he was the only man left standing. But he also had been hit by more than 20 shards of shrapnel and the force of the blast had shattered his left leg. As he crawled into the pilothouse, a second fighter jet streaked above them and unleashed its payload on the hobbled Liberty.
At that point, Ennes says the crew of the Liberty had no idea who was attacking them or why. For a few moments, they suspected it might be the Soviets, after an officer mistakenly identified the fighters as MIG-15s. They knew that the Egyptian air force already had been decimated by the Israelis. The idea that the Israelis might be attacking them didn't occur to them until one of the crew spotted a Star of David on the wing of one of the French-built Mystere jets.
Ennes was finally taken below deck to a makeshift dressing station, with other wounded men. It was hardly a safe harbor. As Ennes worried that his fractured leg might slice through his femoral artery leaving him to bleed to death, the Liberty was pummeled by rockets, machine-gun fire and an Italian-made torpedo packed with 1,000-pounds of explosive.
After the attack ended, Ennes was approached by his friend Pat O'Malley, a junior officer, who had just sent a list of killed and wounded to the Bureau of Naval Personnel. He got an immediate message back. "They said, 'Wounded in what action? Killed in what action?'," O'Malley told Ennes. "They said it wasn't an 'action,' it was an accident. I'd like for them to come out here and see the difference between an action and an accident. Stupid bastards."
The cover-up had begun.
***
The Pentagon lied to the public about the attack on the Liberty from the very beginning. In a decision personally approved by the loathsome McNamara, the Pentagon denied to the press that the Liberty was an intelligence ship, referring to it instead as a Technical Research ship, as if it were little more than a military version of Jacques Cousteau's Calypso.
The military press corps on the USS America, where most of the wounded sailors had been taken, were placed under extreme restrictions. All of the stories filed from the carrier were first routed through the Pentagon for security clearance, objectionable material was removed with barely a bleat of protest from the reporters or their publications.
Predictably, Israel's first response was to blame the victim, a tactic that has served them so well in the Palestinian situation. First, the IDF alleged that it had asked the State Department and the Pentagon to identify any US ships in the area and was told that there were none. Then the Israeli government charged that the Liberty failed to fly its flag and didn't respond to calls for it to identify itself. The Israelis contended that they assumed the Liberty was an Egyptian supply ship called El Quseir, which, even though it was a rusting transport ship then docked in Alexandria, the IDF said it suspected of shelling Israeli troops from the sea. Under these circumstances, the Israeli's said they were justified in opening fire on the Liberty. The Israelis said that they halted the attack almost immediately, when they realized their mistake.
"The Liberty contributed decisively toward its identification as an enemy ship," the IDF report concluded. This was a blatant falsehood, since the Israelis had identified the Liberty at least six hours prior to the attack on the ship.
Even though the Pentagon knew better, it gave credence to the Israeli account by saying that perhaps the Liberty's flag had lain limp on the flagpole in a windless sea. The Pentagon also suggested that the attack might have lasted less than 20 minutes.
After the initial battery of misinformation, the Pentagon imposed a news blackout on the Liberty disaster until after the completion of a Court of Inquiry investigation.
The inquiry was headed by Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd. Kidd didn't have a free hand. He'd been instructed by Vice-Admiral McCain to limit the damage to the Pentagon and to protect the reputation of Israel.
The Kidd interviewed the crew on June 14 and 15. The questioning was extremely circumscribed. According to Ennes, the investigators "asked nothing that might be embarrassing to Israeland testimony that tended to embarrass Israel was covered with a 'Top Secret' label, if it was accepted at all."
Ennes notes that even testimony by the Liberty's communications officers about the jamming of the ship's radios was classified as "Top Secret." The reason? It proved that Israel knew it was attacking an American ship. "Here was strong evidence that the attack was planned in advance and that our ship's identity was known to the attackers (for it its practically impossible to jam the radio of a stranger), but this information was hushed up and no conclusions were drawn from it," Ennes writes.
Similarly, the Court of Inquiry deep-sixed testimony and affidavits regarding the flag-Ennes had ordered a crisp new one deployed early on the morning of the attack. The investigators buried intercepts of conversations between IDF pilots identifying the ship as flying an American flag.
It also refused to accept evidence about the IDF's use of napalm during the attacks and choose not to hear testimony regarding the duration of the attacks and the fact that the US Navy failed to send planes to defend the ship.
"No one came to help us," said Dr. Richard F. Kiepfer, the Liberty's physician. "We were promised help, but no help came. The Russians arrived before our own ships did. We asked for an escort before we ever came to the war zone and we were turned down."
None of this made its way into the 700-page Court of Inquiry report, which was completed within a couple of weeks and sent to Admiral McCain in London for review.
McCain approved the report over the objections of Captain Merlin Staring, the Navy legal officer assigned to the inquiry, who found the report to be flawed, incomplete and contrary to the evidence.
Staring sent a letter to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy disavowing himself from the report. The JAG seemed to take Staring's objections to heart. It prepared a summary for the Chief of Naval Operations that almost completely ignored the Kidd/McCain report. Instead, it concluded:
that the Liberty was easily recognizable as an American naval vessel; that it's flag was fully deployed and flying in a moderate breeze; that Israeli planes made at least eight reconnaissance flights at close range; the ship came under a prolonged attack from Israeli fighter jets and torpedo boats.
This succinct and largely accurate report was stamped Top Secret by Navy brass and stayed locked up for many years. But it was seen by many in the Pentagon and some in the Oval Office. But here was enough grumbling about the way the Liberty incident had been handled that LBJ summoned that old Washington fixer Clark Clifford to do damage control. It didn't take Clifford long to come up with the official line: the Israelis simply had made a tragic mistake.
It turns out that the Admiral Kidd and Captain Ward Boston, the two investigating officers who prepared the original report for Admiral McCain, both believed that the Israeli attack was intentional and sustained. In other words, the IDF knew that they were striking an American spy ship and they wanted to sink it and kill as many sailors as possible. Why then did the Navy investigators produce a sham report that concluded it was an accident?
Twenty-five years later we finally found out. In June of 2002, Captain Boston told the Navy Times: "Officers follow orders."
It gets worse. There's plenty of evidence that US intelligence agencies learned on June 7 that Israel intended to attack the Liberty on the following day and that the strike had been personally ordered by Moshe Dayan.
As the attacks were going on, conversations between Israeli pilots were overheard by US Air Force officers in an EC121 surveillance plane overhead. The spy plane was spotted by Israeli jets, which were given orders to shoot it down. The American plane narrowly avoided the IDF missiles.
Initial reports on the incident prepared by the CIA, Office of Naval Intelligence and the National Security Agency all reached similar conclusions.
A particularly damning report compiled by a CIA informant suggests that Israeli Defense minister Moshe Dayan personally ordered the attack and wanted it to proceed until the Liberty was sunk and all on board killed. A heavily redacted version of the report was released in 1977. It reads in part:
"[The source] said that Dayan personally ordered the attack on the ship and that one of his generals adamantly opposed the action and said, 'This is pure murder.' One of the admirals who was present also disapproved of the action, and it was he who ordered it stopped and not Dayan."
This amazing document generated little attention from the press and Dayan was never publicly questioned about his role in the attack.
The analyses by the intelligence agencies are collected in a 1967 investigation by the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations. Two and half decades later that report remains classified. Why? A former committee staffer said: "So as not to embarrass Israel."
More proof came to light from the Israeli side. A few years after Attack on the Liberty was originally published, Ennes got a call from Evan Toni, an Israeli pilot. Toni told Ennes that he had just read his book and wanted to tell him his story. Toni said that he was the pilot in the first Israeli Mirage fighter to reach the Liberty. He immediately recognized the ship to be a US Navy vessel. He radioed Israeli air command with this information and asked for instructions. Toni said he was ordered to "attack." He refused and flew back to the air base at Ashdod. When he arrived he was summarily arrested for disobeying orders.
***
How tightly does the Israeli lobby control the Hill? For the first time in history, an attack on an America ship was not subjected to a public investigation by Congress. In 1980, Adlai Stevenson and Barry Goldwater planned to open a senate hearing into the Liberty affair. Then Jimmy Carter intervened by brokering a deal with Menachem Begin, where Israel agreed to pony up $6 million to pay for damages to the ship. A State Department press release announced the payment said, "The book is now closed on the USS Liberty."
It certainly was the last chapter for Adlai Stevenson. He ran for governor of Illinois the following year, where his less than perfect record on Israel, and his unsettling questions about the Liberty affair, became an issue in the campaign. Big money flowed into the coffers of his Republican opponent, Big Jim Thompson, and Stevenson went down to a narrow defeat.
But the book wasn't closed for the sailors either, of course. After a Newsweek story exposed the gist of what really happened on that day in the Mediterranean, an enraged Admiral McCain placed all the sailors under a gag order. When one sailor told an officer that he was having problems living with the cover-up, he was told: "Forget about it, that's an order."
The Navy went to bizarre lengths to keep the crew of the Liberty from telling what they knew. When gag orders didn't work, they threatened sanctions. Ennes tells of the confinement and interrogation of two Liberty sailors that sounds like something right out of the CIA's MK-Ultra program.
"In an incredible abuse of authority, military officers held two young Liberty sailors against their will in a locked and heavily guarded psychiatric ward of the base hospital," Ennes writes. "For days these men were drugged and questioned about their recollections of the attack by a 'therapist' who admitted to being untrained in either psychiatry or psychology. At one point, they avoided electroshock only by bolting from the room and demanding to see the commanding officer."
Since coming home, the veterans who have tried to tell of their ordeal have been harassed relentlessly. They've been branded as drunks, bigots, liars and frauds. Often, it turns out, these slurs have been leaked by the Pentagon. And, oh yeah, they've also been painted as anti-Semites.
In a recent column, Charley Reese describes just how mean-spirited and petty this campaign became. "When a small town in Wisconsin decided to name its library in honor of the USS Liberty crewmen, a campaign claiming it was anti-Semitic was launched," writes Reese. "And when the town went ahead, the U.S. government ordered no Navy personnel to attend, and sent no messages. This little library was the first, and at the time the only, memorial to the men who died on the Liberty."
***
So why then did the Israelis attack the Liberty?
A few days before the Six Days War, Israel's Foreign Minister Abba Eban visited Washington to inform LBJ about the forthcoming invasion. Johnson cautioned Eban that the US could not support such an attack.
It's possible, then, that the IDF assumed that the Liberty was spying on the Israeli war plans. Possible, but not likely. Despite the official denials, as Andrew and Leslie Cockburn demonstrate in Dangerous Liaison, at the time of the Six Days War the US and Israel had developed a warm covert relationship. So closely were the two sides working that US intelligence aid certainly helped secure Israel's devastating and swift victory. In fact, it's possible that the Liberty had been sent to the region to spy for the IDF.
A somewhat more likely scenario holds that Moshe Dayan wanted to keep the lid on Israel's plan to breach the new cease-fire and invade into Syria to seize the Golan.
It has also been suggested that Dayan ordered the attack on the Liberty with the intent of pinning the blame on the Egyptians and thus swinging public and political opinion in the United States solidly behind the Israelis. Of course, for this plan to work, the Liberty had to be destroyed and its crew killed.
There's another factor. The Liberty was positioned just off the coast from the town of El Arish. In fact, Ennes and others had used town's mosque tower to fix the location of the ship along the otherwise featureless desert shoreline. The IDF had seized El Arish and had used the airport there as a prisoner of war camp. On the very day the Liberty was attacked, the IDF was in the process of executing as many as 1,000 Palestinian and Egyptian POWs, a war crime that they surely wanted to conceal from prying eyes. According to Gabriel Bron, now an Israeli reporter, who witnessed part of the massacre as a soldier: "The Egyptian prisoners of war were ordered to dig pits and then army police shot them to death."
The bigger question is why the US government would participate so enthusiastically in the cover-up of a war crime against its own sailors. Well, the Pentagon has never been slow to hide its own incompetence. And there's plenty of that in the Liberty affair: bungled communications, refusal to provide an escort, situating the defenseless Liberty too close to a raging battle, the inability to intervene in the attack and the inexcusably long time it took to reach the battered ship and its wounded.
That's but par for the course. But something else was going on that would only come to light later. Through most of the 1960s, the US congress had imposed a ban on the sale of arms to both Israel and Jordan. But at the time of the Liberty attack, the Pentagon (and its allies in the White House and on the Hill) was seeking to have this proscription overturned. The top brass certainly knew that any evidence of a deliberate attack on a US Navy ship by the IDF would scuttle their plans. So they hushed it up.
In January 1968, the arms embargo on Israel was lifted and the sale of American weapons began to flow. By 1971, Israel was buying $600 million of American-made weapons a year. Two years later the purchases topped $3 billion. Almost overnight, Israel had become the largest buyer of US-made arms and aircraft.
Perversely, then, the IDF's strike on the Liberty served to weld the US and Israel together, in a kind of political and military embrace. Now, every time the IDF attacks defenseless villages in Gaza and the West Bank with F-16s and Apache helicopters, the Palestinians quite rightly see the bloody assaults as a joint operation, with the Pentagon as a hidden partner.
Thus, does the legacy of Liberty live on, one raid after another.
A version of this essay appeared in The Politics of Anti-Semitism by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair.
>
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2018 | thesaker.is
Basically, 4 Israeli aircraft were sent on a bombing mission against targets near the Russian facilities in Khmeimim and Tartus (which, by itself, is both stupid and irresponsible). The Israelis *deliberately* did not warn the Russians until less than a minute before the attack took place, thus the Russians did not have the time to tell the crew of the Il-20 electronic warfare aircraft, which was on approach for a landing, to take evasive action. When the Syrian S-200 fired their missiles to intercept the incoming missiles, the Israelis F-16 used the Il-20, which has a much bigger radar cross section, to hide themselves resulting in the loss of 15 lives and one aircraft.
Typical Israeli "cleverness".
The Russian MoD placed the full blame on the Israelis and declared that this attack was "dastardly", the Israeli actions as "hostile" and said that Russia "reserves the right" to respond with "adequate counter-actions".
This is one of these rare opportunities when there is, I believe, a viable and logical option to respond: tell the Israelis that from now on any of their aircraft approaching anywhere near the Russian forces will be shot down.
Will the Russians do that?
I doubt it. Why? Because of the very powerful pro-Zionist 5th column in Russia.
I am pretty sure that the Russian military would love to take such an measure but, unfortunately, they are limited in their actions by the 5th columnists in the Russian government.
We shall see. If Russia does nothing, it will be interesting to see how those who deny the existence of a pro-Zionist 5th column in Russia will explain this.
The Saker
PS: the only positive effect from this tragedy is that this will go a long way to trash the image of Israel in the Russian public opinion (which is constantly subjected to pro-Zionist propaganda in much of the Russian media).
UPDATE1 : there we go: Putin is already "downgrading" the gravity of what happened. He has just declared that " the Israeli jet didn't down our aircraft " and spoke of " tragic circumstances ". True, he did add that the Russians will take measures that "everyone will notice" but I am personally dubious about these "steps". I hope that I am wrong. We will find out soon.
UPDATE2 : I am watching the Russian media and I have to report that Zionist propagandists (Russian liberals and Jewish commentators) look absolutely *terrible*: they are desperately trying to blame everybody (the Syrians, Hezbollah, and even the Russians) except for Israel. This will not sit well with the Russian public.
Anonymous on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:22 am EST/EDT
Defense chief vows response to Israel's actions that caused fatal crash of Il-20 aircraftJJ on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:27 am EST/EDTMilitary & Defense September 18, 17:06
"MOSCOW, September 18. /TASS/. Russia will respond to actions on behalf of the Israeli Air Force that led to a fatal crash of Russia's Il-20 aircraft on Monday late night in Syria, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Tuesday."
"We have informed today our Israeli colleagues, and I have also informed personally the Israeli Defense Minister [Avigdor Lieberman], that such actions will not be left unanswered by us," Shoigu said.
More:
http://tass.com/defense/1022123Can Russia "Ends" the "Partnership" with "Colleagues" like Israel?
Time will tell.
"According to the IDF, the Israeli jets were targeting a facility in Syria which contained "systems to manufacture accurate and lethal weapons" that could be sent "on behalf of Iran" to Hezbollah movement in Lebanon. Israel, as well as many other states, considers the movement a terrorist organization."..American Patriot on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:28 am EST/EDTYeah ..just like Mossad targeting for assassination the missile scientist trying to protect Syria no more invitations to Moscow parades ..perhaps.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/world/middleeast/syrian-rocket-scientist-mossad-assassination.htmlPerhaps Russian defence systems will now operate in conjunction with Syrian ones as it appears that nothing defended Latakia from IDF and French Nato frigate clearly bent on illegal hostile intent .SAA alone defending by sending missiles over the sea to IDF jets themselves which seems to me to be further than before and rather than the missiles they sent . I wonder if French Ambassador will be asked to attend MFA ..
I don't believe in the power of "Fifth column" because Putin could rally the people.Matthiew on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:31 am EST/EDTBut it's wrong to lie and say:
"When people are dying – especially under such circumstances – it is always a tragedy," President Putin said during a joint press conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Moscow on Tuesday.
Responding to a reporter's question as to whether the incident in Latakia could be compared to the downing of the Russian Su-24 by Turkey in 2015, Putin said the two situations were "different."
Ankara "deliberately downed" the Russian jet, he explained, while the Il-20 incident "looks like a chain of tragic circumstances, because the Israeli plane didn't shoot down our jet."
That's complete bullshit. We all know it. He contradicts Soigu and his own M.O.D.
Speculation: he will put pressure on Bibi.
Speculation: he will do anything to avoid direct conflict.
Speculation: Israel will grow more arrogant. Further strikes in time.
However, Russia will improve defenses.
If he doesn't implement a no fly zone for Israel, his behavior is suspect.
Correct Assessment that there are powerful 5th column(s) in Russia. Would be a huge surprise if Russia does anything. I kind of think that this could be partly a punishment for Russia to cut a deal with Turkey in Idlib, by one of the oligarchic powers. Syria is defacto divided in three as we speak. This agreement made sure that Turkey and Russia owns Idlib (north of Syria), while US-Israel owns east of Euphrates. There are rumors that France was sending some missiles in that direction (from Russian MoD). France is City of London and they are not particularly happy with what is going on in Syria after Obama. I think there are more than meets the eye or what official statements are saying. Could be another provocation, as with no military operation in Idlib, the fake gas attack is out of the door at this moment. Definitely not a minor event or an innocent mistake. Could also be forcing Putin to choose sides in between competing oligarchic powers. Need to wait more and see further developments.Larchmonter445 on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:36 am EST/EDT
Solution: S-400s cover Lebanon. Take down any intruder.Wind of Siberia on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:41 am EST/EDTBring S-300s for Syria to operate.
Bring another S-400 to cover all of Syria in the East and Iraq border region.
Fill in with a dozen more Pantsir-S2s.
Declare a NO FLY/ADIZ over all of Syria and Lebanon.
Have the Chinese bring some air power. Now that they have "exercised" with the Russians in Vostok 2018 and the Chinese are about to operate Haifa port, they have an interest and are stakeholders in both Israel and Syria.
Bringing in China would be a massive game changer.Full Spectrum Domino on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:41 am EST/EDT
So we can swap the 3D chess metaphor for a Chabad Fifth Column? Or is it still 3D chess, but with one arm tied behind your back and teeth not allowed?B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:45 am EST/EDT
Yes, Israeli F-16's used the four engine reconnaissance aircraft to hide from Syrian radar, and old trick, used before. The Syrians therefore shot down the Russian plane by mistake, as images of the smaller Israeli planes were obscured by the larger image of the Russian plane on Syrian radar.jiri on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:15 pm EST/EDTI have to disagree with The Saker that Russia will not respond against Israel because of the "powerful" pro-Zionist 5th column in Russia. Is it really that powerful, bearing in mind Russians cannot forget the Yeltsin years ? And what can this Zionist 5th column do overtly in Russia, if it wanted to do anything ?
This was an Israeli provocation, instigated after Putin met with Erdogan. Yes, some sort of deal was reached regarding Idlib, but I don't see this deal lasting too long. It suits neither the US nor Israel, especially when both, in conjunction with others, were preparing a new false flag attack against Assad. In fact this deal suites nobody.
Yes, Russia will respond, but in a subtle way. Israel would just love Russia to respond "aggressively", so that it could then scream for American help, and thus setting up Russia against the US. It is in the US that Israel has it's Zionist Occupation Government, not in Russia. If it did have such a government in Russia, then Russia would never have recovered as it did during Putin's years.
The Israelis have been very clever.B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:51 pm EST/EDTThey have kept to the letter of their agreement with the Russians even though the Russians argue that they have not kept to its spirit.
jiriAndre on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:48 am EST/EDT
"The Israelis have been very clever". In what way ? By informing Russia less than one minute that they were going to attack ? When did Russia agree that Israel could use Russian reconnaissance aircraft as a cover to launch attacks against Syria ?
I am a devout fan of Putin and his wisdom/strategy, but I'm starting to reconsider and frankly tired of seeing Russia taking so many punches from sanctions, Israeli incurssions and direct military threats and not sending a strong message to the aggressors. If the lifes of 15 Russian military are not important enough for Putin or Shoigu to act and take active meassures to secure airspace around Syria or a direct retaliation to honor their lifes, I'm afraid even the most loyal Putin supporters are going to have a difficult time stomaching these events or his lack of decisive and swift action in the matter.B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:07 pm EST/EDT
AndreOccasional Poster on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:32 pm EST/EDT
You are mistaken in your reasoning. How many provocations has Putin endured so far ? He responded in a wise, subtle way. Yes, sanctions were introduced against Russia. For Russia this was the best thing that could have happened to it, as It concentrated on rebuilding it's infrastructure, industry and agriculture and producing record harvests. Putin is making patient and intelligent chess moves of the chess board. He will not fall for cheap provocations, which have caused both Israel and the US immense political and media damage. What Israel did was a provocation, provoking Russia into taking aggressive action against it. It did not work. However, Israel better not pull this trick again.
I usually like your posts BF, but 'Israel better not pull this trick again,' is really going to stop them laughing their butts off, and slapping each other on the back in Tel Aviv.B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:47 pm EST/EDTAnd the converse in the Russian military; I can't think of a better way to crush their morale than to let this pass. They will be angry, and wonder for whom they are actually putting their lives on the line, and why.
Occasional PosterLittlejohn on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:23 pm EST/EDT
You have a point. The Russian military are going to be very angry about this incident. They would love a response. So would Israel. After that Israel would scream for US help, backed by it's huge lobby in the US. However, as I have already written, Putin will not fall for such provocations.
I agree with you 110 percent. Everybody who has ever been beaten up by a playground bully knows that the bullying never stops and in fact keeps getting worse until the bully is punched in the face. My love and condolences to the families of the lost Russian servicemen.Wind of Siberia on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:30 pm EST/EDT
Putin will not put at risk the project of ensuring Russia's new place in the world. Not even for 15 lives.Occasional Poster on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:50 pm EST/EDTThe overall project and maintaining course takes priority. This is why Putin has to play the game of trying to avoid direct war with the Americans and their vassal states – regardless of the provocations.
@ Wind of Siberia,Waly on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:49 am EST/EDT'regardless the provocations.'
How many Russian lives is that then? 100? 1000? Half of Donbass?
The ZATO gargoyles that Russia has to deal with, are masters of brinkmanship, and ultimately, safe behind their own nuclear shield. They will keep pushing till they encounter something that actually changes the game.
I just checked some MSM near me. Not a line about this tragedy!B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:15 pm EST/EDT
My guess: they are not mentioning this "incident" and then they will start the oy vey! when the Russians will strike back.
WalyTeranam13 on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:50 am EST/EDT
Yes, they are all hoping Russia will strike back and be pronounced the "aggressor". After that the MSM will apply full thrust, with more anti-Russian propaganda, this time accusing Russia of attacking little Israel. Putin will not fall for such cheap provocations. However, what will happen will be a subtle response. Next time Israel attacks Syria over Syrian territory, it's planes will start falling over Syrian territory, something it will need to explain. So far it has attacked Syria either firing missiles from Israel, or from Lebanon, using both to protect it's aircraft. Occasionally it has gone in depth over Syrian territory. I have a feeling that rules of engagement are now going to be changed.
Putin was suckered in playground language and if he does not respond appropriately ( one must call the players out and name the game for what it is) he will then be punked. And then he will be everbody's B-tch.jiri on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:52 am EST/EDT
This doesn't make sense.hardlooker on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:53 am EST/EDTThe Russians along with their allies, Syria, Iran and Hezbollah are fighting the takfiris in Syria.
The Israelis are supporting some of the takfiris by providing them with war material, medical support and air cover including bombing Russian allies.
The Russians have an agreement with the Israelis that it is OK for them to bomb Russian allies as long as Russians men and material are not hit. The Israelis will just have to inform the Russians so that the Russians can get out of the way, and presumably not tell the Syrians or Hezbollah or Iranians that they are going to be hit by the Israelis.
The Russians tell the Syrians (and the Iranians and Hezbollah??) that it is OK for them to retalliate against Israel by shooting at their planes or missiles with an air defense system that is integrated with the Russian air defense system. This only makes sense if the Russians want the Syrians to fire at the Israelis but not hit them.
With such an arrangement is it any surprise that the Russians lost a plane? I would say it was only a matter of time before it happened.
As RT reports, President Putin has characterized this event as resulting from "tragic circumstances".Anonymous on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:03 pm EST/EDT
1) Would not such a view appear to contradict that expressed within the MoD representations?
2) If 1 is true, will there not arise a deleterious effect on the credibility of the President, the military, or both?
3) If 2 is true, for hostile media purposes, is there not apparent incoherence, or at least inconsistency, within the overall "Russian" position (which would be a novel, highly exploitable weakness)?
4) If 3 is true (asking of those who understand the Russian people), what might be the effect on "civilian" Russian thinking, feeling, and attitudes?
To answer your last question, I can speak only for myself: if Putin can't do anything with regards to this latests slap in his face by his 'partner' (who was there on 9th May to celebrate my ancestors victory), I withdraw all support for him. Why do we have to put up with everything that's thrown out way, if we can't win, or now most likely not willing to win anyway?!B.F. on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:19 pm EST/EDT
AnonymousAnonymous on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:50 pm EST/EDT
And what would you like Putin to do ? Attack Israel, which would then scream for US help ? When you fight a war, the intention is to win the war, not battles. Strategy comes first in importance, tactics come second.
BFStealthRaptor on September 18, 2018 , · at 11:59 am EST/EDT
Not talking about attacking Israel here.
To start – Deliver S300, S400 to Syria asap. This should minimise potential repeat of last nights events.
Enforce no-fly zone and aid Syrian forces to get better in what they doing, potentially operating defences together to start with.
But if the response is what I heard today, then submit to Zionism, and let us adapt to the realities and find our way within. Because he clearly doesn't want to do anything or simply can't. Why do I have to be subjected to humiliation all the time for being Russian? Why my nephew (soon approaching military service age) would have to take part in this madness? What for? So that Putin can keep on turning the other cheek?! Thanks, but no thanks! Not worth it.
What's astonishing is how many 'supporters' he has among Saker community abroad, most of the Westerners commenting and discussing what Putin and Russians should do from the comfort of the Zionist protectorates, and no one is fighting it, no one! But Russians are expected to?!
I do not understand why we even warn the Russians if we are going to bomb them? Makes no sense, We should bomb the s-400 sites and the airfields they have. We could rearm the idlib rebels and send them on an attack on Latakia while Israel, US, France, and UK all strike Russian AD. We should get these guys out of this region. We should help Ukraine as well, their economy doing well with US dollars and also cleanse the Donbass of them. Then do the good ol regime change on em. We toppled all their allies at this point, Turks stronger but they still in Nato so we are doing a pretty good job and managing and organizing global governance I think.Blue on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:46 pm EST/EDT
"We should bomb the s-400 sites and the airfields they have." Now there is a death wish for you. Let's overtly trigger WW 3. The US and Israel and do everything they can to suck Russia into committimg an obvious act of aggression against them, so they can be blamed for starting the fireworks, and this time with clear evidence that it is so.Anonymous on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:04 pm EST/EDTThe US and Israel are committing their aggression in such a way that they can plausibly deny that they intended it – it was an acident, they say. They will continue to there provocations until they draw the desired response from Russia, or Syria.
Basically, the Russians should declare the any future Israeli illegal aggression will be considered an act of war, and will be met with force against the Israeli source of that aggression, be it based on land, sea or in the air.
Then proceed accordingly. No more free aggression for Israel.
A real shame:hunor on September 18, 2018 , · at 1:03 pm EST/EDTPutin to Powers Attacking Syria: Please Keep Getting my Soldiers Killed, I Won't Do Anything About It
Putin declines to even just chastise Israel for the loss of the Russian Il-20 and 15 crew in the midst of IDFs wholly illegal and unprovoked attack on sovereign Syria
Unlike the military the Russian president blames it all on "a chain of tragic accidents"
it is time for putin to retire for massive incompetent leadership.vot tak on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:22 pm EST/EDT
no more excuse. the Russian military is a laughing
miserable joke. history will record for centuries to come,
the most sophisticated missile technology with the most coward
of cowards of leadership. young Russians are being killed off systematically ,
and there is always an excuse for it . the stupidest death of any human ,
is to die for nothing !!!. they may as well commit collective suicide , the anglozionist
satanic spirits will celebrate it as a greatest day in history.
Interesting take from an israeli.Richard Steven Hack on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:23 pm EST/EDTIsrael Unlikely to Fly Freely Over Syria After Il-20 Incident – Ex-Official
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201809181068132500-israel-syria-il-20-incident-airspace/
"Israel is unlikely to freely use Syrian airspace in the wake of the crash of a Russian Il-20 military aircraft over the Mediterranean Sea, Yakov Kedmi, a former high-ranking Israeli intelligence official, told Sputnik.
"There was an agreement between Israel and Russia that the actions of Israel in Syria's airspace would not endanger lives of Russian troops. Israel breached this commitment What happens next will depend on the position of Israel. Most likely, Israel will no longer be able to enjoy the same freedom in the sky of Syria as it did before the incident," Kedmi said.
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) earlier in the day that Israel would share all information on the incident with Moscow. The IDF expressed regret over the deaths of the Russian troops and put the blame on Damascus and Tehran.
"Israel's attack in itself, regardless of the consequences, was an irresponsible step, because there is not a single facility on the territory of Syria that might have been used by Iran and whose destruction would have justified an attack on it, which could endanger the Russian troops," Kedmi said."
More likely what will happen is that the next Israeli attack will be met by the Syrian military with a barrage of missiles coordinated by the Russians, resulting in the shootdown of one or more Israeli aircraft. The Israelis will know who was behind it and will be forced to reconsider their attacks on "Iranians" in Syria.Mataman on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:23 pm EST/EDTRussia can do this because it has surveillance aircraft up – this one will be replaced and escorted by fighters next time – and it will know when Israel launches all its aircraft. Israel doesn't have to "inform Russia" because Russia already knows when and where Israeli aircraft are in the vicinity – unless Israel can somehow "cloak" their approach.
In other words, this conflict between Russia and Israel will be managed "sub rosa" and not be allowed to disturb the "cordial" relations between the two countries. Sometimes military matters have to be subordinate to diplomatic relations.
Real bad look for Putin today. One can make up all sorts of hypotheses about his subtle diplomacy and long game, but his statement today was that Israeli lives are worth more than Russian lives and he will not protect Russian soldiers in Syria against Israeli attacks. He might as well throw in the towel on the entire Syria project and go home. It seems PCR may be correct after all. All we see is turning the cheek and today asking my I please have another? Monumental weakness to kowtow to Netanyahu publicly like that. Even in the "soft" martial arts of judo/aikido a practitioner will resort to atemi, or striking techniques, to unbalance an opponent. Sometimes you cannot wait for the opening, but have to create one. All I'm seeing with Putin is waiting, waiting, waiting, and taking dirty blows in the process. Israel is like any other bully–once they get punched in the face they will fold, but you have to actually punch back. Hard. Anyway, good luck to everyone in Syria now that Russia has folded ..Johnnie Q on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:26 pm EST/EDT
It just goes to show how prophetic PCR's words are. He warned that the provocations and pressure would continue and get worse until Russia either capitulated or hit back. What I do not understand is what did Putin expect after Russia pulled Assad's chestnuts out the fire? APPEASEMENT never has and never will work. I understand both Martynov's and Saker's points on this but, again, PCR is correct. This will get to a point were Russia either lays down the law with concrete actions or has to surrender. I see no other options in the long term, though short term Putin could keep trying to play the game, as the Neo-Con West will keep doubling down.michael on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:33 pm EST/EDT
Meanwhile back in Israel ..the entire country is rolling around on the floor unable to control their laughter at the tepid toothless Russian/Putin response ..JJ on September 18, 2018 , · at 1:02 pm EST/EDT
Yup .a Russian made missile shot down a Russian plane killing Russians fired by Syria and Russian fleet and Latakian forces appears to have done nothing in defence of illegal hostile intent by IDF and France. I do not think Iran is going to be to happy with this .did they hint they might assist Syria in regaining Golan heights? Because Iran is still being targeted .with Russia "aware" of this ..but doing what for or with Iran ?JJ on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:41 pm EST/EDT
" On Netanyahu's personal request Russia had stopped the delivery of original Russian S-300 long range air-defense missiles to the Syrian military. These would have been less likely to veer off towards the wrong target. In consequence an Iranian 747 was damaged and 15 Russian soldiers were killed. Netanyahu can forget about any further such "favors" from Moscow.Robert McMaster on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:41 pm EST/EDT
"http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/september/18/israel-provocation-kills-russian-soldiers-moscow-will-take-political-revenge/
The large scale political consequences of this incident are beyond measure and represent a great set back for Russia. The weak, almost apologetic response of the Russians disheartens its allies and supporters. Russia has todied after Isreal – to its shame – and now appears powerless against the results. Failing to arm the Syrians tells other partners what they can expect. And just plain military incompetence on the field inspires doubt that the Russia military are really any good.Anonymous on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:48 pm EST/EDTIts hard to imagine how the fall out could be any worse. If that was an American or British plane, those nations would have acted decisively and firmly. But Russia is an empty bag of wind.
Wasn't the Il-20 supposed to see the Israelis coming? If so, why didn't react? This was not a passenger plane. Something is fishy here!Timothy Hagious on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:56 pm EST/EDT
I can think of several things to consider:JJ on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:56 pm EST/EDT1) There was a substantial amount of time between the incident and the time official statements were made. Undoubtedly there was a bunch of negotiation and deliberation. We have no way of knowing what was agreed upon and for whose benefit the agreements were made.
2) If they truly wanted to appease Israel, why admit to the incident at all? Militaries cover up unflattering incidents all the time. Remember how the witnesses of the bin Laden raid died a month later in a different country? Or the Pentagon's claim back in April about how all the missiles hit their targets, despite clear video evidence to the contrary.
3) What is the statute of limitations for retaliation? If an Israeli plane mysteriously goes down a week from now, would that be a better or worse response than launching an attack today?
"Putin stated that the Russian side is set to thoroughly investigate the case, while stressing that "the Israeli jet didn't down our aircraft."TooLegit2Quit on September 18, 2018 , · at 12:57 pm EST/EDT"Most certainly, we have to sort the case out most seriously. And our attitude to the tragedy is outlined in the Russian Defense Ministry's statement," he noted, adding he personally approved it.
"Russia's retaliatory measures with regard to the Il-20 downing will be directed primarily at stepping up security of Russian military officers in Syria, our military facilities in the Syrian Arab Republic," he said. "These will be the steps everyone will notice," he stressed."https://sputniknews.com/world/201809181068134163-putin-russia-il-20-syria/
I do not read about further joint defencive action with Syrian forces to protect Syria.Hindsight anyone?
This was one of those rare times when staying up late at ungodly hours into the night pays off. First came the reports filtering through of missiles launched on Lattakia (which initially I didn't pay too much attention to, since Israel bombs Syria with impunity every other day of each week) , and since there are so many meddlers in the area the next order of business was to pin-point who was doing the firing. Syrian Defense first reports were that the missiles were fired from the west (not east), off the coast of Latakkia, so, the Mediterranean sea, most likely NATO origin. Eventually Israel was named, and around that time was when the Il-20 was downed.Meanwhile; we got NOTHING on RT (I got RT on permanently on the background) . Shortly after that came the reports of France involvement, then US Defense saying that they had nothing to do with the attack on Lattakia, Russian MOD saying that they were looking at France as possible culprits for the downing of the Il-20 and then the Pentagon came out blaming Syria for the Russian plane shot down by mistake. Now, bear in mind that I was following this chain of events online for a span of, say, three to four hours
It was around that time that RT finally came out with the breaking news: Russian plane "gone missing" in Syria. Their line of reporting was that the plane disappeared off radar, and a search and rescue operation was launched. Funny, since by then Russia already confirmed that the IL-20 was shot down.
No more updates came filtering through after that, Syrian sources went to bed for the night and so did I. Now I'm waking up to the news that Russia is more than happy to go along with the Pentagon line of BS: 'Syria downed Russian plane by mistake while targeting Israeli jet shadowing it.' Whatever helps them to save face and their joo friends, aaa nd their western "partners," I suppose. Oh, and we mustn't forget that this is happening in the midst of yet another fabulous "peace deal" in Sochi with Turdogan, agreed only a few hours before the attack on Lattakia.
But whichever way you slice it, this looks beyond bad for Russia, not the country – never the country and its wonderful people – the leadership. But then again, I'm waaaay past 'peak-disappointment' with them, non of this comes as a big shock anymore. I haven't forgotten Minsk I and II, those were a far bigger deal than this one:
"Putin: "Our response to downed plane will be additional security measures for our forces in Syria that everyone will notice."
Me: That is NOT an "adequate response". That is just what you should have done to protect our servicemen in the first place."
https://twitter.com/MarkSleboda1/status/1042048668726165506
^ Tweet by Mark Sleboda.
Looking forward to what he'd say on his next Cross Talk about this incident, but chances are Lavelle is gonna bump him off and put some random MENA "experts" on instead – huh, Mark?
-TL2Q
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2018 | www.unz.com
the obligatory four freedoms of the EU are free movement of goods, services, persons and capital throughout the Union. Open borders. That is the essence of the European Union, the dogma of the Free Market.
The problem with the Open Border doctrine is that it doesn't know where to stop. Or it doesn't stop anywhere. When Angela Merkel announced that hundreds of thousands of refugees were welcome in Germany, the announcement was interpreted as an open invitation by immigrants of all sorts, who began to stream into Europe. This unilateral German decision automatically applied to the whole of the EU, with its lack of internal borders. Given German clout, Open Borders became the essential "European common value", and welcoming immigrants the essence of human rights.
Very contrasting ideological and practical considerations contribute to the idealization of Open Borders. To name a few:
This combination of contrasting, even opposing motivations does not add up to a majority in every country. Notably not in Hungary.
It should be noted that Hungary is a small Central European country of less than ten million inhabitants, which never had a colonial empire and thus has no historic relationship with peoples in Africa and Asia as do Britain, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium. As one of the losers in World War I, Hungary lost a large amount of territory to its neighbors, notably to Romania. The rare and difficult Hungarian language would be seriously challenged by mass immigration. It is probably safe to say that the majority of people in Hungary tend to be attached to their national identity and feel it would be threatened by massive immigration from radically different cultures. It may not be nice of them, and like everyone they can change. But for now, that is how they vote.
In particular, they recently voted massively to re
Like the Soviet Union, the European Union is not merely an undemocratic institutional framework promoting a specific economic system; it is also the vehicle of an ideology and a planetary project. Both are based on a dogma as to what is good for the world: communism for the first, "openness" for the second. Both in varying ways demand of people virtues they may not share: a forced equality, a forced generosity. All this can sound good, but such ideals become methods of manipulation. Forcing ideals on people eventually runs up against stubborn resistance.
There are differing reasons to be against immigration just as to be for it. The idea of democracy was to sort out and choose between ideals and practical interests by free discussion and in the end a show of hands: an informed vote. The liberal Authoritarian Center represented by Verhofstadt seeks to impose its values, aspirations, even its version of the facts on citizens who are denounced as "populists" if they disagree. Under communism, dissidents were called "enemies of the people". For the liberal globalists, they are "populists" – that is, the people. If people are told constantly that the choice is between a left that advocates mass immigration and a right that rejects it, the swing to the right is unstoppable.
Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website September 17, 2018 at 11:17 pm GMT
Orban's reputation in the West as dictator is unquestionably linked to his intense conflict with Hungarian-born financier George SorosCarlton Meyer , says: Website September 18, 2018 at 4:30 am GMTAnd not only Soros, of course:
'I know that this battle is difficult for everyone. I understand if some of us are also afraid. This is understandable, because we must fight against an opponent which is different from us. Their faces are not visible, but are hidden from view; they do not fight directly, but by stealth; they are not honourable, but unprincipled; they are not national, but international; they do not believe in work, but speculate with money; they have no homeland, but feel that the whole world is theirs.' -- Viktor Orbán
Watch the great Hungarian foreign minister repel attacks by the BBCs arrogant open borders propagandist, rudely treating him like an ignorant child and calling him a racist for defending his nation.Anonymous , [224] Disclaimer says: September 18, 2018 at 5:34 am GMTjilles dykstra , says: September 18, 2018 at 7:19 am GMTEconomic liberals maintain that because Europe is aging, it needs young immigrant workers to pay for the pensions of retired workers.
Not gonna happen. Their 80 IQ skills are uncompetitive and useless in Europe even before Automation erases those low-skilled positions in the coming decade or two. Meanwhile, (real) European youth unemployment rate is 20%. Young Europeans are not making babies because they don't have a stable future. This can only get worse as the hostile invaders get preferential, Affirmative Action treatment, in schools and workplaces. None of this is accidental.
... ... ...
There are, in my opinion, two reasons for letting the mass immigration happen:John Siman , says: September 18, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
- the Brussels belief, expressed in a 2009 official document, not secret, that the EU needs 60 million immigrants.
- a Merkel belief dat the Germans are bad, they caused two world wars and perpetrated the holocaust, so the German people must be changed through mass immigration.The Brussels belief seems to be based mainly on the increasing average age in the EU.
It is incomprehensible to me, at the same time fear that robots slowly will do all simple jobs.The Merkel belief, on the other side of the Atlantic, where few understand German, and cannot or do not watch German tv, I wonder how many understand that the 20th century propaganda of the victors still is decisive in German daily life and politics.
The danger of neonazi's and fascism is everywhere.
Nationalism, the equivalent of building gas chambers.The EU also is based on the 20th century fairy tales, only the EU prevented wars in Europe after WWII.
The idea that Germans were victims in two world wars, and, until Hitler became power in 1933, also between the world wars, in unthinkable.
The idea that Endlösung meant deportation to Madagaskar, even more unthinkable.That jews, as one Rothschild wrote to another around 1890, have and had but one enemy, themselves, the world unthinkable is too weak.
Yet
'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA
explains it, things as 'close economic cooperation, intermarriage, ostentious behaviour'.
In this respect
'Christianity and the Holocaust of the Hungarian Jewry', Moshe Y Herclz, 1993 New York University press
also is a very interesting book, after jews in the thirties had been banned from many intellectual professions not a single Hungarian newspaper could be published any more.Soros trying to force Muslim immigrants on deeply catholic Hungary, he was born in Hungary, experienced anti semitism, revenge ?
I was recently in Budapest on business and will likely be returning soon: It is the most beautiful city I have ever seen, with stunning architectural restoration projects, almost non-existent police and military presence, food and wines that rival those of Paris, and a very friendly, non-bureaucratic and non-obsese (as opposed to the USA) population. I would like to hear from others who have recently visited and have knowledge of the country. Viszlát! -- JohnFelix-Culpa , says: September 18, 2018 at 11:27 am GMTWhen the fort of folly that Globalism is finally falls, Diana Johnstone's article will be cited as exemplary in exposing its hidden grammar. That fall cannot be far off now given that psy-ops can only work if people are ignorant of the manipulation afoot.Buzz Mohawk , says: September 18, 2018 at 11:46 am GMTGreat opening, Diana. For forty years the presstitude media have leaned on the use of implication as argument to have the ninety-nine percent buy what they are selling. What was not pointed out very well until now, is that their implications are all false. Now, only a dummy among the dumbed-down cannot see it.
For those who have the patience to read the English subtitles, here is an excellent speech given by Orbán in July. Here he outlines his thinking on the issues facing Hungary and the world.Hans Vogel , says: September 18, 2018 at 12:36 pm GMTViktor Orbán is a very intelligent leader, and he has the vast majority of the Hungarian people behind him. History has taught those people many things, and they have had enough. They are not fools. Look to them as an example for all of us.
@John Siman I was recently in Budapest on business and will likely be returning soon: It is the most beautiful city I have ever seen, with stunning architectural restoration projects, almost non-existent police and military presence, food and wines that rival those of Paris, and a very friendly, non-bureaucratic and non-obsese (as opposed to the USA) population. I would like to hear from others who have recently visited and have knowledge of the country. Viszlát! -- John Wherever US influence is not yet overwhelming (and such places are becoming fewer every day, unfortunately), you will still find "old-fashioned" ways of interaction, few fatties, and decent food and drink.Michael Kenny , says: September 18, 2018 at 1:44 pm GMTPeople may become fat for many reasons, but most fatties these days in the Anglosphere belong to the underclass. These wretches get fat from eating expensive trash at McDonald's and other fast food outlets, and drinking Coca Cola and similar sugar-saturated garbage. Their behavior may seem strange because their brains have largely withered away through endless TV watching (mainly US or US-inspired visual trash), their hearing impaired by ear- and mind numbing noise passing for music.
I am afraid the way out of that prison is long and tortuous for all victims of US neoliberalism.
The usual anti-EU propaganda that Ms Johnstone has been peddling for at least a dozen years, although she has recently moved from claiming to be a far-leftist to claiming to be a far-rightest. Whatever pretext "proves" the EU to be evil is trotted out! However, she points out very clearly Viktor Orban's dilemma. The choice for Hungary is between the EU and Putin's tanks. After 40 years of occupation by a Soviet Union in which the ethnic Russians acted as colonial overlords and the general contempt which Hungarians have for Slavs, choosing the latter option would be political suicide for any Hungarian leader. Thus, Orban is stuck with the EU whether he likes it or not and the other Member States are stuck with Orban whether they like it or not. In addition, two of Ms Johnstone's factual claims need to be corrected. The "EU" is taking no step whatsoever to strip Hungary of its political rights. The (according to Ms Johnstone, "largely rubber stamp") European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling on the Member States to sanction Hungary. The EP always does something attention-grabbing in the run up to elections and since Ms Johnstone once worked for the European Parliament (as a far-leftist!), I'm sure she knows that. Imposing sanctions, as always in the EU, is a matter for the sovereign Member States and the decision has to be unanimous. Poland has already said it will not vote for sanctions, so the whole thing is a dead letter. Secondly, the claim that Hungary "never had a colonial empire" is untrue. It never had a colonial empire outside Europe but before 1918, it ruled over Slovakia, most of Croatia, Transylvania, now part of Romania, and the Vojvodina, now part of Serbia (so much for Ms Johnstone's supposed "expertise" on ex-Yugoslavia!). In general, the frantic, almost hysterical, tone of the article suggests that Ms Johnstone doesn't believe that Viktor Orban is going to be the cause of the imminent and inevitable demise of the hated EU that she has been predicting for as long as I have been reading her articles (and that goes back at least 14 years!).Hans Vogel , says: September 18, 2018 at 2:38 pm GMT@Michael Kenny The usual anti-EU propaganda that Ms Johnstone has been peddling for at least a dozen years, although she has recently moved from claiming to be a far-leftist to claiming to be a far-rightest. Whatever pretext "proves" the EU to be evil is trotted out! However, she points out very clearly Viktor Orban's dilemma. The choice for Hungary is between the EU and Putin's tanks. After 40 years of occupation by a Soviet Union in which the ethnic Russians acted as colonial overlords and the general contempt which Hungarians have for Slavs, choosing the latter option would be political suicide for any Hungarian leader. Thus, Orban is stuck with the EU whether he likes it or not and the other Member States are stuck with Orban whether they like it or not. In addition, two of Ms Johnstone's factual claims need to be corrected. The "EU" is taking no step whatsoever to strip Hungary of its political rights. The (according to Ms Johnstone, "largely rubber stamp") European Parliament has adopted a resolution calling on the Member States to sanction Hungary. The EP always does something attention-grabbing in the run up to elections and since Ms Johnstone once worked for the European Parliament (as a far-leftist!), I'm sure she knows that. Imposing sanctions, as always in the EU, is a matter for the sovereign Member States and the decision has to be unanimous. Poland has already said it will not vote for sanctions, so the whole thing is a dead letter. Secondly, the claim that Hungary "never had a colonial empire" is untrue. It never had a colonial empire outside Europe but before 1918, it ruled over Slovakia, most of Croatia, Transylvania, now part of Romania, and the Vojvodina, now part of Serbia (so much for Ms Johnstone's supposed "expertise" on ex-Yugoslavia!). In general, the frantic, almost hysterical, tone of the article suggests that Ms Johnstone doesn't believe that Viktor Orban is going to be the cause of the imminent and inevitable demise of the hated EU that she has been predicting for as long as I have been reading her articles (and that goes back at least 14 years!). Judging by your name, you are not a European, but an Englishman, or from somewhere else in the Anglosphere. It is a good thing for England and especially the English to be leaving the EuSSR, which is more of a prison than commonly realized. Ruled by a greedy class of corrupt and, to make it worse, utterly mediocre, politicians, incompetent and stupid bureaucrats (yes, I know this is an oxymoron) in the exclusive interest of ruthless big corporations, human rights do not exist in the EuSSR.anonymous , [739] Disclaimer says: September 18, 2018 at 3:26 pm GMTSince the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe has seen a wave of privatizations on a scale only comparable to what happened in the former USSR. Nevertheless, taxation has increased to a point where today, the average EuSSR "citizen" pays between 75% and 80% taxes on every Euro he earns. The middle class is on its way to extinction. The judiciary is a joke, education has been dismantled or stupidified, health care is a disaster, save in Southern Europe where many doctors and nurses still have a sense of humanity.
The piece by Mrs. Johnstone may not be flawless, but it says what needs to be said.
Lots of important things switch sides.70 years ago the Democrat party in the American South was the party of regular working class White Southerners and promoted Southern heritage and Southern history including Confederate history.
Then things change.
Now the national Democrat party and the Democrat party in the South hates Whites Southerners, hates Southern heritage and Southern history and are promoting the desecration of Confederate monuments and confederate graves.
60 years ago Hungarian was under Soviet Communist domination and Hungarian patriots looked to the West – especially American and Great Britain to help them achieve some personal freedom from Communism.
Now things have completely changed. It's the Wester (EU) UK BBC, American mass media that restricts freedom and National Christianity in Hungary and pretty much everywhere else. Russia is once again a health European Christian nation. Nobody in Hungary, Eastern Europe or Russia wants to allow their countries to be invaded by millions of 3rd world Muslim rapists.
So I living in Chicago IL (Obama was my neighbor) look to Hungary, Poland, Russia and Eastern Europe for any small dose of freedom.
Things change.
|
|
|
EliteCommInc. , says: September 18, 2018 at 8:01 am GMTSep 18, 2018 | www.unz.com
The week leading up to the funeral of Senator John McCain produced some of the most bizarre media effusions seen in this country since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963. McCain, who never saw a war or regime change that he didn't like, was apparently in reality a friend of democracy and freedom worldwide, a judgment that somehow ignores the hundreds of thousands of presumed foreign devils who have died as a consequence of the policies he enthusiastically promoted in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.
McCain, who supported assassination of US citizens abroad and detention of them by military commissions back at home, was hardly the upright warrior for justice eulogized in much of the mainstream media. He was in fact for most of his life a corrupt cheerleader for the Establishment and Military Industrial Complex. McCain was one of five Senators who, in return for campaign contributions, improperly intervened in 1987 on behalf of Charles Keating, Chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, a target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently did not follow through with proposed action against Lincoln.
Lincoln Savings and Loan finally did collapse in 1989, at a cost of $3.4 billion to the federal government, which had insured the accounts, while an estimated 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded, many losing their life savings. When the Keating story broke in 1989, the Phoenix New Times newspaper called McCain the worst senator from any state in American history.
There was plenty of pushback on the McCain legacy coming from the alternative media, though nothing in the mainstream where politicians and pundits from both the left and the right of the political spectrum united in their songs of praise. Amidst all the eulogies one article did, however, strike me as particularly bizarre. It was written by Jeffrey Goldberg, Editor in Chief of The Atlantic , and is entitled " McCain would have passed the Anne Frank test" with the sub-heading "The senator spent decades demonstrating his willingness to fight powerful men who abused powerless people."
Goldberg, a leading neoconservative, casually reveals that he has had multiple discussions with McCain, including some in "war zones" like Iraq. He quotes the Senator as saying "I hated Saddam. He ruled through murder. Didn't we learn from Hitler that we can't let that happen?" Goldberg notes that McCain's hatred "for all dictators burned hot" before hitting on a number of other themes, including that, per the senator, it was Donald Rumsfeld's "arrogance and incompetence that helped discredit the American invasion" of Iraq. Goldberg quotes McCain as saying "He [Rumsfeld] was the worst."
Jeffrey Goldberg also claims a conversation with McCain in which he asserted that, even though an Iraq war supporter, he had become frustrated with the effort to "renovate a despotic Middle Eastern country." As he put it, "theory of the American case was no match for the heartbreaking Middle East reality," which is yet another defense of U.S. interventionism with the caveat that the Arabs might not be ready to make good use of the largesse. Elsewhere Goldberg, echoing McCain, has attributed the disaster in Iraq to the "incompetence of the Bush Administration," not to the policy of regime change itself, presumably because the Pentagon was unsuccessful at killing enough Arabs quickly enough to suit the neoconservatives. McCain's reported response to Goldberg's equivocation about Saddam Hussein's Iraq was "But genocide! Genocide!"
... ... ...
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org .
Carlton Meyer , says: Website September 18, 2018 at 4:43 am GMT
A final tribute to McCain, from my blog:Cloak And Dagger , says: September 18, 2018 at 5:34 am GMTSep 2, 2018 – John McCain Will Not Be Missed
As a follow-up to my Aug 27th blog, I ask people to name McCain's most important accomplishment during his long political career. They can think of none, but the TV tells them McCain was great because he was a neocon. Senator Paul Laxalt saw more combat than McCain and had an equally long and distinguished career. He was not a crazed neocon so our media barely reported his death last month.
Here are two examples of McCain's bad character just this past year. McCain had always opposed Obamacare and campaigned against it. The Republicans had tried to repeal it for years. The election of President Trump also brought in more Republican congressmen. The House easily repealed it, and the Senate finally had a majority to vote for a partial repeal. This would be a big victory for the Republicans led by President Trump. When the vote was held, McCain shocked everyone and voted against it, thus abandoning his principles and backstabbing his party! This was applauded by the Democrats and the insurance companies who profit from Obamacare. They praised McCain as a "maverick", although everyone knows this was done just to thwart a Trump victory.
On his deathbed, McCain directed his staff not to invite his Presidential running mate Sarah Palin to his funeral. She campaigned for him as a loyal teammate and never said a bad word about McCain during the campaign or after their loss. McCain blamed her for his loss and expressed this in a childish manner. Allow me to summarize his life. John McCain was as selfish, spoiled brat who had no sense of decency.
As I have stated before it is with great sorrow that I note the passing of McCain. A more just god would have prolonged the agony of cancer for may years to come so he could live in misery, anguish, and pain, as penance for the lives he has destroyed here and abroad. I fear that several such lifetimes in such suffering would be grossly inadequate recompense for what he has wrought.mark green , says: September 18, 2018 at 7:16 am GMTSmall wonder that I have no belief in such an inordinately cruel and unjust god who allows men like McCain to live and thrive and then vanish into the ether with his debts unpaid, while the crew of USS Liberty live their lives in the knowledge of their betrayal by McCain's father, and later McCain himself.
An orphaned child weeps in Iraq while America lauds this beast among men while he lived, and sings his praises on his death. A curse on all his enablers.
This was a stirring editorial, Philip, and an much-needed rejection of John McCain's artificial status as a 'great American'.jilles dykstra , says: September 18, 2018 at 7:30 am GMTIndeed, the fact that such a murderous sycophant as McCain would receive extended, bi-partisan honors by establishment 'liberals' and 'conservatives' alike, demonstrates what a staged and loathsome cesspool of corruption has become Imperial Washington, not to mention our vaunted Fourth Estate. I haven't felt this estranged from my own country since the last time Bibi Netanyahu addressed both houses of Congress.
... ... ...
What on earth is the Anne Frank test ?anonymous , [337] Disclaimer says:
The Anne Frank story simply is of jews in hiding in the Netherlands in WWII, discovered in 1944, deported, where Anne Frank died in early 1945 died of typhoid, while others who stayed in the same Amsterdam canal achterhuis, literally 'behind house', built later in the garden, survived.
Before I continue, there is not a shred of doubt that the hiding place and the way they were in hiding is not true.
However, if a fourteen year old wrote the diary, there are doubts.
Except for the text itself, how at the end of 1944 a ball point pen arrived in occupied Netherlands, the last part is written by ballpoint, no explanation whatsoever.
Jews were in hiding all over the Netherlands, my mother told me how after the Canadians had driven out the Germans, snow white people appeared in her small village, that she had known nothing about, they had been inside for several, maybe five, years.
The effort to get food to them must not be underestimated, food was rationed strictly.
I will keep my fence. His policies regarding Carte Blanche' support for Israel, the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, , interventions in Libya, Syria the Ukraine and pressing the matter on Iran -- the Russia baiting and Russia conspiracies –Greg Bacon , says: Website September 18, 2018 at 8:11 am GMTwere and remain horrible policies for the US.
From reading these uppity remarks by Mr. Giraldi, it's obvious he didn't get the text commanding all good Americans to get on their knees and worship the dead mass-murderer psychopath McCain.David Martin , says: Website September 18, 2018 at 10:11 am GMT"He said that, in the post holocaust world, all civilized people, and the governments of all civilized nations, should be intolerant of leaders who commit verified acts of genocide "
"Verified?" John Boy using legalese to slither away from his participation in numerous acts of genocide, both directly by dropping Napalm on Vietnamese civilians or as one of the US Senate's most rabid war mongers, demanding that this nation or that country be bombed, invaded and smashed, because McCain had set himself up as judge, jury and executioner? No facts needed, verdict already in, GUILTY as usual, off with their heads.
If the ICC was actually functional and not just a tool of NATO, EU, Israel and its US colony, McCain–along with a slew of other US and Israeli war criminals–would of been dancing on air a long time ago.
On top of it all, the notion of such an "Anne Frank test" is also founded on a lie. http://www.dcdave.com/article5/150811.htmJackOH , says: September 18, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT
Phil, thanks.Z-man , says: September 18, 2018 at 10:22 am GMTI served among fighter jocks back in the 1970s. They're great guys, cut a good public figure, they're patriotic, true believers in air power, and they enjoy the prestige of their military occupation. They are also straight-line-only thinkers. They'd bristle at the idea that they've been "handled" by anyone.
We had a retired Navy captain here who was elected county commissioner. Bristling with energy and ideas, he had the security of his good government pension. So he thought. Bought by a local zillionaire, he served prison time.
Fighter jocks simply won't "get" that the job of our political masters is to cripple and puppetize nominally representative institutions by bribery, blackmail, extortion, and the like, for the purpose of providing rhetorical cover for what they want to do.
You should and you should try to get others even more influential than yourself (I'm thinking Pat Buchanan), to browbeat CBS to disclose that this Jeffrey Goldberg is an Israeli citizen. He's on 'Face The Nation' almost as much as the lovely Margaret Brennan.Stephen Paul Foster , says: Website September 18, 2018 at 10:26 am GMT
"That McCain enthusiastically became Goldberg's patsy is at least one good reason that we should all be grateful that he never was elected president."Yes, McCain did not appear to be particularly bright, but he was highly energized by the "dueling banjos" of ambition and avarice (dumping his sick first wife for a younger, much richer one), and hence a perfect mark for the wily Zionist manipulators.
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2018 | www.unz.com
Michael7 , says: September 17, 2018 at 2:08 pm GMT
@Linh DinhUnz also exhumes Jacob Schiff to show how this Wall Street banker jump started the Bolshevik Revolution, so it was really a deep hatred of Russia, and not any idealism, that triggered the bloodiest chapter in human history. Though only 4% of Russia's population, Jews made up 80-85% of the early Soviet government, Unz points out, and they dominated the Gulag administration and the terrifying NKVD.
Back during the US Civil War, which was largely the result of Rothschild meddling and financing of both sides, Abraham Lincoln anticipated a surprise attack by the British and French. So he requested assistance from Tsar Alexander II who in turn mobilized the Russian fleet and docked at both New York and San Francisco. Rothschild never forgave this 'insult' by the Russians, hence Jacob Schiff and his cohorts helping to fund and orchestrate the Bolshevik Revolution which was, essentially, an act of revenge.
By the way, it would be remiss not to mention the hard fact that it was Jewish individuals who owned almost every slave ship during the Transatlantic Slave Trade and also dominated the Triangle Trade (molasses/rum/slaves). True history has been deliberately twisted so as to portray whites as though being the sole culprits of African slavery in the West. As another point of fact, it was white Christians who fought to end slavery. Ironically, after slavery had ended, Jews such as Rabbi Stephen Wise began to finance and form various 'civil rights' groups such as the NAACP, in a naked attempt to establish themselves as championing freedom and equality, whereas this was most obviously not the case prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. Reason being, they could use blacks and other "oppressed minorities" as a fifth column of sorts to exploit racial frictions from within and thus serve as a convenient distraction from the more negative activities befallen all of Western civilization which, shamefully, continues to the present day.
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2018 | www.unz.com
bj , says: September 18, 2018 at 10:48 am GMT
Update–"The Israeli pilots used the Russian plane as cover and set it up to be targeted by the Syrian air defense forces. As a consequence, the Il-20, which has radar cross-section much larger than the F-16, was shot down by an S-200 system missile," the statement said.
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Afkaysit , Sep 17, 2018 5:01:05 AM | link
< >The Israel Project, a major advocacy group based in Washington, is running a secret influence campaign on Facebook
Censored film reveals The Israel Project's secret Facebook campaign
The Israel Project, a major advocacy group based in Washington, is running a secret influence campaign on Facebook.
This is revealed in The Lobby – USA, an undercover Al Jazeera documentary that has never been broadcast due to censorship by Qatar following pressure from pro-Israel organizations.
In the newest clips, David Hazony, the managing director of The Israel Project, is heard telling Al Jazeera's undercover reporter: "There are also things that we do that are completely off the radar. We work together with a lot of other organizations."
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2018 | electronicintifada.net
Posted by: Afkaysit | Sep 17, 2018 5:01:05 AM | 72
|
|
|
May 31, 2015 | The Guardian
JordanFromLondon -> Havingalavrov 31 May 2015 12:26
"Look at the Moscow apartment bombings"... look at any number of CIA false flag operations. As for "most of the national T.V is Putin press." ... Murdoch has a controlling interest in printed press and a large share of TV news in Australia and the UK. Maybe you are one of the CIA-employed agitators against Russia, or maybe you have a chip on your shoulder about a failed relationship with a Russia bride. I can't be sure from your comments.
But it's very suspect when you say things like "Putin's created a criminal war in East Ukraine" when it was Kiev which started the violence in reaction to the Russian Ukrainians voting for Federalization in response to the coup in Kiev. It means that everything else you write has to be treated as suspect.
Huo Fu Yan 31 May 2015 12:24
I don't see a big issue with that list. If some people from that list travel anywhere, it will be considered wasting tax payer money anyways. They aren't even embraced by a majority in their own countries, some of them belonging to totally irrelevant weird initiative, shouting and crying about this and that.
For others on that list, being linked to military organisations, the should be banned naturally. As for vacation, I don't think Russia was on those guys list either
JordanFromLondon -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 12:14
alpamysh ... you've merely regurgitated the standard NeoCon list of justifications for why a democratically-elected leader needed to be overthrown (e.g. Egypt's Morsi). If we take your "Hitler was elected" argument, we can apply that one to any election outcome. If you won your high school "class monitor" election ... we'll Hitler won an election too. It's nothing more than a lazy smear by association. If we take your "rigs the right of the opposition" argument, well there goes Israel's claims to democracy. They arrest/ban viable Arab opposition figures to prevent them standing in elections. Also, we have to eliminate Ukraine, who have assassinated about 12 of Yanukovich's inner circle since the coup.
uzzername 31 May 2015 12:09
The article isn't worth the headline really. The new cold war is on and obviously they'll be barring each other.
Russia, along with the rest of BRICS is an emerging economy. While in the developed economies big corporations scramble for every penny they rip off off the consumers, the BRICS are a goldmine for adventurous capitalists as you can score quite a bit of dope in one scoop if you invest enough in it.
That's why some of them suits on the list are pissed off. Obvs not because their summer holiday in Siberia has gone into smithereens.
umweltAT2100 31 May 2015 12:04
According to a report in ARD (German state media) the entry ban is a reaction / retaliation in response to the entry ban imposed on Russians in connection with the Crimea annexation. Approximately 200 people are on the Russian black list. The largest number are from the USA, with the Republican John McCain declared "persona non grata", followed by Canadian politicians.
On the other hand the EU has also put an entry ban on leading Russian politicians, among which are the chairman of the Federation council, politicians from the state Duma and also close advisors to the Russian president Vladimir Putin. It is not anticipated that either side will lift the entry bans in the near future. (Excerpt and rough translation from German)
Russian entry ban for dozens of politicians – Moscow's black list is out. (Hermann Krause, ARD Radio studio, Moscow, 30.05.2015)
Russische Einreiseverbote für Dutzende Politiker Moskaus "schwarze Liste" ist raus. Von Hermann Krause, ARD-Hörfunkstudio Moskau, 30.05.2015
http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/russland-einreiseverbot-103.html
Danish5666 -> dralion 31 May 2015 12:03
Victoria Nuland and the neocons to be more precise,
"In December, Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that, to help Ukraine achieve "its European aspirations, we have invested more than $5 billion." She said the U.S. goal was to take "Ukraine into the future that it deserves," by which she meant into the West's orbit and away from Russia's.
But President Yanukovych rejected a European Union plan that would have imposed harsh austerity on the already impoverished Ukraine. He accepted a more generous $15 billion loan from Russia, which also has propped up Ukraine's economy with discounted natural gas. Yanukovych's decision sparked anti-Russian street protests in Kiev, located in the country's western and more pro-European region.
Nuland was soon at work planning for "regime change," encouraging disruptive street protests by personally passing out cookies to the anti-government demonstrators. She didn't seem to notice or mind that the protesters in Kiev's Maidan square had hoisted a large banner honoring Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles.
By late January, Nuland was discussing with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt who should be allowed in the new government.
"Yats is the guy," Nuland said in a phone call to Pyatt that was intercepted and posted online. "He's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the guy you know." By "Yats," Nuland was referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who had served as head of the central bank, foreign minister and economic minister - and who was committed to harsh austerity.
As Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. McCain cheered the demonstrators on, the street protests turned violent. Police clashed with neo-Nazi bands, the ideological descendants of Bandera's anti-Russian Ukrainians who collaborated with the Nazi SS during World War II.
With the crisis escalating and scores of people killed in the street fighting, Yanukovych agreed to a E.U.-brokered deal that called for moving up scheduled elections and having the police stand down. The neo-Nazi storm troopers then seized the opening to occupy government buildings and force Yanukovych and many of his aides to flee for their lives."
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/02/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis/JordanFromLondon -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 11:53
What proof do you have that the Russian elections were phony ? The results were in line with independent opinion polls. Which referendums was phony ? The first Iraqi election after Sadam was toppled was certainly phony. The US military whisked away the ballot boxes for a week after voting was completed before announcing that the Shia (60% of Iraqis) had failed to get a majority (despite the 20% Bathist Sunni boycotting the election so only the 20% Kurds voted against the 60% Shia).
geedeesee -> SnarkyGrumpkin 31 May 2015 11:50
From article: He [Clegg] also argued that the country should lose the right to host the 2018 World Cup after Russian troops allegedly downed the civilian airliner Flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine last July.
Well, there's evidence in itself. Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. (The burden of proof is on he who declares, not on he who denies). He wants to punish before the publication o the report. It's like a mediaeval witch-hunt. The law of the jungle seems to be Clegg's guiding principle. No surprise he's been banned.
JordanFromLondon -> Havingalavrov 31 May 2015 11:45
"Putin wants sanctions" ... what a bunch of silly conjecture. As for "Putin style rule" and "Tzar" .. you presumably know that Russia held democratic elections which Putin won. That's more than many of the US/UK allies can say (take your pick of the Gulf state leaders). Don't buy into the mindless anti-Russian propaganda doing the rounds. I suspect that it's intended to soften public opnion for anti-Russian attrocities committed in our name to come.
Huo Fu Yan -> David Port 31 May 2015 11:36
It's true, 1/3 the list are politicians and military leader from Poland and baltics with no intend to enter Russia anyways. The rest are merely people engaged in military organisations (should be banned naturally) or weird political groups and initiatives.
Furthermore, there are a few irrelevant politicians on the list for whatever reason. To be frank, a few people from that list you wouldt want in your own country either.
meewaan 31 May 2015 11:07
let me guess, The list probably contains politicians whose real loyalty maybe is with the US? Judge from the 2 names mentioned, Malcolm Riffkind is Co-Vice Chair of the Global Panel Foundation – America – with Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, the former U.S Under-Secretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Armed Forces.
Not sure about banning Nick Clegg, - has his wife remunerated by her work for companies linked to the US? Take, for example, Mrs Clegg's firm's advertisement (again, on its website) of the fact it makes considerable sums from helping rich people avoid inheritance tax, saying that it offers 'personal estate planning advice and financial and tax-planning services to high net worth individuals'.
'We combine sophisticated estate planning skills with international resources . . . We help U.S. and non-U.S. trustees and beneficiaries transfer wealth efficiently through lifetime and testamentary trusts designed to minimise tax exposure.'
SuchindranathAiyer 31 May 2015 10:35
It required a "Tit for Tat" to establish that sanctions are working? Here is the geo-political back drop:
Reigan and Gorby arrived at certain agreements and understandings which Clinton (the husband) violated. He pulled Poland and others into NATO and bombed Russian ally Belgrade, violating international law, while a helpless Russia fumed, for 84 days to given Islam its first ethnically cleansed enclaves (Bosnia and Kosovo) after 1489.
Bush (the son), declared the "Star Wars" missile shield in direct violation of the Regan-Gorbachev agreements while Russia continued to fume, but began to re arm and prepare itself for war. Apart from, of course, violating International Law and invading Russian ally Iraq to distract anger over 9/11 from Saudi Arabia and its Nuclear-Terrorist sword arm Pakistan and threw thriving communities of Jews, Christians, Yazidis, discos and bars that the Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis resented into the maws of Islam.
Russia fumed and continued to rearm and began to rally around Putin's nationalism. The US commenced "regime change" operations in Russian (and Iraqi) Secular ally Syria, throwing even more Jews, Christians, Yazidis and Kurds into the maws of Islam. US was to weakened by Iraq to wage war unilaterally in Syria. China and Russia blocked the US at the UN. Putin wrote an open letter to Obama on Syria in the NY Times which gained traction with the American Citizens, bending Obama's nose and driving the US regime change operation in Syria further under ground (covert). Prince Bandar (what an appropriate name!) head of Saudi intelligence went ot Moscow to bribe Putin to back the putsch in Syria. Putin refused and told Bandar that if Islam tried a Beslan at Sochi, he would bomb the Q'aba. This bent the Saudi nose. So the US commenced operation regime change in Ukraine. This sparked the secession of Crime to Russia. The US fumed and fretted because its more develoed and intelligent NATO allies (France and Germany) would not back the US backed fascist regime in Ukraine. The US shot down MH-17 in a false flag operation and started a canard against Russia to revive NATO. There is a NATO now imposing US-Saudi conceived sanctions on Russia. We are now in the Second Cold War so NATO won't go away. Russia and China will ally because, Clinton to Obama, the US has demonstrated the dangers of a unipolar world, particularly as Islamic Petro Dollars own the decision and opinion makers of the West and have used the US military to further the Islamic agenda as much as carry on with the old anti-Communist prejudices. (While Russia is not Totalitarian, China is. India is really the last Soviet franchise in the World with its "Animal Farm" totalitarian Constitution and thinking which is why the US is an ally of Pakistan and as hostile to India as to Russia. Consider that as recently as 2012, the man who lolls in Lutyen's drawing room today moved "retrospective" legislation in the same Parliament that nationalized 20% of private (non minority) education and removed the truth from Govt approved History text books, in the highest traditions of Nehru, Ambedkar and Indira Gandhi.)
wilpost37 -> AbsolutelyFapulous 31 May 2015 10:33
Absolutely/Goman
Almost all the tourists of Crimea were Ukrainians before 2014. They stopped coming, and likely are spending their vacation elsewhere.
Crimea is rebuilding its infrastructures (Kiev had neglected them for 22 years), and its tourist base.
It expects to have over 4 million visitors in 2015 and 5 million in 2016, because many Russians are no longer going to EU countries, and are going to Crimea, Sochi, etc., instead. It will take time, but Crimea is a beautiful area.
Crimea became part of the Russian Empire by conquest over the Tartars in 1793.
The Tartars had been kidnapping nearby people (several million over many decades) and selling them to the Turks. Catherine the Great put an end to that.
Khrushev was stupid to give it to Ukraine in 1954.
After the CIA/FBI-assisted coup of Kiev, the Crimean people, 67% Russian, feared for their future, as did the Donbas people.
SHappens 31 May 2015 10:24
"Just one thing remains unclear: did our European co-workers want these lists to minimise inconveniences for potential 'denied persons' or to stage a political show?"
It is pretty clear that it turned out to be another media circus.
Socraticus -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 10:12
Lesson 1 - everyone on this site is a guest, you included
Lesson 2 - the majority of posters herein are actually westerners, not 'Russian trolls'
Lesson 3 - all politicians lie to advance their own social/economic/political agendas
Lesson 4 - all MSM distort/suppress the truth to support governmental narratives
Lesson 5 - many of us westerners actually bother to investigate the true facts
Lesson 6 - if a leader's being demonized its because they won't capitulate to the US
Lesson 7 - every illicit invasion is preceded by demonization of a leader/country
Lesson 8 - your constant anti-Russia/Putin comments mark you as a shill/troll
Lesson 9 - you can educate yourself or remain blind to facts - your choice
Lesson 10 - you will learn the consequences of your choicesUnsleepingMind -> EssoBlue 31 May 2015 10:12
You realise that Russia is one the most important members of the BRICS and that they group has recently established a development bank? That's hardly the sign that the other BRICS nations are not reading from the same hymn sheet as Russia...
Russia has also joined China's Asian Infrastructure Bank. Another clear sign that it is strengthening its relations with other BRICS members.
44theorderofknights 31 May 2015 09:57
What did anyone expect flowers from russia from the unfair treatment it's getting. The west paying for Ukraine part nazi government and creating a coup in a democratically ekected president last february. Then sanctioning the Russian people expecting them to turn in yheir president. The west should be ashamed of what they accomplished that being fronting a proxy war against Russia.
Vijay Raghavan -> Huo Fu Yan 31 May 2015 09:54
Developing all-round military-to-military relations. China's armed forces will further their exchanges and cooperation with the Russian military within the framework of the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination between China and Russia, and foster a comprehensive, diverse and sustainable framework to promote military relations in more fields and at more levels
http://eng.mod.gov.cn/Database/WhitePapers/2015-05/26/content_4586715.htm
They made that statement in their white paper issued last week.Offcourse Guardian or BBC will not keep up with such "Breaking News".
UnsleepingMind -> EssoBlue 31 May 2015 09:49
1) Yes, the BRICS countries are very much behind Russia.
2) Russia, unlike the US, has tabled a resolution to condemn Nazism and Nazi movements in the highest forum possible (the UN). The US, along with Canada, and its puppet government in Ukraine, voted against it (in defiance of most of the world's nations).
[1] http://russia-insider.com/en/de-dollarization-du-jour-russia-backs-brics-alternative-swift/ri7566
[2] http://rt.com/news/207899-un-anti-nazism-resolution/UnsleepingMind -> Tom20000 31 May 2015 09:43
You would think, with all the technology at the disposal of the US security state, that it might (just might) be able to provide us with real, irrefutable evidence of a ground invasion. You know, perhaps some high resolution satellite imagery, the odd photo of a modern Russian tank moving over the Ukrainian border, some chatter from the wires between embassy officials and security personnel, etc., etc.
But of course we have nothing of the sort. What we have is a desperate corporate media, dutifully parroting the nonsense from the US State Department, and investing virtually nothing in on-the-ground investigative reporting. But real evidence? We are in very, VERY short supply of that.
UnsleepingMind -> ponott 31 May 2015 09:34
I can only assume it is as badge of honour if you buy into all the dimwitted propaganda being published by the western corporate media -- who seem to have a daily axe to grind against the Russian state, but who say nothing about the warmongering actions of the US. I imagine I would have the same opinion of you if I was to uncritically swallow such toxic rubbish.
UnsleepingMind -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 09:30
'Because we have the right to ban people who invade other countries'.
That's why we've recently arrested George Bush (who, with the help of Tony Blair invaded Iraq and Afghanistan), Barack Obama (who bombed Libya, engineered coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and is now funding Islamic extremists in Syria)...
We reserve the right to ban, but we use that 'right' to ban official enemies (i.e. anyone daring to follow a geopolitical game plan that is distinctly at odds with our own).
Also, your suggestion that Putin's Russia has invaded 'other countries' is preposterous. The western media has been spewing this nonsense for months now and yet there is not a shred of real evidence (including hi-res satellite imagery) to back it up. And if you are referring to Crimea, let me say this: Russia troops have been staged in Crimea for many, many years; moreover, the people of Crimea voted to break with Ukraine in a recent referendum (not that that squares with your hectoring rhetoric).
PyrrhicVictory 31 May 2015 09:27
The doors of the gravy train for politicians like Clegg are fast closing. When we exit the EU, then the Brussels gravy train will also be beyond him. He might, just might, having to start behaving like an honest politician for once and earn a decent wage based on truth not lies.
johnsmith44 -> NegativeCamber 31 May 2015 09:25
Why dont you go spread democracy to some oil-producing Third World country, together with your poodles the brits? And make sure you do it properly, so that monstrosities like ISIS are guaranteed?
- http://rs1img.memecdn.com/democracy-time_c_2260507.jpg
- https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqBYAW0dRNgtzrU7VxpulQzOnCOb6oU79T9eK2I00vwNGaVip8
- http://www.demotivation.us/media/demotivators/demotivation.us_Be-nice-to-America-Or-we-will-bring-democracy-to-your-country_131667067122.jpg
more democracy exporting: http://multipletext.com/2011/images/3-22-US-democracy.jpg
and more: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/76/31/c0/7631c0787ae47cfc74cd8488390cc5d5.jpg
johnsmith44 -> alpamysh 31 May 2015 09:21
1) Google for "Operation Northwoods", that is, CIA's proposal to Kennedy to shoot down a passenger jet over Cuba.
2) Read here: http://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/29/obama-should-release-ukraine-evidence/
ex-CIA personnel openly describing their involvement in the dowining of Korean Airlines passenger flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983 and I believe it becomes apparent who downed MH-17.
Jerome Fryer -> Popeyes 31 May 2015 09:11
We're the global overlords, and so second-rate nations aren't allowed to reciprocate our petulant actions. When they do so it causes some people to question the assumed status of the 'Western' hegemony (and our claimed system of morally superior 'values'). We can't allow that sort of thing, Popeyes.
davidncldl 31 May 2015 09:10
The Guardian has a clear pro-EU/USA position on the new cold war against Russia. Mr Putin is their democratically elected leader and he is enormously popular. Only an imbecile would be surprised or indignant about Russia retaliating for unjust EU/US sanctions. What do the globalisers and bankers' friends at the Guardian expect? I imagine you think that the ruination of the Venezuelan and Russian economies by the manipulation of the oil price is just "free market" activity.
Hass Castorp 31 May 2015 09:07
"More than 6,200 people have been killed in fighting between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists."
This is a language of propaganda, Guardian. Last i checked Guardian advertised to be a newspaper, not a bulletin of The Ministry of Truth.
My reformulation; "More than 6200 (in some estimates up to 50.000) have been killed and up to 1 million civilians displaced (who mostly fled to Russia) by Ukrainian government troops and private terrorist kommandos of Ukrainian oligarchs."
Jerome Fryer -> henry919 31 May 2015 09:03
The only way to effectively block people from other regions (blanket censor them, in other words) would be to positively identify the source. All that you would likely achieve is blocking actual individual commentators and letting through the government astroturfers.
Why you would want to resort to such tactics is worth asking. The 'Western side' may be losing the propaganda war with Russia because our lies are bigger and harder to sell -- rather than Pooty-poot being cleverer.
Repeated debunked claims in our media are also going to be far more damaging than anything similar in Russia. The problem doesn't lie with those you are asserting to be 'trolls' that are disputing the reporting -- the problem lies with the reporting.
(If your argument must be protected against criticism then it is a weak argument.)
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com
In the late 1980's, an old friend of mine based in Moscow was calling her husband in the USA late one night. She said it was a "typical dumb husband/wife call," mostly about a broken garage door.
Around midnight, a gruff voice broke into the call. "This is your KGB listener. This is the most boring, stupid call I've ever listened to. Shut up and go to bed!"
Ah, those innocent Cold War days. Today, Big Brother listens to your calls, reads your email, and follows your internet searches on silent cat's feet.
China's Taoists warned, "you become what you hate." They are right: the September 2001 attacks on the US, as John Le Carré wrote, producing a period of temporary psychosis. America was knocked back to the ugly days of Sen. McCarthy's Red Scare of the 1950's. The big difference was that today the bogeymen of "terrorists" have replaced menacing Marxists. And today, terrorists were everywhere.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com
... ... ...
Meanwhile, the British society is under the imminent threat of Putin-Nazi Novichok perfume assassin hit squads , which Putin could send at any moment directly from Moscow to Gatwick Airport.
To incompetently attempt to murder their targets by spraying the deadliest nerve agent in existence onto the doorknobs of their suburban homes and then stroll around getting filmed by every CCTV camera in Britain.
As far as I know, the British tabloids haven't yet published surveillance photos of Corbyn welcoming the Skripal assassins at Gatwick with a wreath, or a bottle of Stoli (and wearing his Russian-stooge hat , of course), but I won't be terribly shocked when they do.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca
"Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. "
Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) (1903-1950), English novelist, essayist, and social critic, (in '1984', Ch. 7, 1949)
" This is a White House where everybody lies ." Omarosa Manigault Newman (1974- ), former White House aide to President Donald Trump, (on Sunday August 12, 2018, while releasing tapes recording conversations with Donald Trump.)
" I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ." Benjamin Franklin ( 1706 – 1790 ), American inventor and US Founding Father, (in 'Words of the Founding Fathers', 2012).
***
In this day and age, with instant information, how does a politician succeed in double-talking, in bragging, in scapegoating and in shamefully distorting the truth, most of the time, without being unmasked as a charlatan and discredited? Why? That is the mysterious and enigmatic question that one may ask about U. S. President Donald Trump, as a politician.
The most obvious answer is the fact that Trump's one-issue and cult-like followers do not care what he does or says and whether or not he has declared a war on truth and reality , provided he delivers the political and financial benefits they demand of him, based on their ideological or pecuniary interests. These groups of voters live in their own reality and only their personal interests count.
1- Four groups of one-issue voters behind Trump
There are four groups of one-issue voters to whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
- Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme Court with ultra conservative judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
- Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel. Again, on that score, President Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition to attacking the Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
- The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners, whose main demand to Trump was substantial tax cuts and deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public debt increases, which are going to be paid for by all taxpayers.
- The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm themselves to the teeth, including with military assault weapons, with as few strings attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them and against students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims can be considered members of the above lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record, according to the Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his inauguration.)
Is Trump a New Kind of Fascist?
- The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form of entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is OK to lie and to ask his assistants to lie . In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of post-democracy .
- The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks ' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly, on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of " Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a pet project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear case for impeachment .
- Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting , have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some 'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the mass conglomeration of local broadcasting in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well financed, and they have essentially become powerful political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved. Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and he conveniently shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.
The ABC News network has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration. The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, -- an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year, he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own Cabinet , whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself. If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones.
*
This article was originally published on the author's blog site: rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com .
International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book " The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles ", and of "The New American Empire" . Please visit Dr. Tremblay's sites : http://rodriguetremblay100.blogspot.com/ and http://rodriguetremblay.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Aug 03, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However, unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol – of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016 election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself, is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky – especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of "democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan "socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted, homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States. This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done; and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.
Andrew Levine is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com
Anonymous says: September 16, 2018 at 10:02 am GMT 200 Words
To be banned by Amazon is not equivalent to being banned by any other private business. Most publishers will admit that Amazon has replaced Bowker Books in Print as the industry's authoritative guide to what books in English have been printed in the past and what is in print now. Amazon is currently the reference source. For a book to be forbidden by Amazon renders it largely invisible. It is equivalent to burning the book. So this is not a matter of Amazon exercising the prerogative of private enterprise. Amazon is a monopoly. It has no rival. If your book doesn't exist on Amazon, then for most people who are not research specialists, your book doesn't exist. The consequences for the pursuit of knowledge are ominous.
Exactly. And this kind of global monopoly power can't be diminished in time with naive, "free market – just go somewhere else", Libertarian sound-bites. People who believe in that fairytale are beyond naive. Amazon, YouTube, Reddit and Twitter are untouchable in an environment where their competitors can barely offer a fraction of a fraction of the Worldwide audience to their "content creators" and very few content creators to the audience. This built-in inertia is self-reinforcing and tremendously inert. It's also the reason why the Globalists have spared no expense to own those platforms.
Free speech will have to be enforced and saved politically. Waiting for Zuckenberg to un-fuck it is a fool's errand.
Deschutes , says: September 16, 2018 at 10:29 am GMT
@AnonymousTo be banned by Amazon is not equivalent to being banned by any other private business. Most publishers will admit that Amazon has replaced Bowker Books in Print as the industry's authoritative guide to what books in English have been printed in the past and what is in print now. Amazon is currently the reference source. For a book to be forbidden by Amazon renders it largely invisible. It is equivalent to burning the book. So this is not a matter of Amazon exercising the prerogative of private enterprise. Amazon is a monopoly. It has no rival. If your book doesn't exist on Amazon, then for most people who are not research specialists, your book doesn't exist. The consequences for the pursuit of knowledge are ominous.Exactly. And this kind of global monopoly power can't be diminished in time with naive, "free market - just go somewhere else", Libertarian sound-bites. People who believe in that fairytale are beyond naive. Amazon, YouTube, Reddit and Twitter are untouchable in an environment where their competitors can barely offer a fraction of a fraction of the Worldwide audience to their "content creators" and very few content creators to the audience. This built-in inertia is self-reinforcing and tremendously inert. It's also the reason why the Globalists have spared no expense to own those platforms.Free speech will have to be enforced and saved politically. Waiting for Zuckenberg to un-fuck it is a fool's errand. Great post! YouTube is another monopoly. I've tried many of the alternatives like Vimeo, Daily Motion, etc but they simply don't have the depth of content to compete. Google has fucked up Youtube with the same censorship as Amazon.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com
Deschutes , says: September 16, 2018 at 9:51 am GMT
I hate Amazon through and through: from that greedy little rat Bezos who has become the world's richest man on the backs of his workers which he treats like slaves, like dogs–paying them so little they have to apply for foodstamps, to the horrible working conditions at Amazon's giant fullfillment warehouses (no lunchbreak; penalizing workers for going to the bathroom for too long; deliberately firing workers when they become legally entitled to full time regular employment (Amazon deliberately uses temp/contract workers to avoid paying healthcare, maternity leave, pension, vacation, etc). In short, Amazon is a total, complete asshole corporation which has now become a global publishing monopoly by deliberate design.Anonymous , [159] Disclaimer says: September 16, 2018 at 10:02 am GMTNeedless to say, it is Amazon which has crushed and eliminated the local community bookshop that was once a beloved social commons, in every town and city across the land.
This story about Hoffman's getting censored and removed from Amazon's Kindle books is a fine example of why libertarianism is idealistic nonsense. Libertarians argue that no government is necessary? No laws needed? That government regulation is an unnecessary interference in a pure person to person marketplace? What a load of bollocks. If there were robust anti-monopoly regulations in place that were actually enforced, there would be no Amazon monopoly like we suffer under today; it would be one of many smaller sized retailers. We would have choice! Hoffman could go and sell through a different bookseller.
Unfortunately, now that Amazon has a total monopoly on book publishing, it can decide who will or will not be published. But really, isn't Amazon the end result of libertarianism, neo-liberal, no regulation capitalism as we now have?
Bezos: "It's my company and I'll do what I please, censor whatever I want!" Yes–this is pure neo-liberal libertarianism with no government regulation. No way to redress grievances.
This is a total nightmare situation: a gigantic behemoth corporation, unanswerable to anybody. Doesn't even need to have clearly worded guidelines, deliberately vague so they can censor whomever they want, at their whim. There is zero accountability with this libertarian arrangement.
It would be much better if there were laws on the books, enforced, which
a) stopped such abusive monopolies from happening in the first place;
b) laws on the books–enforced–protecting author's publication rights, to prevent censorship as is now happening.
You don't have this in USA today, so authors get screwed over, censored and disappeared. Anyways, much for libertarianism.
ATTN: if you still have an Amazon membership and buy stuff from them -- do your civic duty and stop it! Delete your account and tell them why!
To be banned by Amazon is not equivalent to being banned by any other private business. Most publishers will admit that Amazon has replaced Bowker Books in Print as the industry's authoritative guide to what books in English have been printed in the past and what is in print now. Amazon is currently the reference source. For a book to be forbidden by Amazon renders it largely invisible. It is equivalent to burning the book. So this is not a matter of Amazon exercising the prerogative of private enterprise. Amazon is a monopoly. It has no rival. If your book doesn't exist on Amazon, then for most people who are not research specialists, your book doesn't exist. The consequences for the pursuit of knowledge are ominous.
Exactly. And this kind of global monopoly power can't be diminished in time with naive, "free market – just go somewhere else", Libertarian sound-bites. People who believe in that fairytale are beyond naive. Amazon, YouTube, Reddit and Twitter are untouchable in an environment where their competitors can barely offer a fraction of a fraction of the Worldwide audience to their "content creators" and very few content creators to the audience. This built-in inertia is self-reinforcing and tremendously inert. It's also the reason why the Globalists have spared no expense to own those platforms.
Free speech will have to be enforced and saved politically. Waiting for Zuckenberg to un-fuck it is a fool's errand.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com
Miro23 , says: September 16, 2018 at 6:17 am GMT
There are useful parallels with Christianity, which went from being powerless and persecuted in its early days under Imperial Rome to eventual domination of Medieval Europe. It was a longish process, but an early small, private and ethical movement did eventually morph into a dictatorial organization that hunted down its own dissidents (heretics).In this game of power, the church certainly collected great wealth, developed a complex administration, made alliances with temporal (non-spiritual) power holders , and instituted the Holy Office of the Inquisition (or equivalents) to root out dissidents (heretics) or anyone who got in the way.
Green quotes a complaint by historian Manuel Barrios[172] about one Inquisitor, Diego Rodriguez Lucero, who in Cordoba in 1506 burned to death the husbands of two different women he then kept as mistresses. According to Barrios,
the daughter of Diego Celemin was exceptionally beautiful, her parents and her husband did not want to give her to [Lucero], and so Lucero had the three of them burnt and now has a child by her, and he has kept for a long time in the alcazar as a mistress, (Wikipedia).
It was the "higher power" in the form of the Revolutionary Republican Napoleon Bonaparte who finally abolished the Inquisition with the French invasion of Spain, which suggests by parallel that when the US state collapses it will take its Jewish inquisitors with it.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com
To be banned by Amazon is not equivalent to being banned by any other private business. Most publishers will admit that Amazon has replaced Bowker Books in Print as the industry's authoritative guide to what books in English have been printed in the past and what is in print now. Amazon is currently the reference source. For a book to be forbidden by Amazon renders it largely invisible. It is equivalent to burning the book. So this is not a matter of Amazon exercising the prerogative of private enterprise. Amazon is a monopoly. It has no rival. If your book doesn't exist on Amazon, then for most people who are not research specialists, your book doesn't exist. The consequences for the pursuit of knowledge are ominous.
There is a problem here for Amazon as well. The more Amazon excludes books that embody facts and ideas that constitute radical dissent, the more it becomes a narrow censor's aperture rather than a reliable bridge to the entire range of the Republic of Letters.
Apologists for censorship of radicals and authentic conservatives often claim that no First Amendment rights are violated when Amazon bans books, therefore it is not a civil rights issue, merely an inconvenience of the capitalist system. In the 1950s however, when the privately-owned movie studios banned certain directors, actors and screen-writers judged to be Leftists or Communists, that action on the part of private enterprise was inscribed in the rolls of the culture wars as the infamous "Blacklist," and we are still reading and weeping over it sixty-five years later. So it depends on whose ox is being gored.
My Judaica studies are free of "Jew hate," as anyone who peruses the sections in both books titled "To the Judaic Reader" knows. There we state that the books are dedicated to pidyon shevyuim (redemption of the captive), i.e. rescuing those Judaic persons who are in bondage to the Talmud and the Kabbalah.
Our enemies easily turn to their advantage books containing hatred of "The Jews." What they absolutely have no credible answer to is a critique predicated, as our books are, on a sincere foundation of true Christian love. Boundary-breaking scholarship united to compassionate concern for the welfare of Judaic people is almost unprecedented in this field. This approach makes my studies of Judaism among the most powerful and effective because they are free of the "hate speech" which is the pivot upon which turns the machinery of liberal-approved censorship. For that reason, making Judaism's Strange Gods: Revised and Expanded, and Judaism Discovered available on the Kindle undercut decades of hatred and libel. Therefore those volumes had to be suppressed.
Mario964 , says: September 13, 2018 at 3:14 pm GMT
Suppressing ideas is the prerequisite for the dictatorship of lies, which is now institutionalized and widely accepted by the subdued gullible masses.NightThinker Rebel , says: September 14, 2018 at 3:25 am GMTWith reference to this already firmly established and dominant trend in present days, it comes to mind that ubiquitous all-pervasive dictatorship of lies stands out among Muhammad's prophecies about the signs forewarning the approach of the last day, when disappearance of trustworthiness will rise to such a point that one would only be able to say: " I know a trustworthy person in such-and-such town. "
What you expect Amazon to do when it's owned by CIA now.exiled off mainstreet , says: September 14, 2018 at 6:24 am GMTA website needs to list all of the books banned by Amazon and provide a means for their dissemination. Much like the Catholic Church's banned index, it should become a badge of honour to be banned by this organization. Such private arbiters have become much too powerful in this technological age, and, in the end, the technology may end up being a net negative. Memory holes seem to be the order of the day.Michael Hoffman , says: Website September 14, 2018 at 2:11 pm GMT" the censors demand for their own media -- Mr. Bezos owns the Washington Post newspaper -- freedom of expression for the writers they employ and the speech of which they approve."As if on cue, here's a report today about Bezos protesting against writers being demonized by Trump:
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/406665-bezos-rips-trump-for-dangerous-attacks-on-the-media
He neglected to mention the writers demonized by himself.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2018 | www.unz.com
Michael Hoffman , says: Website September 15, 2018 at 9:03 pm GMT
Dear KenHTyrion 2 , says: September 16, 2018 at 6:52 am GMTThank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."
A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."
I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."
On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").
What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not, religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .
The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the antediluvians.
When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.
The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence, when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.
If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.
There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate "sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves (something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .
A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew 12:25-26).
Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods@Michael Hoffman Dear KenHMiro23 , says: September 16, 2018 at 8:59 am GMTThank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."
A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."
I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."
On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").
What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not, religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .
The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the antediluvians.
When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.
The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence, when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.
If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.
There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate "sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves (something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .
A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew 12:25-26).
Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods I don't buy your cloying and passive aggressive pretense of not hating Jews but being merely interested in their salvation.I even struggle to imagine anyone who'd be stupid enough to do so.
(Does it help you sell books or is it merely a prop against horrific self-realisation?)
Regardless, it is a shame that even your "scholarship" may be unbooked. Painfully dumb arguments have value. They provide it by contrast.
I am not even particularly interested in that here though. Inevitably there's lots of weird stuff in a milennia old wikipedia and bozos, sorry "revisionists", will read into it what they feel like.
The issue though is very simple. Were any of these effluent theories that take causation to run from Judaism to globalism to actually be true then we would see that the more Orthodox the Jew, the more globalist they would be.
Yet the facts sit precisely opposite.
The very worst Jews, on politics, that I've met or read have never heard of the Talmud. Indeed, the Ultra-Orthodox wouldn't even consider them (or me) actual Jews at all.
That you can't even get this most basic of observations right totally discredits you.
Still, I hope your books get reinstated. I don't care what people who hate me choose to waste their money on and, to be honest, it makes my meagre qualities look good by comparison.
@Miro23 There are useful parallels with Christianity, which went from being powerless and persecuted in its early days under Imperial Rome to eventual domination of Medieval Europe. It was a longish process, but an early small, private and ethical movement did eventually morph into a dictatorial organization that hunted down its own dissidents (heretics).Frankie P , says: September 16, 2018 at 9:54 am GMTIn this game of power, the church certainly collected great wealth, developed a complex administration, made alliances with temporal (non-spiritual) power holders , and instituted the Holy Office of the Inquisition (or equivalents) to root out dissidents (heretics) or anyone who got in the way.
It was the "higher power" in the form of the Revolutionary Republican Napoleon Bonaparte who finally abolished the Inquisition with the French invasion of Spain, which suggests by parallel that when the US state collapses it will take its Jewish inquisitors with it. Also the Jewish attempt to develop "Holocaustianity" with themselves as the leading martyrs is failing, since Judaism doesn't have the mass appeal of Christianity: 1) it lacks the ethical content 2) it isn't universalist (accepting all races).
Green quotes a complaint by historian Manuel Barrios[172] about one Inquisitor, Diego Rodriguez Lucero, who in Cordoba in 1506 burned to death the husbands of two different women he then kept as mistresses. According to Barrios,
the daughter of Diego Celemin was exceptionally beautiful, her parents and her husband did not want to give her to [Lucero], and so Lucero had the three of them burnt and now has a child by her, and he has kept for a long time in the alcazar as a mistress, (Wikipedia).
Bolshevism (class guilt) was an earlier attempt to found a religion with Saint Trotsky and themselves as the leading martyrs, which did actually (for a while) connect with the public, since they harnessed the rising tide of Socialism/Communism with its fantasy of an egalitarian "workers paradise" (themselves in the leadership role).
Unfortunately Jewish leftism (not to be confused National Democratic leftism) still survives in the West in its bizarre SJW LGBT form, with Jews yet again trying to present themselves as victims – this time of fabricated "White Oppression" – never mind that white America gave them a generous refuge and a home after they were chased out of Central Europe.
However, the search for power through SJWism (race guilt) is being rejected in the West, so realistically Jews can only maintain their ethnic group power through a straightforward coup at the centre (United States) – which they seem to be working on a the moment, with some kind of fabricated Emergency involving Russia/Syria/Iran designed to give them a dictatorship.
And if they get it, it won't be benevolent judging by the mass murdering precedents in Russia and Hungary.
@Michael Hoffman Dear KenHThank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."
A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."
I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."
On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " ("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").
What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not, religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .
The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the antediluvians.
When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.
The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence, when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.
If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.
There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate "sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves (something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .
A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew 12:25-26).
Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods I thank you for that comment. Beautifully put, logically reasoned. Now I want to propose an idea for you to consider. The Orthodox Talmudic instruction that you mention above has morphed well beyond the limitations of the Orthodox rabbinate. You yourself just mentioned Judaics that want to "seek a way out of Talmudism and / or Zionism". Zionism certainly isn't Talmudism; it is blood and soil nationalism of a land that belongs to other people. Couching this original Talmudic instruction as merely a method of keeping Jews in "the rabbinic fold" is inaccurate. The unifiying of Jews through this belief that all goyim are Jew-haters and vilification of those Judaics who break out has grown well beyond the rabbinic fold, and it is present in every manifestation of Judaism, from the secular atheist to the most Orthodox. Indeed, it seems to be the common thread that holds all Jews together.I thank you again for your ideas, Michael Hoffman. I will visit your website and try to purchase your books, even though I am not a wealthy man.
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2018 | crookedtimber.org
Thomas Beale 09.13.18 at 9:58 am ( 16 )
I'd suggest that the two strains of 'conservatism' that matter are:a) maintaining oppression/rule over subordinate classes to prevent them up-ending the status quo (the Robin view) and
b) maintaining philosophical +/- cultural values fundamental to a civilised society, typically so-called enlightenment values, freedom of mind, body and property etc. These are understood in a wide spectrum of concrete interpretations, from free-market purists to social democrats, and don't therefore correspond to one kind of on-the-ground politics.
Progressives tend attack a) (a non-philosophical form of conservatism – it's just about preserving a power structure), and usually claim that b) (the one that matters) doesn't exist or isn't 'conservative', or else ignore it.
We have the basic problem of same term, variable referents
Lobsterman 09.13.18 at 10:27 pm ( 40 )
(b) doesn't exist. Conservatives are, as a group, in eager favor of concentration camps for toddlers, the drug war, unrestrained surveillance, American empire, civil forfeiture, mass incarceration, extrajudicial police execution, etc. etc. They have internal disagreements on how much to do those things, but the consensus is for all of them without meaningful constraint. And they are always justified in terms of (a).ph 09.14.18 at 11:50 am ( 58 )
@40Most here voted for or supported Obama whose record of incarcerating and persecuting journalists, punishing whistle-blowers, extra-judicial executions including citizens of the United States, placing children in cages, violent regime change abroad, spying on citizens, and expanding the security state was as bad or worse as that of Bush and Trump, in some cases by some margin.
The current heroes of the 'resistance' lied America into Iraq or Libya, hacked into the computers of the elected representatives/lied about it, and support torture/enhanced interrogations, all under Obama. 'Liberals' lionize these clown criminals along with 'responsible' republicans whilst embracing open bigots such as Farrakhan. And, yes, if one is willing to share the podium with Farrakhan that's tacit support of his views.
Conservative as a political category post 1750 works and the basic argument of the OP holds. The comments not so much.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2018 | crookedtimber.org
likbez 69
I think it is impossible to discuss modern conservatism, especially its neocon variety without discussing neoliberalism. Too many people here concentrate on superficial traits, while the defining feature of modern conservatives is the unconditional support of "hard neoliberalism." There is also a Vichy party which supports "soft neoliberalism" ...
See Monbiot at https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative." But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Kabaservice Contra Corey -- Thoughts About How To Think About Conservatism -- Crooked Timber Chile -- one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied -- "my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism." The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining mean the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.
The other important area is the attitude to the existence and maintenance of the global US empire and the level of indoctrination into "American exceptionalism" which I view as a flavor of far-right nationalism. But here we need to talk not about conservatism but neofascism.
In a way, the current crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (one of the features of which was de-legitimization of the neoliberal elite which led to the election of Trump) develops with strange similarities with the events of 1920-1935 in Europe.
|
|
|
Jul 07, 2008 | www.americanfreepress.net
Although the media reported on the bizarre case of Samuel Israel III -- an East Coast hedge fund operator who swindled investors out of $450 million and who disappeared after attempting to fake his own suicide -- what the media has not reported is the connection of Israel's family to circumstances surrounding the assassination of John E Kennedy.
The media has mentioned Israel is a scion of a distinguished New Orleans Jewish family. Not mentioned is that Israel's family enterprise, the Leon Israel Company, popped up in a mysterious way in connection to activities of JFK's alleged assassin, New Orleans native Lee Harvey Oswald, in that city in the summer of 1963. While details of Oswald's New Orleans sojourn are thoroughly documented, his link to the Israel Company seems taboo.
Here's the story: When Oswald applied for a room in New Orleans he told what CIA-connected writer Priscilla McMillan described as "another of his funny, pointless lies," that is, that Oswald said he worked for the Leon Israel Company. McMillan insisted Oswald had no connection with the company. We do know the company was in the coffee import business. We don't know why Oswald claimed he worked there. And maybe he did.
What is puzzling is that JFK assassination researchers avoid exploring the Israel Company. Although researchers dissect other picayune details about Oswald's life in New Orleans, no researchers will mention the Israel connection.
The principal figure behind the company, Samuel Israel Jr. -- evidently grandfather of the current Samuel Israel -- was closely connected to Clay Shaw, the New Orleans businessman unsuccessfully prosecuted in 1969 by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison for complicity in the JFK assassination. Israel was vice president of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans and on the Council of the Lower Mississippi River Port Interests (putting him in trade executive Clay Shaw's sphere).
Israel also won the French Medal of Merit for his service in the U.S. Army in Europe, at the time Shaw was decorated by the French for his service there. It is likely Shaw and Israel knew each other as early as World War II.
Was Oswald promised a job at the Israel Company -- arranged by Shaw -- or was Oswald employed by the company? If so, how? Did this company play a role in manipulating Oswald in New Orleans? These are questions that need to be answered.
At present day, Samuel Israel III is on the lam, many believe in Israel which welcomes Jewish criminals fleeing prosecution in the United States. Note, though: Israel says he is a Christian, despite his background.
The possible Israeli connection to the Samuel Israel, III money scandal is interesting considering that -- according to Jewish-American JFK researcher A. J. Weberman -- Jim Garrison, in an unpublished novel, suggested Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad, was behind the JFK assassination -- something Garrison did not mention elsewhere.
Garrison evidently became aware Clay Shaw had Mossad connections through service on the board of the shadowy Permindex corporation.
In light of revelations in the 1980s (theretofore unknown) that JFK was working to stop Israel's secret drive to assemble an arsenal of nuclear weapons, Shaw's Permindex engagement is intriguing. In fact, Permindex chairman, Louis Bloomfield was a functionary of liquor baron and Meyer Lansky crime syndicate figure Sam Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress and -- with Bronfman -- a major patron of Israel's nuclear weapons program, among a group of U.S. and Canadian millionaires who bankrolled the project in the '50s to the tune of $250 million today.
Another Permindex figure was banker Tibor Rosenbaum, longtime Mossad director for finance and arms procurement, whose Geneva bank was a Mossad proprietary and money laundry for Lansky crime syndicate profits. ★
Michael Collins Piper is a contributing editor for AFP.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2018 | www.unz.com
Greg Bacon , says: Website September 14, 2018 at 11:26 am GMT
Mostly reflexively, not always consciously, The Powers That Be seek to retain and enlarge their sphere of influence. Nothing, not even the venerated vote, is allowed to alter that "balance."
That's why the 'Deep State' or whatever one wants to call that malignant organism that has taken over DC–and much of the West–needs professional toadies like Woody, who will dutifully report whatever smelly lump of fertilizer the PTB are trying to sell. Bet Woody's the best paid stenographer in the world, doing a good job of confusing Americans, keeping them anxious of the unknown, so the PTB can keep herding us towards the NWO slaughterhouse.
The washed-out journalist then blurted out this in disbelief: "Trump said the 'World Trade Organization is the worst organization in the world.'"
Another bit of propaganda, as those central banks–like the toxic FED–keep the world under their thumb by controlling the money flow, printing currencies out of thin air, then getting paid outrageous sums of interest each year–around 500 Billion in the US–for their counterfeiting scheme.
That kind of power can and does crash stock markets and wreck economies, as the FED has been doing since it was spawned in 1913. They and their buddies then buy homes, businesses, MSM outlets and costly toys for pennies on the dollar, while us 'deplorables' wonder if they're going to be able to keep making their mortgage payments if they lose their job.
To repeat, this was promised on the campaign trail and in Trump position papers. We now know who stole those promises from the American people.
"We know?" Some do, but many don't, as they rally around Tubby the Grifter to protect their savior from those nasty Democrats.
"Drain the Swamp" and "MAGA" were skillfully crafted psyops, most likely from the inner sanctum of the most pernicious lobbying outfit on Capitol Hill, AIPAC. RT, a news outlet, got mugged by a sold-out Congress and forced to register as a lobbying outfit, but not AIPAC. No Sir, why that would be anti-Semitic and only foul, Jew hating Neo-Nazis would even think about making AIPAC follow the law.
What AIPAC has and continues to do needs to be kept hidden from the American public, lest they engage in the dangerous behavior of actually wondering if Israel is an ally or a well-disguised enemy.Trump was bought and paid for a LONG time ago, and 2016 was when the bill came due. He was 'Chosen,' not be We the People, but AIPAC and Israel as the best POTUS to do their bidding, since Hillary carried way too much baggage.
Trump has been the best POTUS for Israel since the traitorous liar LBJ.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2018 | www.unz.com
Mike P , says: September 14, 2018 at 9:51 pm GMT
@anarchyst I see stuff written about the Vietnam war and it never fails they don't talk at all about the whole picture. The Vietnam war was a war to stop the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. In that aspect it won some and lost some. Vietnam had nothing to do with oil or Colonialism. Any look at a map would show it's vast strategic location for the Communist. It has one the best ports in Asia. They talk about Tet defeating us. Nothing could be further from the truth. It ended forever the Viet Cong in the South. From then on all the attacks were from the North. The next big attack...And in Viet Nam the North sent 150,000 men south with as much armor as the Wehrmacht had in many WW II engagements. That was in 1973, and of that 150,000 fewer than 50,000 men and no armor returned to the North, at a cost of under 1,000 American casualties. Most would count that an outstanding victory.
(Alas, in 1975 North Viet Nam had another army of over 100,000 and sent it South; the Democratic Congress voted our South Vietnamese 20 cartridges and 2 hand grenades per man, but refused naval and air support; Saigon predictably became Ho Chi Minh city as we pushed helicopters off the decks of out carriers in our frantic evacuation; but that is hardly the fault of the US military).
The South lost when they ran out of ammunition. During the time we were fighting in Vietnam all the other Asian countries with their own Commies attacking them were fighting also. Many of them won. The ones that fell like Cambodia paid a harsh price. By all measurement of what we went to Vietnam for we didn't lose. It did stop the spread of Communism to all Asia. Rarely in any wars do you get all you want.
The Democrat party has been saying that the Vets fought a losing war when in actuality the Democrats directly are responsible for the loss of South Vietnam. There are only a few highways leading South and they were packed with tanks and troop transport in 75. It would have been a complete turkey shoot like the war in Kuwait. We even had battleships at that time that could have pounded them from the coast. If we would have attacked it would have probably caused them such a defeat that they would have never attacked again maybe even the government of the North would have been overthrown by the people for such incompetence. Unfortunately the Nixon was gone and Ford was directly told if he helped the Vietnamese with air power he would be impeached.
The idea that the Vietnam vets died for nothing is a huge psyops by the Democrats. The South had defeated all the guerillas. All they needed was support to hold off the North and the Democrats sold them out. If the South Vietnamese had not fell it's very likely that the Cambodian Genocide would have never happened.
The Democrats had said the war was lost so many times that they had to prove it so by actually losing it.we were fighting in Vietnam all the other Asian countries with their own Commies attacking them were fighting also. Many of them won. The ones that fell like Cambodia paid a harsh price.
On the other hand, the Khmer Rouge victory in Cambodia was precipitated by the U.S. bombings:
Estimates vary widely on the number of civilian casualites inflicted by the campaign; however,as many as 500,000 people died as a direct result of the bombings while perhaps hundreds of thousands more died from the effects of displacement, disease or starvation during this period.
The Khmer Rouge, previously a marginalized guerrilla group, propagandized the bombing campaign to great effect; by the CIA's own intelligence estimates, the US bombing campaign was a key factor in the increase in popular support for the Khmer Rouge rebels. After their victory in 1975, the Khmer Rouge oversaw a period in which another one-to-two million Cambodians died from execution, hunger and forced labour.
(from http://rabble.ca/toolkit/on-this-day/us-secret-bombing-cambodia )
The U.S. also utterly devastated Laos, killed millions of Vietnamese ultimately all for nothing, or rather worse than nothing.
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com
Adrian E. , says: September 14, 2018 at 10:57 am GMT
What I find interesting in the case of Bob Woodward's book is that many anti-Trumpers seem to celebrate it without even taking into account that, if its contents were to be believed, it would completely discredit the whole "Russiagate" story that has been the main line of attack against Donald Trump.As far as I can judge from the excerpts that have been published, most of the book deals with issues of style -- it is certainly nothing new that many people in the establishment strongly dislike Trump's style -- and about people in important positions in Trump's surroundings have a negative opinion of him and sometimes try to work against him -- that is hardly something new, either.
The only piece of information that could really make Trump look like someone unhinged and dangerous is the claim that he demanded Assad to be killed. Of course, I don't know whether that claim is true and if Trump said something like that, it was meant as an assignment or he just wanted to know what others thought about the idea. But Trump certainly would not have said anything like that if he was a Russian puppet. Although Russia hardly has absolutely loyalty to Assad as a person, killing the president of a government with which Russia is allied and thereby causing more instability is certainly not something Russia might want. So, not only does Bob Woodward's book that claims to report things that happened behind the scenes not show any hints that the Russiagate conspiracy theory might be true, but -- if it is to be believed -, it shows quite strong evidence against that theory.
I don't know whether Bob Woodward spells this out anywhere in the book -- I doubt it because the main target audience of the book is probably Trump haters who like to hate Trump for any conceivable reason and might be upset if one such reason, which had been heavily promoted, was taken away from them. But at least, Bob Woodward seems to be consistent on this to some degree -- after the report by a few handpicked agents from three agencies and Clapper's bureau in January 2017, Woodward criticized the politicization of the secret services. Apart from a few excerpts, I have not read Bob Woodward's book, and I cannot judge its merits, but I think that he is probably somewhat less dishonest than many of Trump haters -- this strange coalition of pseudo-leftists with the deep state.
What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. I think that once more demonstrates the irrationality of the base of that "Anti-Trump Resistance" (not, of course, of people from the Clinton campaign, the FBI and CIA who invented Russiagate, they just exploit the irrationality of large parts of the public).
Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal -- he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his neoconservative desires.
Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with "Russiagate" -- Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted to have Assad killed -- something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object.
Mike P , says: September 14, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
@Adrian E. What I find interesting in the case of Bob Woodward's book is that many anti-Trumpers seem to celebrate it without even taking into account that, if its contents were to be believed, it would completely discredit the whole "Russiagate" story that has been the main line of attack against Donald Trump.Agent76 , says: September 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMTAs far as I can judge from the excerpts that have been published, most of the book deals with issues of style - it is certainly nothing new that many people in the establishment strongly dislike Trump's style - and about people in important positions in Trump's surroundings have a negative opinion of him and sometimes try to work against him - that is hardly something new, either.
The only piece of information that could really make Trump look like someone unhinged and dangerous is the claim that he demanded Assad to be killed. Of course, I don't know whether that claim is true and if Trump said something like that, it was meant as an assignment or he just wanted to know what others thought about the idea. But Trump certainly would not have said anything like that if he was a Russian puppet. Although Russia hardly has absolutely loyalty to Assad as a person, killing the president of a government with which Russia is allied and thereby causing more instability is certainly not something Russia might want. So, not only does Bob Woodward's book that claims to report things that happened behind the scenes not show any hints that the Russiagate conspiracy theory might be true, but - if it is to be believed -, it shows quite strong evidence against that theory.
I don't know whether Bob Woodward spells this out anywhere in the book - I doubt it because the main target audience of the book is probably Trump haters who like to hate Trump for any conceiveable reason and might be upset if one such reason, which had been heavily promoted, was taken away from them. But at least, Bob Woodward seems to be consistent on this to some degree - after the report by a few handpicked agents from three agencies and Clapper's bureau in January 2017, Woodward criticized the politicization of the secret services. Apart from a few excerpts, I have not read Bob Woodward's book, and I cannot judge its merits, but I think that he is probably somewhat less dishonest than many of his haters - this strange coalition of pseudo-leftists with the deep state.
What I do find absurd is the reception of Bob Woodward's book. It seems that most Trump haters don't seem to have any problems with thinking Trump is unhinged because he threatened to kill the president of a country that is allied with Russia and that he is a Russian puppet and that therefore the investigation about "collusion" is necessary. I think that once more demonstrates the irrationality of the base of that "Anti-Trump Resistance" (not, of course, of people from the Clinton campaign, the FBI and CIA who invented Russiagate, they just exploit the irrationality of large parts of the public).
Bob Woodward's book also stands in a strange relationship to the anonymous NYT piece. The author of that piece seems to be a hardcore neoconservative and free-trade neoliberal - he wants deregulation, more money for the military, but he dislikes that Trump does not escalate tensions against Russia enough and has to be pressured in order to expell enough Russian diplomats, and also the tentative support of peace efforts for Korea go against his neoconservative desires. Although it is not mentioned explicitly, the piece is at least compatible with "Russiagate" - Trump's desire not to escalate international tensions against countries like Russia and North Korea too much is seen as a "preference for dictators and authoritarian leaders", which is an interpretation that is typical of neoconservative ideologues. In contrast, Woodward's main point for accusing Donald Trump of being unhinged is that he wanted to have Assad killed - something many of the hard-core neocons would hardly object. Very good observations. Maybe the "kill Assad" ploy is not intended for domestic consumption but rather to further undermine Trump's working relationship with Putin – just as with the of the phoney Russian agent indictment which wast timed precisely to disrupt the Helsinki summit.
History is very clear who runs the media for those who are in the know.Agent76 , says: September 14, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee, on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance, and opening of mail.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?408953-1/tom-charles-huston-testimony-church-committee
September 1, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOWBuckwheat , says: September 14, 2018 at 2:47 pm GMTSince the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis.
https://www.intellihub.com/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know-2/
President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope for traitors.jilles dykstra , says: September 14, 2018 at 3:19 pm GMTHistorians know that very few people understand great historical events when they happen.Anonymous , [306] Disclaimer says: September 14, 2018 at 3:55 pm GMT
My idea is that this now is the case.
Never before in history did the leader of an empire understand that that empire could not survive, and act accordingly.The British empire was already not sustainable, financially, before 1914. Britain had to give up the two fleet standard, the situation where the British fleet was superior to the next two biggest fleets. Obama had to give up the two war standard, the USA went to one and a half war. What a half war accomplishes one can see in Syria.
The British empire fell apart through WWII, Churchill the undertaker. For this reason, I suspect, are the peace proposals that Rudolf Hess brought to Scotland in May 1941 still secret. France got a generous peace, logical to assume that Hitler would propose the same to Great Britain, the empire he admired.
The British example makes two things clear: what should have been clear prior to 1914 was not clear, or was ignored, and the price of unwilling, or not capable of understanding history at the moment it happens becomes clear. Britain did not have a Deep State, one might say, on the other hand, one can be of the opinion that the British Deep State did exist. A conflict as now in the USA never existed in Great Britain.
What would have happened if say Chamberlain would have acted as Trump does know, anybody's guess. Chamberlain did not want war, but he also did not want to end British imagined power, he belonged to the Thirtyniners, those with the illusion that Great Britain was ready for war in 1939.
As in 1917, the USA had to rescue Britain, but this time the price was high: opening the empire to foreign competition, on top of that, FDR's lofty statements, the Atlantic Charter, in fact the end of all colonial European empires.@Buckwheat President Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope for traitors.Windwaves , says: September 14, 2018 at 4:01 pm GMTPresident Trump's greatest legacy will be his exposing how corrupt the American government has become. Almost every branch of Government has been exposed as corrupt but the absolute worst is the FBI. This attempted coup should be met with the hangman's rope for traitors.
The media controls the minds of the mob, and presents itself as vox populi . Corruption has been exposed, and the media admits to it, endorses it, and encourages more.
So, whaddya figure? 20 years to total economic collapse? Who's gonna feed the messicans? Oh! The humanity! Oh, Rome, do not burn!
"Shining city on a hill" and all that bullshit. Turn out the lights.
Yep, finally someone who gets it.jilles dykstra , says: September 14, 2018 at 5:09 pm GMTTrump 180 degree turn on his promises to get out of israel's wars is clear proof that he is just another zionist.
@Deschutes I didn't like Clinton, but I think Trump is as bad, probably worse. Look at the EPA under Trump, it's a fucking joke with fossil fuel shills like Pruitt gutting much needed laws to protect environment and people. Look at Education secretary DeVoss: it does NOT get any worse: a billionaire christian fundamentalist wacko billionaire who bought her way into that post funding the GOP/Trump ticket!? She's the epitome of what the 'Trump voters' ostensibly hate: a billionaire class aka 'Rome on the Potomac' as this author calls it, the plutocracy who own and run the show while the proletariat slave away at their office temp jobs, or worse yet amazon.com sweatshop, etc. DeVoss is privatizing education so that christian fundies can have their kids taught 'gawd made the world in 7 days' instead of Darwin's evolution. Look at Trumps Atty General Sessions: he's a reactionary fossil from the 1950s who wants to illegalize weed? Roll back sensible drug policy? He's a fucking disaster. And look at what Trump is doing for Israel!? Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and Kishner sucking up to Netanyahoo, doing his bidding like an Israel firster? This is all good? This is what the disenfranchised Trump supporter voted for and had in mind??Ilyana_Rozumova , says: September 14, 2018 at 6:13 pm GMTTrump is a fucking awful trainwreck. ' Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, '
If this makes Netanyahu happy for some time, at negligible cost to the USA, smart move.
At the same time, Trump can claim 'see how I love Israel'.
For me the same as the fake attacks on Syria.
Show.@Wizard of Oz You seem to be using language like Alice's Humpty Dumpty. "Zionism" is at least a little bit constrained in meaning by its being a movement to restore the Jewish people as currently understood to the land of Israel (Judea and Samaria principally which creates special difficulties...) with Jerusalem as it's capital, and, I suppose to maintain them there. You are absolutely correct.Enver Masud , says: Website Next New Comment September 14, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
But it also includes protection of Israel.
And what is the best protection of Israel?
..
To control the most powerful country in the world ergo USA
..
And what is even better protection of Israel?
To to rule the world.
..
What is wrong or evil in this plan?
Nothing! it is good plan.
..
So where is the snag?
..
Complications in executing this plan.Bob Woodward needs to answer for not following up on what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. My letter the Washington Post at http://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/1206-Ombudsman.pdfanarchyst , says: Next New Comment September 14, 2018 at 6:50 pm GMTIn part, I wrote:
According to the Washington Post, Barbara K. Olson called her husband twice on September 11, 2001 in the final minutes of Flight 77. Her last words to him were, "What do I tell the pilot to do?"
"She called from the plane while it was being hijacked," said Theodore Olson -- 42nd Solicitor General of the United States. "I wish it wasn't so, but it is."
However, prosecution exhibit P200054 (attached) in United States v.
Zacarias Moussaoui -- http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/ exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200054.html -- shows that Barbara Olson made only one phone call -- it did not connect, and it lasted for 0 seconds!Both accounts of Barbara Olson's phone calls -- the Solicitor General's and the prosecution's in United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui -- cannot be correct.
Media lies and fabrications have been going on ever since there were "journalists" (I use that term loosely). The difference today, is that "professional journalism" is now blatantly showing its liberal communistic bias.crimson2 , says: Next New Comment September 14, 2018 at 7:20 pm GMT
From "Remember the Maine" in the Spanish-American war (actually a powder magazine explosion–not an attack) to walter duranty's extolling the "virtues" of communism while one of the greatest artificially-engineered (by communists)famines in the Ukraine was taking place, in order to force the "collectivization" of privately-held farms, to walter cronkite outright lying about the American military's effectiveness during the 1968 Vietnam "Tet offensive" (in which much enemy life was lost) journalism has always been a "nasty craft". In cronkite's case, the North Vietnamese were ready to settle (and capitulate) until cronkite's lies about the supposed American "defeat" were publicized. Cronkite's lies gave the North Vietnamese new resolve, as they realized that they had the American "news media" on their side. There has always been a certain sympathy for communism and totalitarianism in the so-called "mainstream media". All one has to do is to look at the journalists fawning over Cuba's Fidel Castro and how wonderful life is in that communist "paradise".
Journalists HATE the internet because it exposes their "profession" for what it really is with the internet, anyone can be a true journalist. This is why the same "mainstream media" is calling for the "licensing" of journalists–something that would have been unheard of (and treasonous) in previous decades
Professional journalism is its own worst enemy@Rational WHAT A FOO BELIEVES........HE SEES; OR WHY JUDAISTS ARE GOING BERSERK.The Alarmist , says: Next New Comment September 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMTThanks for the excellent article, Madam.
You forgot to mention that the NYT and Woodward are Judaists.
Jewish paranoid delusions have become severe since Trump took office.
Obviously the NYT op ed is fake. It is a forgery. Per PCR, it is by the NYT itself. Childish pranks.
Bob Woodward's "sources" are fake. He made things up himself.
Every Sabbath, Judaists like these read the Torah, including Deuteronomy 20:16:
"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."
And their plan to destroy and exterminate the white goyim is facing hiccups, so the Judaists have gone berserk.
Jewish paranoid delusions
Maybe the dumbasses who think the Jews are behind every bad thing that ever happens to them are the paranoid delusional ones.
We're surprised the tools of the Oligarch Class remain loyal to their paymasters? Comey and Müller both received very lucrative board-seat assignments for looking the other way when appropriate, or digging a little deeper when asked.Agent76 , says: Next New Comment September 14, 2018 at 8:56 pm GMTPublic Intelligence"In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defense and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry -- in an informed and critical public opinion which alone can here protect the values of democratic government. For this reason, it is perhaps here that a press that is alert, aware, and free most vitally serves the basic purpose of the First Amendment. For, without an informed and free press, there cannot be an enlightened people."
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com
I have no choice. I must don the mantle of greatness and take the reins of the country. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I will run for the office of dictator, or President in American parlance.
Readers may ask, "But Fred, what makes you think you are qualified to be President?" To which I respond, "Nothing. But have you seen what we have now? You want a White House with John Bolton in it?"
You see.
I append here a few of the enlightened policies which I will effect. Hold your applause until the end. Interspersed for perusal are a few slogans that I may use to incite your fervor.
One: I will end all policies hostile to Cuba. I will not make life difficult for eleven million perfectly good people to please a ratpack of phony Cubans afflicting Miami. In fact, I will offer Havana a twenty-billion-dollar loan if they will take the bastards back. Cuba poses no danger to anyone. They have good cigars. They should be left alone to live as they please and drink mojitos. If nutcake Republicans protest my policy, I will have them stuffed into an abandoned oil well. Along with the pseudo-Cubans.
Two: Elizabeth Warren will be required to take a DNA test to see whether she is a wild Indian. If she is, she will have to wear feathers. Otherwise, to see a psychiatrist.
We have nothing to be afred of but Fred hisself! Has a classic ring, don't you think?
Three: I will end the Afghan war in an afternoon, relying on use the exit strategy proposed by James P. Coyne, the Sun Tsu of our age:
"OK, on the plane. Now ."
If Lindsey Graham complains that we need to kill more puzzled goatherds, I will have him inserted into the oil well on top of the Republicans and pseudo-Cubans, with Oprah tamped down on top as a sort of cork. There is nothing in Afghanistan that Americans need or want, except opium products, and private enterprise now provides these in abundance. Check the nearest street corner, or ask your kids.
Four: I will make membership in AIPAC a felony, and remind its members that I could have Oprah temporarily removed from the oil well to make more room. Aipackers can act as they please in their own country–I will not meddle in foreign affairs–but leave ours alone.
Fred! Ahhhhhh . This has a nicely orgasmic quality that will appeal to the younger demographic. It represents the satisfaction that my rule will bring to the entire country.
Five: I will end all sanctions against Iran. Then I will sell those Persian rascals airplanes and cars and electronic stuff and towel softener and lock them into the American economic system. This will make Boeing and AT&T and Intel love me with the deep sweet love that never dies, at least as long as the money flows, and there will be lots of jobs in Seattle.
Six: I will bring charges of treason against the contents of the Great Double Wide on Pennsylvania Avenue. The evidence is incontrovertible. The first rule of empire is Don't Let Your Enemies Unite. Everybody who has an empire knows this. Except us. Inside the White House a bunch of apparently brain-damaged political mostly left-overs, suffering from Beltway Bubble Syndrome, push China, Russia, and Iran together like some kind of international spaghetti-grope LGTBQRSTUV threesome. Who are our dismal leaders really working for? China?
A Fred in Every Pot This makes no sense, you may say. No, but we are doing politics. It is almost iambic pentameter, like Shakespeare. It will lend class to my campaign.
Seven: I will keep the F-35 program. It provides a lot of jobs. However, I will but get rid of the airplane. Isn't this brilliant? Instead of building the thing, workers will dig holes and fill them in, but keep their current salaries. It will improve their health, and make America safer. The fewer dangerous things the children in the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel have, the less trouble it can cause.
Better Fred than Dead! Some readers will dispute this. What do they know?
Eight: I have been urged to end affirmative action on the grounds that things should be done by people who can actually do them. This is racist. I will have nothing to do with it. Instead I will make affirmative action democratic and inclusive. Everyone will qualify for it. Special privilege should not be restricted to a minority. It isn't the American way.
Fred! Good as Any, Better'n Some. Good thinking.
Nine: I will abolish NATO. America should find a cheaper way to control the vassals. There is of course the bedtime story that NATO exists to confront the Russkies, and only incidentally provides a compulsory market for American armament. Nuts. Russia cannot seem dangerous to anyone who wasn't dropped on his head at some formative juncture in life. Smallish population, low military budget.
Likewise South Korea, which has twice the population and forty times the economy of the North. If it wants to defend itself, it has my blessing. If it doesn't, it isn't our problem.
Tippecanoe and Frederick Too! This may require exhumation, but for this we have backhoes.
Ten: I will make a modest reduction in the military budget, say seventy-five percent. To keep the soldiers happy I will invest in high-throughput roller coasters, a shooting range with BB guns, and really loud speaker systems that say Va roooom and Bangbangbang and fzzzzzzzzboom. These will provide psychic emoluments of martial life without the murder.
Eleven: The money thus saved I will use on pressing domestic problems. LA has 68,000 homeless people on the streets, San Francisco loses conventions because of so many homeless defecating on the sidewalks, Portland has homeless riots,. The lower primates in Antifa and BLM rend such social fabric as any longer exists. Dams are aging. Our trains are out of of the Fifties. And we spend a trillion a year on goddam aircraft carriers?
Fred? Well, Got a Better Idea?
Twelve: As an educational reform, I will have the Department of Education filled with linoleum cement, the occupants being left inside. This will raise the national IQ by at least three points. I will pass an amendment to the fragments of the Constitution saying, "No federal entity or person shall say, think, suggest, or do anything whatever regarding schooling on pain of garroting." Part of the savings from lowering the military budget will go to purchasing garrotes. The duration, content, and nature of the schools shall be left to localities without exception.
Thirteen: The father of any girl subjected to genital mutilation will be awarded a free gender reassignment operation, preferably with tin-snips. Genital mutilation should be inclusive. The father will then be placed for two weeks in the bottom of a public latrine in Uganda. If this doesn't suffice to deter the practice, I may be forced to adopt extreme measures. A country that allows such treatment of daughters deserves to go to hell. And seems to be.
Fourteen: I will impose a literacy test for voting. People too dim to find their way home should not be permitted to influence policies they have never heard of and can't spell. Yes, this might be called illiberal. If so, it will doubtless be the only example of illiberalism in this meritorious list.
Fifteen: In higher education, I will prescribe horse whipping for anyone saying microaggression, white privilege, whiteness, patriarchy, safe space, people of color, racism, any kind of phobia, or "Resist" in a squalling voice with an exclamation point. No curriculum containing the word "Studies" will be permitted.
Sixteen: Anyone prescribing Ritalin for children under twenty-one will be thrown from a helicopter.
In conclusion, I say to my yearning public, There, you, see, there is hope. Together we can do this. See you at the polls.
... ... ...
Fred Reed is a former news weasel and part-time sociopath living in central Mexico with his wife and three useless but agreeable street dogs. He says it suits him.
FoxTwo , says: September 15, 2018 at 11:03 am GMT
In today's world of political insanity, a healthy dose of sarcasm may be considered as a good antidote. Love your columns Fred; keep them up!
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2018 | thenewkremlinstooge.wordpress.com
Patient Observer September 14, 2018 at 10:01 am
Speaking on the House floor on September 13, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard accused the Trump administration of protecting al-Qaeda terrorists in Idlib. According to the congresswoman, this amounts to the betrayal of the American people and victims of al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks in the US.Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) called out President Donald Trump and Vice President Pence for allegedly protecting al-Qaeda* in Idlib, Syria, while speaking in the House on September 13.
"Two days ago, President Trump and Vice President Pence delivered solemn speeches about the attacks on 9/11, talking about how much they care about the victims of al-Qaeda's attack on our country. But, they are now standing up to protect the 20,000 to 40,000 al-Qaeda and other jihadist forces in Syria, and threatening Russia, Syria, and Iran, with military force if they dare attack these terrorists," the congresswoman stressed.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201809141068043412-trump-pence-alqaeda-idlib/
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
... ... ...
Obama, it turns out, was among the most militaristic White House occupants in American history, taking the imperial presidency to new heights. It has been said that Obama was the only president whose administration was enmeshed in multiple wars from beginning to end. His imperial ventures spanned many countries – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia along with proxy interventions in Yemen and Pakistan. He ordered nearly 100,000 bombs and missiles delivered against defenseless targets, a total greater than that of the more widely-recognized warmonger George W. Bush's total of 70,000 against five countries. Iraq alone – where U.S. forces were supposed to have been withdrawn – was recipient of 41,000 bombs and missiles along with untold amounts of smaller ordnance. Meanwhile, throughout his presidency Obama conducted hundreds of drone attacks in the Middle East, more than doubling Bush's total, all run jointly (and covertly) by the CIA and Air Force.
Obama engineered two of the most brazen regime-change operations of the postwar era, in Libya (2011) and Ukraine (2014), leaving both nations reduced to a state of ongoing civil war and economic ruin. For the past seven years Libya has been overrun by an assortment of militias, jihadic groups, and local strongmen – predictable result of the U.S./NATO bombing offensive to destroy the secular nationalist (and modernizing) Kadafi regime. This was purportedly Secretary of State Clinton's biggest moment of glory, her imperialist gloating on full display following Kadafi's assassination. As this is written conditions in Libya worsen by the day, reports surfacing of hundreds of people killed during violent clashes in the suburbs of Tripoli as rival militias fight for control of the capital. Militias now exercise control over ports, airfields, and much of the oil infrastructure. More tens of thousands of Libyans are being forced from their homes, a development greeted with silence at CNN and kindred media outlets.
United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric recently decried this violence, noting the indiscriminate shelling by armed groups killing civilians, including children. Not to be outdone, the U.S. (joined by a few European states) issued a statement condemning the violence in Libya, reading in part: "We urge armed groups to immediately cease all military actions and warn those who tamper with security in Tripoli or elsewhere in Libya that they will be held accountable for any such actions." How thoughtful of those very military actors who, with U.N. blessing, brought nothing but endless death and destruction to the Libyan people.
In Ukraine, as Vladimir Putin was being demonized as the "new Hitler", real fascists (or at least neo-fascists) were installed in power through the well-planned and generously-funded conspiracy of Obama's neocon functionaries, led by Victoria Nuland and cheered on by such visiting notables as John McCain, Joe Biden, and John Brennan -- all scheming to bring the Kiev regime into the NATO/European Union orbit. The puppet Poroshenko regime has since 2014 been given enough American economic and military largesse to finance its warfare against separatists in the Russian-speaking Donbass region, resulting in more than 10,000 deaths, with no end in sight. Following the gruesome pattern of Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Ukrainian society descends into deepening chaos and violence with no end in sight.
It is easy to forget that it was the Obama administration that planned and carried out the first phases of the Mosul operation (begun in October 2016) which produced hundreds of thousands of casualties (with at least 40,000 dead), left a city of two million in Dresden-like state of rubble, and drove nearly a million civilians into exile. The same fate, on smaller scale, was brought to other Sunni-majority cities in Iraq, including Ramadi, Tikrit, and Fallujah (already destroyed by U.S. forces in 2004). Whatever the official goal, and however many secondary collaborators were involved, these were monstrous war crimes by any reckoning.
After calling for a nuclear-free world (and receiving a Nobel Peace Prize for that promise), Obama reversed course and embarked on the most ambitious U.S. nuclear upgrading since the early 1950s – the same project inherited by Trump. Speaking in Prague in 2009, the president called for total abolition of nukes, saying "the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those [nuclear] weapons have not . . . Our efforts to contain these dangers [must be] centered on a global non-proliferation regime." A laudable objective to be sure. But for a price tag of one trillion dollars (over two decades), Obama decided to create new missile delivery systems, expand the arsenal of tactical warheads, and fund a new cycle of bombers and submarines – all with little political or media notice. These initiatives violated the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty prohibiting such moves, while essentially blocking any genuine efforts toward nuclear reduction and nonproliferation.
In the months before Obama departed the White House he laid the groundwork for a new, more dangerous, Cold War with Russia. This agenda, negating earlier plans for a "reset" with the Putin government, would be multi-faceted – expanded NATO forces along Russian borders, renewed support for the oligarch Poroshenko in Ukraine, new and harsher economic sanctions, expulsion of diplomats, accelerated cyberwarfare, charges of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Not only has this strategy, eagerly advanced by the Clintonites and their media allies, brought new levels of insanity to American politics, it has left the two nuclear powers menacingly closer to armed confrontation than even at the peak of the Cold War.
Obama's contributions to a more robust imperial presidency went further. Collaborating with Israel and Saudi Arabia, he stoked the Syrian civil war by lending "rebel" fighters crucial material, logistical, and military aid for what Clinton – anticipating electoral victory – believed would bring yet another cheerful episode of regime change, this one leaving the U.S. face-to-face with the Russians. During his tenure in office, moreover, Obama would deploy more special-ops troops around the globe (to more than 70 countries) than any predecessor.
Many liberals and more than a few progressives – not to mention large sectors of the media intelligentsia -- will find it difficult to reconcile the picture of an aggressively imperialist Obama with the more familiar image of a thoughtful, articulate politician who laced his talks with references to peace, arms control, and human rights. But this very dualism best corresponds to the historical reality. In his book The Obama Syndrome , Tariq Ali writes: "From Palestine through Iraq, Obama has acted as just another steward of the American empire, pursuing the same aims as his predecessors, with the same means but with more emollient rhetoric." He adds: "Historically, the model for the current variant of imperial presidency is Woodrow Wilson, no less pious a Christian, whose every second word was peace, democracy, or self-determination, while his armies invaded Mexico, occupied Haiti, and attacked Russia [yes, Russia!], and his treaties handed one colony after another to his partners in war. Obama is a hand-me-down version of the same, without even Fourteen Points to betray."
As the 2018 midterm elections approach, Obama has chosen to depart from historical norm and go on the attack against a Trump presidency viewed as signifying all that is evil. A Democratic victory would reject Trump's "dark vision of the the nation and restore honesty, decency, and lawfulness to the American government". In his first speech Obama said that orchestrated public fear has created conditions "ripe for exploitation by politicians who have no compunction and no shame about tapping into America's dark history of racial and ethnic and religious division." Does Obama need to be reminded that such "dark history" also includes militarism and imperialism?
Whatever one's view of the Trump phenomenon in its totality, the amount of death and destruction he has brought to the world does not (yet) come close to Obama's record of warfare, drone strikes, regime changes, military provocations, and global deployments. If neocon interests have come to shape U.S. foreign policy, those interests have so far been more fully embraced by Obama and the Clintonites than by Trump, despite the scary presence of Trump's hawkish circle of lieutenants. Unfortunately, Obama's eight years of imperial aggression elicited strikingly few liberal or progressive voices of dissent across the political and media terrain. He enjoyed nearly complete immunity from protest at a time when even the smallest vestiges of a once-vigorous American antiwar movement had disappeared from the scene.
CARL BOGGS is the author of several recent books, including Fascism Old and New (2018), Origins of the Warfare State (2016), and Drugs, Power, and Politics (2015). He can be reached at ceboggs@nu.edu.
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com
Carlton Meyer , says: Website June 8, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
Kirk Douglas starred in a great film about fighting in World War I: "Paths of Glory." I highly recommend the film for its accuracy, best described in Wiki by the reaction of governments:Controversy
On its release, the film's anti-military tone was subject to criticism and censorship.
In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently criticized the film -- and its portrayal of the French Army -- after it was released in Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European distributor) to not release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in 1975 when social attitudes had changed.[17]
In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining relations with France;[18] it was not shown for two years until after its release.
In Spain, Spain's right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.
In Switzerland, the film was censored, at the request of the Swiss Army, until 1970.[18]
At American bases in Europe, the American military banned it from being shown.[18]
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com
Steve Naidamast , says: June 13, 2018 at 7:14 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer My recent tribute to World War I:May 28, 2018 - A Memorial to the Great War Disaster
Books about World War I are not popular in the USA because they are depressing. The world's great European powers destroyed a generation of men in pointless bloody battles. Few Americans realize that World War I was America's worst foreign policy blunder that killed millions and set the stage for World War II.
When the "Great War" began in 1914, royals and generals hoped for swift victories. However, advances in technology, mostly machine guns and rapid fire artillery, allowed concentrated firepower to annihilate attacking formations. The war in France bogged down into a bloody stalemate and the construction of fortified positions ensured that any offensive would grind to a stop. The king of England and Germany were first cousins who grew up together, so a peaceful resolution was likely in 1916.
The problem was that British bankers had loaned its government lots of money and most could not be repaid. They wanted to win the war so they could loot Germany by requiring Germans to pay reparations so the British government could repay them. If they could lure the powerful USA to join the war, victory was assured. They blocked peace efforts and used their agents of influence to manipulate the USA into joining the war. Soon after President Wilson was elected with the promise to stay out the war, he worked with Congress to declare war.
As a result, the war dragged on for two more bloody years before enough American men and material arrived in France to turn the tide. The war was unpopular back home, leading Wilson to censor the US mail by blocking anti-war newsletters and magazines. He threw thousands of political opponents in jail, implemented a draft to fill out the Army, and sent these reluctant Americans into battle with little training and poor equipment. The Americans fought bravely, but the Germans had three years of combat experience and chewed up American units foolishly thrown into frontal attacks that had little chance of success. After four years of war, the Germans had no more manpower to replace losses, and surrendered based on a just peace promised by President Wilson. That never happened and Germany was looted and humiliated, which led to the rise of the Nazis and World War II.
So this Memorial Day, remember the 116,516 Americans President Wilson killed in that senseless war. Moreover, the American intervention extended the war and resulted in World War II. American GIs slaughter Germans so British bankers could collect debts, with interest! I was inspired to write this blog post after reading the brilliant David Stockman's recent essay about America's disastrous intervention in World War I.
https://original.antiwar.com/David_Stockman/2018/05/16/why-the-empire-never-sleeps-the-indispensable-nation-folly-part-2/ I have to agree with much of what stated in his reply. But I would like to also add my own in-depth notes
I tend to concentrate my military studies on World War I (in addition to the "War for Southern Independence" and the inter-war years (1919-1939)). And as everyone here has concluded, World War I was an abomination of an atrocity.
Professor Bacevich, a man I have great respect for, did however make some minor but critical errors in this piece.
Kaiser Wilhelm had no desire to enter into a world conflagration. When he realized that events were spinning out of control, he did everything in his power to contact his cousin, the Russian Czar, to request that Russian Mobilization be halted, the actual cause of the start of the conflict. Due to the fact that diplomacy, unlike the military (which had adopted wireless and wired communications), was still using traditional methods of face-to-face discussion or formal letters for diplomacy, the Kaiser was unable to get through to his cousin in time to stop what the Czar most likely could not halt in any event. Mobilization of forces at the time had taken on a life of their own due to the technologies of modernized train transport.
In 1915 or 1916, the German high command attempted to offer to negotiate peace with Britain and France but Britain, with the war being run basically by Churchill (a warmonger of the first order) refused to talk to the Germans, since he loathed them for whatever reasons.
The war was won by Germany in the winter of 1917 at which point the megalomaniacal Woodrow Wilson pushed the US into the conflict with his god-like notion that he could create peace on Earth. The man was truly clinically insane (but functional) as much recent documentation has attested to (see the late Thomas Fleming's, "Illusion of Victory" for a thrill ride through Wilson's addled thinking).
Had the US not entered the war, there would have been an amenable peace developed in 1917 among the European belligerents. And probably as a result, no World War II.
England was the cause of the war indirectly with her centuries old "balance of power" politics applied to continental Europe. In this vein, fearful of the loss of her dominance on the high seas as a result of the Kaiser's excellent buildup of the Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy), which in turn would threaten her empire, the British military started to collude with the French military, I believe as early as 1906, to develop joint operational plans in case of war with Germany. This latter of course, the British were very much hoping would happen. And with Churchill being one of the most influential cabinet members on the matter, there was little doubt that Britain would need very little pretext to enter a conflict.
However, it was France's alliance with Russia that was directly responsible for the initiation of the entire conflagration. This alliance was centered upon loans to Russia from France for Russian domestic development and French fears that if Germany attacked her she would be left on her own to defend herself. Russia agreed in principal to ally herself with France but used the French loans instead to rebuild her military (though it did her little good against superior German arms).
Germany, bound in alliance with Austro-Hungary, did in fact support Austria's punitive strike into Serbia and provided what some have called a "blank check", which provided for military and financial support as a result of the alliance. Austria's military, one which had a very spotty historical record of being on and off again as far as quality was concerned, was definitively off in 1914 and was summarily defeated by superior Serbian Forces.
Franz-Josef of Austria had no expectation of a world war when he committed Austria to such an incursion into Serbian territory and by that time no else did either as a result of the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand since royal assassinations had become pretty common place in Europe from 1880 onward. However, on the Austrian side we have general Conrad von Hotzendorf to thank for this strike at Serbia. He hated Serbia probably as much as Churchill hated the Germans but Conrad had good reason to since the Balkan nation was always causing all sorts of problems on the Austro-Hungarian borders. Unfortunately, Conrad was not all that good a military man and cost Austrian hundreds of thousands of combatant deaths during the conflict.
As a result, this assassination, a real non-event, has been touted to school children ever since as the cause of World War I. In reality, it was simply window dressing for idiots in the US educational system to latch onto.
The reaction of Russia to the attack on Serbia was to fully mobilize her military, which up through World War II has always been seen as an imminent sign of war.
This automatically dragged France into war, which in turn dragged England as a result of the secret military partnership. Austria then was forced to follow suit and formally declare war, which brought the final player into the conflict, Germany, who with the exception of some in the German high command really had questions about engaging in such a widening war, which was supposed to be a localized conflict.
Seeing that there was no hope to ending the conflict on amenable terms, the Kaiser abdicated in 1918 and fled for the Royal Netherlands where he was taken in and granted political asylum. However, by this time General Ludendorf had become a de-facto military dictator of Germany. And though both he and his senior military aide. Max Hoffman, , who did the majority of the planning, developed superior battlefield strategy, Ludendorf's political decisions caused untold problems for the German social infrastructure, some of which was a reaction to the new pressures that US Forces were finally bringing to bare on German arms.
The original number of deaths for World War I began at around ten million but had been upgraded over the years to around twenty million. However, this does not take into account the highly damaging effects of what would become known as the Spanish Flu in 1918. Recent research into this aspect of the war is now postulating of up to sixty million deaths all told.
The Spanish Flu was actually a very mild flu; not the devastating epidemic that again idiot educators and historians have touted over the years. What made this particular strain of Flu so devastating was not the virus itself but the need for adequate health-care and recovery. However, within the field armies that were facing each other, the deprivations that the war had brought to continental Europe, and the very poorly developed 33 US training camps in the States, affected personnel and civilian populace did not have the proper facilities and health-care required to allow them to recover quickly and properly from this disease. The result was that patients lingered in terrible conditions making recovery impossible and allowing death to ensue.
Finally, it was not just British bankers who wanted their loans paid back but the US banks desired it as well for their own loans; a first in the annals of military history between allies. However, the Wilson Administration never considered the US an ally to Britain or France. It instead viewed itself as an "associated nation", whatever that meant. However, Wilson was famously known for his ridiculous vagueness and slogans ("saving the world for democracy", which even at the time no one could quite figure out the meaning of). As a result, the US would not sign a peace agreement until 1922.
Talk about stupid
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com
MarkinPNW , says: June 13, 2018 at 5:49 am GMT
The World Wars (I and II) can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading British Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, with the material, human, and moral cost of the wars actually accelerating the empire's demise.Tom Welsh , says: June 13, 2018 at 10:05 am GMTLikewise, the current endless "War on Terra" can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading American Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, again with the material, human, and moral cost of this war actually accelerating its demise.
But in the meantime, in both examples, the Bankers and the MIC just keep reaping their profits, even at the expense of the empires they purportedly support and defend.
'There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one–on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for the war. The pulpit will– warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as earlier– but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and all– will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception'.Z-man , says: June 13, 2018 at 11:52 am GMT- Satan, in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" (1908)
Mike P , says: June 13, 2018 at 12:26 pm GMTToday, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence. And given our reliance on a professional military, shooting citizen-soldiers who want to opt out of the fight is no longer required.
Yep, I was looking for a quote like this. We have a mercenary military now so the ruling elite can send them anywhere they want with little agitation from the general public. That's why I advised my son not to join, not that he was leaning in that direction anyway. (Grin)
Ludendorff's book is available on archive.org , an amazing resource.AnonFromTN , says: June 13, 2018 at 3:19 pm GMTI posted this in another thread, but here it is more appropriate:renfro , says: June 13, 2018 at 5:07 pm GMT
That's what happens when hubris replaces strategy. In the US today only MIC has a strategy: produce any fakes necessary to keep the gravy train rolling. The leadership of the country is wholly owned by MIC and allied forces (AIPAC is one of those) and mostly resembles biblical blind lead by the blindAndrew J. Bacevich is hard at work writing a book about how we got Donald J. Trump.
Buying his book would be a waste of money I can tell you for free.
Trump was elected out of the sheer desperation of a large number of Americans fed up to death with a corrupt government and noxious [neo]liberalism. period.
Unfortunately he was a fraud ..but the most desperate are still clinging, hoping against hope.
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2018 | www.unz.com
Mike P , says: June 8, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT
TG , says: June 8, 2018 at 7:44 pm GMTNo, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders.
I'd say both. The generals have greatly assisted in stringing along the trusting public, always promising that victory is just around the corner, provided the public supports this or that final effort. Petraeus in particular willingly played his part in misleading the public about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His career would be a great case study for illuminating what is wrong with the U.S. today.
As to the apparent failure of the Afghanistan war – one must be careful to separate stated goals from real ones. What kind of "lasting success" can the U.S. possibly hope for there? If they managed to defeat the Taliban, pacify the country, install a puppet regime to govern it, and then leave, what would that achieve? The puppet regime would find itself surrounded by powers antagonistic to the U.S., and the puppets would either cooperate with them or be overthrown in no time. The U.S. are not interested in winning and leaving – they want to continue disrupting the peaceful integration of East, West, and South Asia. Afghanistan is ideally placed for this purpose, and so the U.S. are quite content with dragging out that war, as a pretext for their continued presence in the region.
An interesting and thoughtful piece.Left Gatekeeper Dispatch , says: June 8, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMTI would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence."
This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't like the status quo.
After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises – and he was quickly beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.
No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are simply being ignored.
When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this Boy's State civics crap? You're calling on political leaders to stop war, like they don't remember what CIA did to JFK, RFK, Daschle, or Leahy. Or Paul Wellstone.smellyoilandgas , says: June 13, 2018 at 4:48 am GMTYour national command structure, CIA, has impunity for universal jurisdiction crime. They can kill or torture anyone they want and get away with it. That is what put them in charge. CIA kills anybody who gets in their way. You fail to comprehend Lenin's lesson: first destroy the regime, then you can refrain from use of force. Until you're ready to take on CIA, your bold phrases are silent and odorless farts of feckless self-absorption. Sack up and imprison CIA SIS or GTFO.
@TG An interesting and thoughtful piece.I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence."
This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.
So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't like the status quo.
After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises - and he was quickly beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.
No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are simply being ignored. While I agree the slave-American is ignored, I think the elected, salaried members of the elected government are also ignored.. The persons in charge are Pharaohs and massively powerful global in scope corporations.
Abe Lincoln, McKinnley, Kennedy discovered that fact in their fate.Organized Zionism was copted by the London bankers and their corporations 1897, since then a string of events have emerged.. that like a Submarine, seeking a far off target, it must divert to avoid being discovered, but soon, Red October returns to its intended path. here the path is to take the oil from the Arabs.. and the people driving that submarine are extremely wealthy Pharaohs and very well known major corporations.
I suggest to quit talking about the nation states and their leaders as if either could beat their way out of a wet paper sack. instead starting talking about the corporations and Pharaohs because they are global.
|
|
|
Jun 07, 2018 | www.unz.com
" The United States of Amnesia ." That's what Gore Vidal once called us. We remember what we find it convenient to remember and forget everything else. That forgetfulness especially applies to the history of others. How could their past, way back when, have any meaning for us today? Well, it just might. Take the European conflagration of 1914-1918, for example.
You may not have noticed. There's no reason why you should have, fixated as we all are on the daily torrent of presidential tweets and the flood of mindless rejoinders they elicit. But let me note for the record that the centenary of the conflict once known as The Great War is well underway and before the present year ends will have concluded.
Indeed, a hundred years ago this month, the 1918 German Spring Offensive -- codenamed Operation Michael -- was sputtering to an unsuccessful conclusion. A last desperate German gamble, aimed at shattering Allied defenses and gaining a decisive victory, had fallen short. In early August of that year, with large numbers of our own doughboys now on the front lines, a massive Allied counteroffensive was to commence, continuing until the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, when an armistice finally took effect and the guns fell silent.
In the years that followed, Americans demoted The Great War. It became World War I, vaguely related to but overshadowed by the debacle next in line, known as World War II. Today, the average citizen knows little about that earlier conflict other than that it preceded and somehow paved the way for an even more brutal bloodletting. Also, on both occasions, the bad guys spoke German.
So, among Americans, the war of 1914-1918 became a neglected stepsister of sorts, perhaps in part because the United States only got around to suiting up for that conflict about halfway through the fourth quarter. With the war of 1939-1945 having been sacralized as the moment when the Greatest Generation saved humankind, the war-formerly-known-as-The-Great-War collects dust in the bottom drawer of American collective consciousness.
From time to time, some politician or newspaper columnist will resurrect the file labeled "August 1914," the grim opening weeks of that war, and sound off about the dangers of sleepwalking into a devastating conflict that nobody wants or understands. Indeed, with Washington today having become a carnival of buncombe so sublimely preposterous that even that great journalistic iconoclast H.L. Mencken might have been struck dumb, ours is perhaps an apt moment for just such a reminder.
Yet a different aspect of World War I may possess even greater relevance to the American present. I'm thinking of its duration: the longer it lasted, the less sense it made. But on it went, impervious to human control like the sequence of Biblical plagues that God had inflicted on the ancient Egyptians.
So the relevant question for our present American moment is this: once it becomes apparent that a war is a mistake, why would those in power insist on its perpetuation, regardless of costs and consequences? In short, when getting in turns out to have been a bad idea, why is getting out so difficult, even (or especially) for powerful nations that presumably should be capable of exercising choice on such matters? Or more bluntly, how did the people in charge during The Great War get away with inflicting such extraordinary damage on the nations and peoples for which they were responsible?
For those countries that endured World War I from start to finish -- especially Great Britain, France, and Germany -- specific circumstances provided their leaders with an excuse for suppressing second thoughts about the cataclysm they had touched off.
Among them were:
mostly compliant civilian populations deeply loyal to some version of King and Country, further kept in line by unremitting propaganda that minimized dissent; draconian discipline -- deserters and malingerers faced firing squads -- that maintained order in the ranks (most of the time) despite the unprecedented scope of the slaughter; the comprehensive industrialization of war, which ensured a seemingly endless supply of the weaponry, munitions, and other equipment necessary for outfitting mass conscript armies and replenishing losses as they occurred.Economists would no doubt add sunk costs to the mix. With so much treasure already squandered and so many lives already lost, the urge to press on a bit longer in hopes of salvaging at least some meager benefit in return for what (and who) had been done in was difficult to resist.
Even so, none of these, nor any combination of them, can adequately explain why, in the midst of an unspeakable orgy of self-destruction, with staggering losses and nations in ruin, not one monarch or president or premier had the wit or gumption to declare: Enough! Stop this madness!
Instead, the politicians sat on their hands while actual authority devolved onto the likes of British Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig, French Marshals Ferdinand Foch and Philippe Petain, and German commanders Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff. In other words, to solve a conundrum they themselves had created, the politicians of the warring states all deferred to their warrior chieftains. For their part, the opposing warriors jointly subscribed to a perverted inversion of strategy best summarized by Ludendorff as "punch a hole [in the front] and let the rest follow." And so the conflict dragged on and on.
The Forfeiture of Policy
Put simply, in Europe, a hundred years ago, war had become politically purposeless. Yet the leaders of the world's principal powers -- including
Allow me to suggest that the United States should consider taking a page out of Lenin's playbook. Granted, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, such a suggestion might have smacked of treason. Today, however, in the midst of our never-ending efforts to expunge terrorism, we might look to Lenin for guidance on how to get our priorities straight.
As was the case with Great Britain, France, and Germany a century ago, the United States now finds itself mired in a senseless war. Back then, political leaders in London, Paris, and Berlin had abrogated control of basic policy to warrior chieftains. Today, ostensibly responsible political leaders in Washington have done likewise. Some of those latter-day American warrior chieftains who gather in the White House or testify on Capitol Hill may wear suits rather than uniforms, but all remain enamored with the twenty-first-century equivalent of Ludendorff's notorious dictum.
Of course, our post-9/11 military enterprise -- the undertaking once known as the Global War on Terrorism -- differs from The Great War in myriad ways. The ongoing hostilities in which U.S. forces are involved in various parts of the Islamic world do not qualify, even metaphorically, as "great." Nor will there be anything great about an armed conflict with Iran , should members of the current administration get their apparent wish to provoke one.
Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence. And given our reliance on a professional military, shooting citizen-soldiers who want to opt out of the fight is no longer required.
There are also obvious differences in scale, particularly when it comes to the total number of casualties involved. Cumulative deaths from the various U.S. interventions, large and small, undertaken since 9/11, number in the hundreds of thousands . The precise tally of those lost during the European debacle of 1914-1918 will never be known, but the total probably surpassed 13 million .
Even so, similarities between the Great War as it unspooled and our own not-in-the-least-great war(s) deserve consideration. Today, as then, strategy -- that is, the principled use of power to achieve the larger interests of the state -- has ceased to exist. Indeed, war has become an excuse for ignoring the absence of strategy.
For years now, U.S. military officers and at least some national security aficionados have referred to ongoing military hostilities as " the Long War ." To describe our conglomeration of spreading conflicts as "long" obviates any need to suggest when or under what circumstances (if any) they might actually end. It's like the meteorologist forecasting a "long winter" or the betrothed telling his or her beloved that theirs will be a "long engagement." The implicit vagueness is not especially encouraging.
Some high-ranking officers of late have offered a more forthright explanation of what "long" may really mean. In the Washington Post , the journalist Greg Jaffe recently reported that "winning for much of the U.S. military's top brass has come to be synonymous with staying put." Winning, according to Air Force General Mike Holmes, is simply "not losing. It's staying in the game."
Not so long ago, America's armed forces adhered to a concept called victory , which implied conclusive, expeditious, and economical mission accomplished. No more. Victory , it turns out, is too tough to achieve, too restrictive, or, in the words of Army Lieutenant General Michael Lundy, "too absolute." The United States military now grades itself instead on a curve. As Lundy puts it, "winning is more of a continuum," an approach that allows you to claim mission accomplishment without, you know, actually accomplishing anything.
It's like soccer for six-year-olds. Everyone tries hard so everyone gets a trophy. Regardless of outcomes, no one goes home feeling bad. In the U.S. military's case, every general gets a medal (or, more likely, a chest full of them).
"These days," in the Pentagon, Jaffe writes, "senior officers talk about 'infinite war.'"
I would like to believe that Jaffe is pulling our leg. But given that he's a conscientious reporter with excellent sources, I fear he knows what he's talking about. If he's right, as far as the top brass are concerned, the Long War has now officially gone beyond long. It has been deemed endless and is accepted as such by those who preside over its conduct.
Strategic Abomination
In truth, infinite war is a strategic abomination, an admission of professional military bankruptcy. Erster General-Quartiermeister Ludendorff might have endorsed the term, but Ludendorff was a military fanatic.
Check that. Infinite war is a strategic abomination except for arms merchants, so-called defense contractors, and the " emergency men " (and women) devoted to climbing the greasy pole of what we choose to call the national security establishment. In other words, candor obliges us to acknowledge that, in some quarters, infinite war is a pure positive, carrying with it a promise of yet more profits, promotions, and opportunities to come. War keeps the gravy train rolling. And, of course, that's part of the problem.
Who should we hold accountable for this abomination? Not the generals, in my view. If they come across as a dutiful yet unimaginative lot, remember that a lifetime of military service rarely nurtures imagination or creativity. And let us at least credit our generals with this: in their efforts to liberate or democratize or pacify or dominate the Greater Middle East they have tried every military tactic and technique imaginable. Short of nuclear annihilation, they've played just about every card in the Pentagon's deck -- without coming up with a winning hand. So they come and go at regular intervals, each new commander promising success and departing after a couple years to make way for someone else to give it a try.
It tells us something about our prevailing standards of generalship that, by resurrecting an old idea -- counterinsurgency -- and applying it with temporary success to one particular theater of war, General David Petraeus acquired a reputation as a military genius. If Petraeus is a military genius, so, too, is General George McClellan. After winning the Battle of Rich Mountain in 1861, newspapers dubbed McClellan "the Napoleon of the Present War." But the action at Rich Mountain decided nothing and McClellan didn't win the Civil War any more than Petraeus won the Iraq War.
No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders. Of course, under the heading of politician, we quickly come to our current commander-in-chief. Yet it would be manifestly unfair to blame President Trump for the mess he inherited, even if he is presently engaged in making matters worse .
The failure is a collective one, to which several presidents and both political parties have contributed over the years. Although the carnage may not be as horrific today as it was on the European battlefields on the Western and Eastern Fronts, members of our political class are failing us as strikingly and repeatedly as the political leaders of Great Britain, France, and Germany failed their peoples back then. They have abdicated responsibility for policy to our own homegrown equivalents of Haig, Foch, Petain, Hindenburg, and Ludendorff. Their failure is unforgivable.
Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: "Enough! Stop this madness!" Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation's gratitude and the support of the electorate.
Until that
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2018 | www.unz.com
Donald Trump's tenure as the 45th U.S. president may last another few weeks, another year, or another 16 months. However unsettling the prospect, the leaky vessel that is the S.S. Trump might even manage to stay afloat for a second term. Nonetheless, recent headline-making revelations suggest that, like some derelict ship that's gone aground, the Trump presidency may already have effectively run its course. What, then, does this bizarre episode in American history signify?
Let me state my own view bluntly: forget the atmospherics. Despite the lies, insults, name calling, and dog whistles, almost nothing of substance has changed. Nor will it.
To a far greater extent than Trump's perpetually hyperventilating critics are willing to acknowledge, the United States remains on a trajectory that does not differ appreciably from what it was prior to POTUS #45 taking office. Post-Trump America, just now beginning to come into view, is shaping up to look remarkably like pre-Trump America.
I understand that His Weirdness remains in the White House. Yet for all practical purposes, Trump has ceased to govern. True, he continues to rant and issue bizarre directives, which his subordinates implement, amend, or simply disregard as they see fit.
Except in a ceremonial sense, the office of the presidency presently lies vacant. Call it an abdication-in-place. It's as if British King Edward VIII, having abandoned his throne for "the woman I love," continued to hang around Buckingham Palace fuming about the lack of respect given Wallis and releasing occasional bulletins affirming his admiration for Adolf Hitler.
In Trump's case, it's unlikely he ever had a more serious interest in governing than Edward had in performing duties more arduous than those he was eventually assigned as Duke of Windsor. Nonetheless, the 60-plus million Americans who voted for Trump did so with at least the expectation that he was going to shake things up.
And bigly . Remember, he was going to "lock her up." He would "drain the swamp" and "build a wall" with Mexico volunteering to foot the bill. Without further ado, he would end "this American carnage." Meanwhile, "America First" would form the basis for U.S. foreign policy. Once Trump took charge, things were going to be different, as he and he alone would "make America great again."
Yet the cataclysm that Trump's ascendency was said to signify has yet to occur. Barring a nuclear war, it won't.
If you spend your days watching CNN or MSNBC or reading columnists employed by the New York Times and the Washington Post , you might conclude otherwise. But those are among the institutions that, on November 8, 2016, suffered a nervous breakdown from which they have yet to recover. Nor, it now seems clear, do they wish to recover as long as Donald Trump remains president. To live in a perpetual state of high dudgeon, denouncing his latest inanity and predicting the onset of fascism, is to enjoy the equivalent of a protracted psychic orgasm, one induced by mutual masturbation.
Yet if you look beyond the present to the fairly recent past, it becomes apparent that change on the scale that Trump was promising had actually occurred, even if well before he himself showed up on the scene. The consequences of that Big Change are going to persist long after he is gone. It's those consequences that now demand our attention, not the ongoing Gong Show jointly orchestrated by the White House and journalists fancying themselves valiant defenders of Truth.
Trump himself is no more than a pimple on the face of this nation's history. It's time to step back from the mirror and examine the face in full. Pretty it's not.
The Way We Were
Compare the America that welcomed young Donald Trump into the world in 1946 with the country that, some 70 years later, elected him president. As the post-World War II era was beginning, three large facts -- so immense that they were simply taken for granted -- defined America.
First, the United States made everything and made more of it than anyone else. In postwar America, wealth derived in large measure from the manufacture of stuff: steel, automobiles, refrigerators, shoes, socks, blouses, baseballs, you name it. "Made in the USA" was more than just a slogan. With so much of the industrialized world in ruins, the American economy dominated and defined everyday economic reality globally.
Second, back then while the mighty engine of industrial capitalism was generating impressive riches, it was also distributing the benefits on a relatively equitable basis . Postwar America was the emblematic middle-class country, the closest approximation to a genuinely classless and democratic society the world had ever seen.
Third, having had their fill of fighting from 1941 to 1945, Americans had a genuine aversion to war. They may not have been a peace-loving people, but they knew enough about war to see it as a great evil. Avoiding its further occurrence, if at all possible, was a priority, although one not fully shared by the new national security establishment just then beginning to flex its muscles in Washington.
Now without even pretending to distribute the benefits equitably. Politicians still routinely paid tribute to the Great American Middle Class. Yet the hallmarks of postwar middle-class life -- a steady job, a paycheck adequate to support a family, the prospect of a pension -- were rapidly disappearing. While Americans still enjoyed freedom of a sort, many of them lacked security.
By 2016, Americans had also come to accept war as normal . Here was "global leadership" made manifest. So U.S. troops were now always out there somewhere fighting, however obscure the purpose of their exertions and however dim their prospects of achieving anything approximating victory . The 99% of Americans who were not soldiers learned to tune out those wars, content merely to "support the troops," an obligation fulfilled by offering periodic expressions of reverence on public occasions. Thank you for your service!
The Way We Are
But note: Donald Trump played no role in creating this America or consigning the America of 1946 to oblivion. As a modern equivalent of P.T. Barnum, he did demonstrate considerable skill in exploiting the opportunities on offer as the strictures of postwar America gave way. Indeed, he parlayed those opportunities into fortune, celebrity, lots of golf , plenty of sex, and eventually the highest office in the land. Only in America, as we used to say.
In 1946, it goes without saying, he would never have been taken seriously as a would-be presidential candidate. By 2016, his narcissism, bombast, vulgarity, and talent for self-promotion nicely expressed the underside of the prevailing zeitgeist. His candidacy was simultaneously preposterous, yet strangely fitting.
By the twenty-first century, the values that Trump embodies had become as thoroughly and authentically American as any of those specified in the oracular pronouncements of Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, or Franklin Roosevelt. Trump's critics may see him as an abomination. But he is also one of us.
And here's the real news: the essential traits that define America today -- those things that make this country so different from what it seemed to be in 1946 -- will surely survive the Trump presidency. If anything, he and his cronies deserve at least some credit for sustaining just those traits.
Candidate Trump essentially promised Americans a version of 1946 redux . He would revive manufacturing and create millions of well-paying jobs for working stiffs. By cutting taxes, he would put more money in the average Joe or Jill's pocket. He would eliminate the trade deficit and balance the federal budget. He would end our endless wars and bring the troops home where they belong. He would oblige America's allies, portrayed as a crew of freeloaders, to shoulder their share of the burden. He would end illegal immigration. He would make the United States once more the God-fearing Christian country it was meant to be.
How seriously Trump expected any of those promises to be taken is anyone's guess. But this much is for sure: they remain almost entirely unfulfilled.
True, domestic manufacturing has experienced a slight uptick , but globalization remains an implacable reality. Unless you've got a STEM degree, good jobs are still hard to come by. Ours is increasingly a "gig" economy, which might be cool enough when you're 25, but less so when you're in your sixties and wondering if you'll ever be able to retire.
While Trump and a Republican Congress delivered on their promise of tax "reform," its chief beneficiaries will be the rich, further confirmation, if it were needed, that the American economy is indeed rigged in favor of a growing class of plutocrats. Trade deficit? It's headed for a 10-year high . Balanced budget? You've got to be joking. The estimated federal deficit next year will exceed a trillion dollars , boosting the national debt past $21 trillion . (Trump had promised to eliminate that debt entirely.)
And, of course, the wars haven't ended. Here is Trump, just last month, doing his best George McGovern imitation: "I'm constantly reviewing Afghanistan and the whole Middle East," he asserted . "We never should have been in the Middle East. It was the single greatest mistake in the history of our country." Yet Trump has perpetuated and, in some instances, expanded America's military misadventures in the Greater Middle East, while essentially insulating himself from personal responsibility for their continuation.
As commander-in-chief, he's a distinctly hands-off kind of guy. Despite being unable to walk, President Franklin Roosevelt visited GIs serving in combat zones more often than Trump has. If you want to know why we are in Afghanistan and how long U.S. forces will stay there, ask Defense Secretary James Mattis or some general, but don't, whatever you do, ask the president.
On Not Turning America's Back on the World
And then there is the matter of Trump's "isolationism." Recall that when he became president, foreign policy experts across Washington warned that the United States would now turn its back on the world and abandon its self-assigned role as keeper of order and defender of democracy. Now, nearing the mid-point of Trump's first (and hopefully last) term, the United States remains formally committed to defending the territorial integrity of each and every NATO member state, numbering 29 in all. Add to that an obligation to defend nations as varied as Japan, South Korea, and, under the terms of the Rio Pact of 1947, most of Latin America. Less formally but no less substantively, the U.S. ensures the security of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and various other Persian Gulf countries.
As for obliging those allies to pony up more for the security we have long claimed to provide, that's clearly not going to happen any time soon. Our European allies have pocketed both Trump's insults and his assurances that the United States will continue to defend them, offering in return the vaguest of promises that, sometime in the future, they might consider investing more in defense.
By-the-by, U.S. forces under Donald Trump's ostensible command are today present in more than 150 countries worldwide. Urged on by the president, Congress has passed a bill that boosts the Pentagon budget to $717 billion , an $82 billion increase over the prior year. Needless to say, no adversary or plausible combination of adversaries comes anywhere close to matching that figure.
To call this isolationism is comparable to calling Trump svelte.
As for the promised barrier, that " big, fat, beautiful wall ," to seal the southern border, it has advanced no further than the display of several possible prototypes. No evidence exists to suggest that Mexico will, as Trump insisted, pay for its construction, nor that Congress will appropriate the necessary funds, estimated at somewhere north of $20 billion , even with Republicans still controlling both houses of Congress. And in truth, whether it is built or not, the U.S.-Mexico border will remain what it has been for decades: heavily patrolled but porous, a conduit for desperate people seeking safety and opportunity, but also for criminal elements trafficking in drugs or human beings.
The point of this informal midterm report card is not to argue that Donald Trump has somehow failed. It is rather to highlight his essential irrelevance.
Trump is not the disruptive force that anti-Trumpers accuse him of being. He is merely a noxious, venal, and ineffectual blowhard, who has assembled a team of associates who are themselves, with few exceptions, noxious, venal, or ineffectual.
So here's the upshot of it all: if you were basically okay with where America was headed prior to November 2016, just take a deep breath and think of Donald Trump as the political equivalent of a kidney stone -- not fun, but sooner or later, it will pass. And when it does, normalcy will return. Soon enough you'll forget it ever happened.
If, on the other hand, you were not okay with where America was headed in 2016, it's past time to give up the illusion that Donald Trump is going to make things right. Eventually a pimple dries up and disappears, often without leaving a trace. Such is the eventual destiny of Donald Trump as president.
In the meantime, of course, there are any number of things about Trump to raise our ire. Climate change offers a good example. And yet climate change may be the best illustration of Trump's insignificance.
Under President Obama, the United States showed signs of mounting a belated effort to address global warming. The Trump administration wasted little time in reversing course, reverting to the science-denying position to which Republicans adhered long before Trump himself showed up.
No doubt future generations will find fault with Trump's inaction in the face of this crisis. Yet when Miami is underwater and California wildfires rage throughout the year, Trump himself won't be the only -- or even the principal – culprit charged with culpable neglect.
The nation's too-little, too-late response to climate change for which a succession of presidents share responsibility illustrates the great and abiding defect of contemporary American politics. When all is said and done, presidents don't shape the country; the country shapes the presidency -- or at least it defines the parameters within which presidents operate. Over the course of the last few decades, those parameters have become increasingly at odds with the collective wellbeing of the American people, not to mention of the planet as a whole.
Yet Americans have been obdurate in refusing to acknowledge that fact.
Americans today are deeply divided. There exists no greater symbol of that division than Trump himself -- the wild enthusiasm he generates in some quarters and the antipathy verging on hatred he elicits in others.
The urgent need of the day is to close that divide, which is as broad as it is deep, touching on culture, the political economy, America's role in the world, and the definition of the common good. I submit that these matters lie beyond any president's purview, but especially this one's.
Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps -- or someone worse -- to come.
Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author of Twilight of the American Century , which will be published this fall.
beb , says: September 11, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
A cultural war has been ignited. The United States in 6 more years will be a different country. For good or evil, I do not know. Whichever side wins will take all.CornCod1 , says: September 11, 2018 at 8:56 pm GMTI dunno, if Trump had some backing from his own party and had a true political movement behind him he would have done better.RVBlake , says: September 11, 2018 at 9:52 pm GMTThere is no more an American people. Trump's election has revealed a cultural divide which has existed for the past 50 years or more. He didn't cause it, he has unconsciously uncovered it.Johnny Rottenborough , says: Website September 11, 2018 at 11:25 pm GMTTrump did at least have the courage publicly to describe the enemy within, which makes him all but unique among Western politicians: 'Their financial resources are virtually unlimited, their political resources are unlimited, their media resources are unmatched, and most importantly, the depths of their immorality is absolutely unlimited.'
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
annamaria , September 11, 2018 at 2:43 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2reiner Tor , September 11, 2018 at 4:20 pm GMTTarget SyriaNo. Don't you get bored of being wrong? Have any of your predictions come true? America and allies are quite at peace with how Syria is unfolding. If you don't get that, you don't get anything. "Staged Filming of False Flag 'Chemical Attacks' Has Begun in Idlib:" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-11/russian-defense-ministry-says-filming-mock-chemical-attack-has-begun-idlibWill a new war be the October Surprise
From the comment section:
1. "The only way for Syria and Iran and Russia to defend Syria is to clearly tell Washington, London, Paris (the main ZOGs) and Israel that attacks on Syria will be responded to by attacks on Israeli military and intel sites. The introduction of any nuclear device of any size will result in a full-scale nuclear response.
That is the only play otherwise Syria simply bleeds to death as t he Jews get their puppets to keep fomenting terror and dropping bombs on SAA efforts to fight those terrorists . We come to the moment when Russia either defends Syria by hitting Israel or it decides to accept the Long Death of Anglo-Zionist megalomania."
2. "I really do wish Russia would just instantly bomb Israel. That would be the best way to separate us from that satanic rope around our necks."
3. "I call everyone in the military to disobey orders for attacking anything in Syria except Isis. Need to spread this on social media. Don't be mercenaries of Israel ."
-- Your "most victimized" have squandered all and any sympathy for your "incomparable sufferings" by promoting the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East. The Jewish State and its subordinate zionized US have become the gravest danger to humanity.
This whole issue is so surrealistic. The last time the OPCW didn't confirm their accusations, but now they know who is going to commit a chemical attack right now, and they don't even wait for the actual events to be cocksure about it. Apparently they want a nuclear Mexican standoff. This is the problem that last time maybe Russia wasn't convincingly committed to a nuclear war, and so they are trying to explore this perceived weakness. It will get to a point where the US will call Russia's "bluff" which will turn out not to have been a bluff.annamaria , September 12, 2018 at 3:45 pm GMT
@APilgrimJews undermined and destroyed their own society, as routinely as they undermine Western Civilization. The OT reveals the historic pattern of Hebraic self-destruction, and depravity; which was repeated in the 1st Century, and chronicled by Josephus.
Jews are not as problematic, as the Muhammadans.
So, 1st things 1st. The ziocon-supported "rebels" of A Qaeda (see Washington Post editorial written by Israel firsters) are preparing a children sacrifice for the glory of the the mythical Eretz Israel: https://www.rt.com/news/438282-white-helmets-film-chemical-attacks/
"The militants have selected 22 children and their parents from several villages in the Aleppo governorate who will play parts in staging fake chemical weapon attacks.
Another group of children is comprised of orphans kidnapped from refugee camps, who are meant to be used for the footage of death scenes. It is currently kept in one of the buildings of the Ikab prison controlled by Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist group.
Signs of activities to prepare staged chemical weapon attacks were reported in Kafir-Zait, the military claims, also naming two villages where toxic chemicals have been delivered to stage provocations."
-- Not a peep from the "humanitarian" Jewish State that has been waiting impatiently a resumption of the slaughter of civilians in the sovereign State of Syria. Nothing pleases the Jewish State more than the death of kids in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Iran. This is your tribeswoman:
" Paul Joseph Watson reported that at least 29 different Syrian rebel groups are pledging allegiance to the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate group responsible for killing American troops in Iraq.
"Syrian rebels have been responsible for a plethora of atrocities, from terrorist attacks and massacres, to forcing people to become suicide bombers, to attacks on Christian churches and making children carry out grisly beheadings of unarmed prisoners," Watson wrote.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has even admitted to BBC that these Syrian rebels on the same side as the U.S. in Syria are terrorist groups President Obama has been openly supporting the Syrian rebels "
Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University told the MSNBC panel: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-10/how-explain-causes-syrian-war-2-minutes
"We know they sent in the CIA to overthrow Assad. The CIA and Saudi Arabia together in covert operations tried to overthrow Assad. It was a disaster. Eventually, it brought in both ISIS as a splinter group to the jihadists that went in, it also brought in Russia.
So we have been digging deeper and deeper and deeper. What we should do now is get out, and not continue to throw missiles, not have a confrontation with Russia."
Why? -- Because of the pressure from the Jewish Power: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49245.htm
"Syria is only part of a much larger problem. It is remarkable the extent to which Israeli concerns dominate those of the United States, which now has a foreign policy that often is not even remotely connected to actual U.S. interests.
Congress and the Special Counsel are investigating Russia's alleged interference in America's political system while looking the other way when Israel operates aggressively in the open and does much more damage. Netanyahu and his crew of unsavory cutthroats are hardly ever cited for their malignant influence over America's political class and media. Bomb Syria? Sure. After all, it's good for Israel."
-- The bloody, murderous, perfidious Jewish Power is guilty of the rivers of blood and mounds of human flesh in Syria. Close your holo-biz museums already.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Moribundus ,The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power...They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest.
Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
~quoted in the New York Times, April 9, 1944
Henry A. Wallace
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
reiner Tor , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
@AnonymousTom Welsh , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 7:41 pm GMTAbsolutely. Trump is being led by the nose into WW3. It's only a matter of time, unfortunately. The issue is that, while most likely there will be no ww3 after this newest crisis, just as there was no nuclear war after the April crisis, we never know exactly how close we are to a nuclear war, because previously both parties tried to stay clear of such situations. How many times can the US illegally strike at Syrian targets without it leading to some Russian response which would in turn lead to some US response and so on, until we'll face some kind of situation where the sweating, nervous and sleep-deprived leadership of one of these nuclear superpowers will in an underground bunker rightly or wrongly contemplate the possibility that if they don't use their nukes in 20 minutes, they'll lose most of them..? Since we've rarely been in such situations, we don't really know what the margin of error is, nor what could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. We have no idea.
"It would be desirable, one presumes, to avoid an open conflict with Russia, which would be unpredictable "Quite wrong, and very dangerous. In fact an "open conflict" (or, as we say in English, a war) against Russia would – very predictably indeed – have one of two possible outcomes:
1. A catastrophic and decisive defeat for the USA;
or
2. The destruction of all human life.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 12, 2018 at 12:48 pm GMT
@KenH Trump is now becoming more "patriotic" by the day with his willingness to get us into another no-win, forever war in Syria for Israel. I say we air drop John Brennan into Idlib so he can fight and die like a real man. More on patriotism and loyalty. -- To what country?
https://www.fort-russ.com/2018/09/the-plot-against-trump-to-capture-the-white-house-netanyahus-design-part-iii/ by Ronald Thomas West."Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you" – Chuck Schumer. maybe Schumer's protective scare-mongering goes to a deeper matter; the matter of the most powerful intelligence agency operating in the USA is MOSSAD, an entity which has penetrated every aspect of American governance.
AIPAC is one of MOSSAD's favorite playgroundsDid Sanders' people challenge 'the Russians did it' propaganda line, demand the DNC servers be examined by forensic specialists and investigate Crowdstrike? No.
no U.S. intelligence agency has performed its own forensic analysis on the [Clinton's] hacked servers. Instead, the bureau and other agencies have relied on analysis done by the third-party security firm CrowdStrike [Dm. Alperovitch, of the CrowdStrike fame, is a vicious Russophobe and loyal zionist fed and cared for by the ziocon Atlantic Council.] In actuality we know it was the assassinated Seth Rich took the DNC emails with a thumbdrive.Vladimir Putin, the man standing in the way of Syria's breakup and working to keep the Iran agreement intact and avert a war, must be demonized to realize Bibi Netanyahu's goals. In fact, Israel's intelligence services focus has historically prioritized Russia, first, and the USA second "
– The Jewish Bolsheviks are in arms against Russia and the US because this is what the Jewish Bolsheviks are best for -- at the destruction of functioning human societies.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
says: Website Next New Comment September 12, 2018 at 5:52 am GMT 200 Words @Tyrion 2 I get it. You're Palestinian. You're aggrieved. Every single year for 70 years your guys have refused to come to a deal and every single year your hand has gotten weaker. That must be hugely frustrating.
But best for you that you live in the real world. 3 random comments from you on an interesting but minor and consistently prognosticatarily incorrect site is not the real world.
Israel doesn't want Iran in Syria long-term. Everyone else but hardline elements of the Iranian state agree, so they have now been pushed.
That is the end of the matter, along with some reasonable autonomy for the Kurds. It'd be lovely for them to have a proper sovereign country over all of the areas they'd like to lay claim to, but the Kurds appreciate their position and play with the hand they are dealt.
Also, making up phrases and putting them in quotes as if I have ever said them is strikingly dishonest. ' Israel doesn't want Iran in Syria long-term '
If so, then we have another example of the Israelis figuring out how to cleverly screw themselves.
Of course secular dictator Assad would never have invited Islamic Republic of Iran troops into Syria -- not in a month of sundays.
not until Israel engineered the transformation of the 'Arab Spring' in Syria into a prolonged and bloody civil war in which a desperate Assad would take whatever help he could get -- like Islamic Republic of Iran troops.
Now Israel's got Iranians in Syria. And of course they made a bitter enemy out of Iran in the first place with their campaign of assassinations and terrorist bombings in Iran.
This is even better than Israel's creation of Hezbollah and sponsorship of Hamas. It would appear that all we have to do is sit back and let the Zionists scheme themselves into total defeat. I wonder what their next stroke of genius is going to be?
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
And there is always Iran just waiting to get kicked around, when all else fails. Haley, always blissfully ignorant but never quiet, commented while preparing to take over the presidency of the U.N. Security Council last Friday, that Russia and Syria "want to bomb schools, hospitals, and homes" before launching into a tirade about Iran, saying that "President Trump is very adamant that we have to start making sure that Iran is falling in line with international order. If you continue to look at the spread Iran has had in supporting terrorism, if you continue to look at the ballistic missile testing that they are doing, if you continue to look at the sales of weapons we see with the Huthis in Yemen -- these are all violations of security council resolution. These are all threats to the region, and these are all things that the international community needs to talk about."
And there is the usual hypocrisy over long term objectives. President Donald Trump said in April that "it's time" to bring American troops home from Syria -- once the jihadists of Islamic State have been definitively defeated. But now that that objective is in sight, there has to be some question about who is actually determining the policies that come out of the White House, which is reported to be in more than usual disarray due to the appearance last week of the New York Times anonymous op-ed describing a "resistance" movement within the West Wing that has been deliberately undermining and sometimes ignoring the president to further Establishment/Deep State friendly policies. The op-ed, perhaps by no coincidence whatsoever, appeared one week before the release of the new book by Bob Woodward Fear: Trump in the White House , which has a similar tale to tell and came out on Amazon today.
The book and op-ed mesh nicely in describing how Donald Trump is a walking disaster who is deliberately circumvented by his staff. One section of the op-ed is particularly telling and suggestive of neocon foreign policy, describing how the White House staff has succeeded in "[calling out] countries like Russia for meddling and [having them] punished accordingly" in spite of the president's desire for détente. It then goes on to elaborate on Russia and Trump, describing how " the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But the national security team knew better – such actions had to be taken to hold Moscow accountable."
If the op-ed and Woodward book are in any way accurate, one has to ask "Whose policy? An elected president or a cabal of disgruntled staffers who might well identify as neoconservatives?" Be that as it may, the White House is desperately pushing back while at the same time searching for the traitor, which suggests to many in Washington that it will right the sinking ship prior to November elections by the time honored and approved method used by politicians worldwide, which means starting a war to rally the nation behind the government.
As North Korea is nuclear armed, the obvious targets for a new or upgraded war would be Iran and Syria. As Iran might actually fight back effectively and the Pentagon always prefers an enemy that is easy to defeat, one suspects that some kind of expansion of the current effort in Syria would be preferable. It would be desirable, one presumes, to avoid an open conflict with Russia, which would be unpredictable, but an attack on Syrian government forces that would produce a quick result which could plausibly be described as a victory would certainly be worth considering.
By all appearances, the preparation of the public for an attack on Syria is already well underway. The mainstream media has been deluged with descriptions of tyrant Bashar al-Assad, who allegedly has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. The rhetoric coming out of the usual government sources is remarkable for its truculence, particularly when one considers that Damascus is trying to regain control over what is indisputably its own sovereign territory from groups that everyone agrees are at least in large part terrorists.
Last week, the Trump White House approved the new U.S. plan for Syria, which, unlike the old plan of withdrawal, envisions something like a permanent presence in the country. It includes a continued occupation of the country's northeast, which is the Kurdish region; forcing Iran plus its proxies including Hezbollah to leave the country completely; and continued pressure on Damascus to bring about regime change.
Washington has also shifted its perception of who is trapped in Idlib, with newly appointed U.S. Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey arguing that ". . . they're not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator." Jeffrey, it should be noted, was pulled out of retirement where he was a fellow with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spin off. On his recent trip to the Middle East he stopped off in Israel nine days ago to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The change in policy, which is totally in line with Israeli demands, would suggest that Jeffrey received his instructions during the visit.
Israel is indeed upping its involvement in Syria. It has bombed the country 200 times in the past 18 months and is now threatening to extend the war by attacking Iranians in neighboring Iraq. It has also been providing arms to the terrorist groups operating inside Syria .
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
Andrei Martyanov , says: Website Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 6:53 pm GMT
@annamaria ..."the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury..."annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 7:54 pm GMTYes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny, nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent.The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs
Cheney was a draft dodger as was Bolton who was a "conscientious objector". As was most of US political class who got to power in 1990s on.
Bibi for them sure as hell looks like a war hero. There is a method to US "elites" being enamored with IDF military history. Apart, of course, from being in the pockets of Israeli Lobby. Their war-mongering is a way of compensation.
@Andrei MartyanovRVBlake , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMTCheney was a draft dodger as was Bolton who was a "conscientious objector". As was most of US political class who got to power in 1990s on.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs
https://youtu.be/SdJiJ53TexI
Bibi for them sure as hell looks like a war hero. There is a method to US "elites" being enamored with IDF military history. Apart, of course, from being in the pockets of Israeli Lobby. Their war-mongering is a way of compensation. "Their war-mongering is a way of compensation.."
There are too many "compensators" in the DC: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-11/buchanan-trump-going-neocon-syria
"In an editorial Friday, the [Washngton] Post goaded Trump, calling his response to Assad's ruthless [?] recapture of his country "pathetically weak." To stand by and let the Syrian army annihilate the rebels in Idlib, said the Post, would be "another damaging abdication of U.S. leadership."
– Very clear. The WP is heavily zionized. The Al Qaeda (euphemistically called by the WP "compensators" the "rebels in Idlib") is a great asset for the dreamers about Eretz Israel. The authors of the editorial are cowards of zionist persuasion, who would never ever stand for the US interests and for such western values as the freedom of information. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQbYCY9Cr7o
– Here is the presstituting Martin Baron, Executive Editor at The Washington Post. "Baron was born to a Jewish family. His parents immigrated from Israel." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Baron -- And Israel is a place where Martin Baron's heart belongs to. It would be great if his body and his whole family also belong to the Land of Dancing Israelis, instead of using the resources of the US citizenry in propping the warmongering and supremacist Jewish State.
@annamaria ..."the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury..."Anonymous , [299] Disclaimer says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 9:36 pm GMTYes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny, nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent. Cheney stated he had "other things to do" during the Vietnam War. Bolton stated he had no intention of dying in a war that was already lost. Ironic, given the eagerness with which both chickenhawks send young Americans to their bloody end in desert wars.@reiner Tor The issue is that, while most likely there will be no ww3 after this newest crisis, just as there was no nuclear war after the April crisis, we never know exactly how close we are to a nuclear war, because previously both parties tried to stay clear of such situations. How many times can the US illegally strike at Syrian targets without it leading to some Russian response which would in turn lead to some US response and so on, until we'll face some kind of situation where the sweating, nervous and sleep-deprived leadership of one of these nuclear superpowers will in an underground bunker rightly or wrongly contemplate the possibility that if they don't use their nukes in 20 minutes, they'll lose most of them..? Since we've rarely been in such situations, we don't really know what the margin of error is, nor what could lead to the use of nuclear weapons. We have no idea. The biggest tragedy here is that the (((people))) in control of the US/UK/France want a war against Iran/Russia/China. Their speciality is goyim-on-goyim slaughter and the WW3 is actually necessary for their messianic ambitions. Their plan is to watch it from underground bunkers and rule over whatever is left afterwards.That's why I said "it's only a matter of time". They will never stop on their own.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
Taras77 , says: Next New Comment September 12, 2018 at 4:57 am GMT
@exiled off mainstreetOrwell's 1984 featured perpetual wars and changes of fronts aided by memory holes. While Stalinism, itself went by the boards, as Orwell sort of predicted, the same tactics became characteristic of Oceania, his name for the anglophone world in the novel. Now we have a threatened possible nuclear war to defend the same raghead elements credited with the 9/11 attacks. In seventeen years we have gone from perpetual war against the raghead element to perpetual war, up to and including extinction, to be engaged in on behalf of the same barbarous elements. If we survive this, historians, or at least those independent of the international "Oceania" deep state structure, will marvel that we came so close to extinction by fighting for the same barbarians which were the rationale of starting perpetual war in the first place. Endless wars-zio cons' handiwork:
Twenty American military veterans commit suicide on average every day, according to a recent report from the US Department of Veteran Affairs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide
Just saying.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
There is a tendency to think Trump is unique. Just as there had been a tendency among liberals to think George W. Bush was unique. And not even the Christian zealotry that is present in the Trump cabinet is unique. The United States has always draped its avaricious tendencies in the language of devotion and prayer. Or, in Reagan's case, with the addition of astrology.
"In a ravenous fifty-five-day spasm during the summer of 1898, the United States asserted control over five far-flung lands with a total of 11 million inhabitants: Guam, Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. Never in history has a nation leaped so suddenly to overseas empire."
– Stephen Kinzer. ( The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire . )
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org
"This country is going so far to the right you won't recognize it "
– John Mitchell (1969)
"Manliness and mastery required regeneration through violence, and by the 1890s, { Theodore} Roosevelt was spoiling for a fight: "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one," he wrote. Any opponent would do, but "the most ultimately righteous of all wars is a war with savages."
– Jackson Lears ("How the US Began Its Empire," NYRB 2018)
"There is this myth of happiness: black-magic slogans warn you to be happy at once; films that "end well" show a life of rosy ease to the exhausted crowds; the language is charged with optimistic and unrestrained expressions-"have a good time," "life is fun," and the like. But there are also these people, who, though conventionally happy, suffer from an obscure malaise to which no name can be given, who are tragic through fear of being so, through that total absence of the tragic in them and around them."
– Jean Paul Sartre ("Americans and Their Myths," 1947)
The long overdue death of John McCain will be remembered not because of McCain himself or anything he did, but because of its timing. McCain's death happened under a particularly rabid spike in anti-Trump madness. And so, like all useful deaths, especially of public figures, and more especially of *warriors*, the moment was seized upon by the information apparatus of the state and turned into a platform for renewing the symbols and message of American virtue as well as for reinforcing the basic ideological tenants of U.S. militarism. And for pointing out that Donald Trump was to be found wanting in all categories and measurements of manliness and imperial vision. In a sense, McCain is now enshrined as the 21st century Teddy Roosevelt. Both were racist, both xenophobes, and both arch Imperialists whose personal insecurities were projected outward in displays of overt and cartoon masculinity.
There has been a lot written of late about the year 1968. It's the 50th anniversary of *68*, which is now being viewed as a kind of talismanic watershed in U.S. social and political history. Perhaps it is, but I think that is a bit too simplistic. Still, publications love to pin their stories on such ideas, so one has not seen the last of this meme. I was in high school in 68, in Hollywood California and I was to graduate the following year. I had to think seriously about how to dodge the draft. I remember meeting with counselors, in the various anti-war groups that abounded in So Cal during that time. The feeling in those places was warm, comraderly, and genuinely concerned. Many were women's groups including the one that most helped me. But in general people helped one another. There was no cynicism. No hustle. It's hard to remember that, today. The war was bad, and we all knew that. The military was bad, and everyone knew that. When you compare attitudes today you can see just how successful the propaganda arm of the U.S. military has been.
And just how damaged the western psyche is. Now, with the environmental crises accelerating and, as one writer put it, "we are not studying global warming now, we are living it," you might think people would naturally gravitate toward anti-war positions. After all something like 45% of global pollution is caused by the militaries of the world, and the U.S. military is ten times larger than anyone's else, and it is far more active than anyone else in that top ten list. You would think that, and you would be wrong.
There is a tendency to think Trump is unique. Just as there had been a tendency among liberals to think George W. Bush was unique. And not even the Christian zealotry that is present in the Trump cabinet is unique. The United States has always draped its avaricious tendencies in the language of devotion and prayer. Or, in Reagan's case, with the addition of astrology.
"In a ravenous fifty-five-day spasm during the summer of 1898, the United States asserted control over five far-flung lands with a total of 11 million inhabitants: Guam, Hawaii, Cuba, the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. Never in history has a nation leaped so suddenly to overseas empire."
– Stephen Kinzer. ( The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire . )
Kinzer's book is a useful guide to a seminal period in the construction of not just American overseas colonizing, but to the cementing of a mythology of individualism and violent conquest that is still operative. And its fitting that Teddy Roosevelt should be enshrined as a heroic figure and among the post popular presidents. Roosevelt shares a lot of similarities with Winston Churchill, in fact. Aristocratic backgrounds, racism, ambition, and a desire for Empire. And Roosevelt was, like Churchill, skilled as manufacturing his own mythology and crafting his public persona. And that persona was at its foundation one tied to war. When the Kurds rebelled Churchill said "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes [It] would spread a lively terror." Churchill, Roosevelt, and McCain. Uncivilized tribes, savages, and gooks.
And all three are among the popular political figures in English speaking nations. When various groups call for a ranking of presidents, Roosevelt is almost always in the top three or four. Americans simply don't like even the whiff of intellectualism. Adlai Stevenson was never going to be president. It is surprising, in a way, that McCain never made it. But when one looks at the mythology of the U.S., it is not hard to see the through line of this exaggerated hyper masculinity and how it is now in the ascendent again.
"The exceptionalist double standard was reinforced by racial hierarchies and intensified by preoccupations with gender. Filipinos and Cubans, despite their desires for independence, were alleged to be unready for self-government -- a racist argument that has survived in muted form down to the present. Another long-standing exceptionalist theme has been the virtue of reinvigorated masculinity in imperial discourse. These enduring preoccupations in American foreign affairs stem at least in part from educated men's desire to vindicate their manhood in a society suspicious of thought, from Theodore Roosevelt's Strenuous Life to John Kennedy's New Frontier to George W. Bush's Mission Accomplished."
Jackson Lears (Review of Kinzer's The True Flag, NYRBs 2018 )
Across Europe today quasi fascist anti-immigration parties are gaining power and rising in popularity. In Hungary, Italy, Slovenia, Switzerland, Austria, Holland, and Sweden. Even in Denmark, where the Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen oversaw " legislation that will require children from the age of one living in areas defined as "ghettos" by the state to be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap times. This new policy carries echoes of, and is a small but significant step towards the discredited and inhumane practices of tearing indigenous children away from their families, such as occurred with Australia's "lost generations" of Aboriginals or Canada's so-called Scoop generations." (The New Arab, July 2018).
Rasmussen is, unsurpisingly, an enthusiastic supporter of NATO and U.S. militarism. While still the opposition leader in 2015, Rasmussen rode the wave of anti-immigration sentiment claiming one must take a 'tough' look the realities of immigrants already in Denmark. He noted half are on public assistance. One does sort of wonder how that is the fault of the immigrants. But Rasmussen has also suggested increasing penalties for crimes committed within the designated *ghetto areas* of his country. In the small city of Randers (with a relatively tiny Muslim population) a measure was passed that pork MUST be served (not could, but must) in all public buildings. As Fergus O'Sullivan notes, " such official drives to repress minority culture have many European precedents. In the 1950s, efforts to assimilate Dutch Indonesians in the Netherlands went as far as regular home visits to ensure they were eating potatoes, not rice. Until 1973, Switzerland pursued a policy of removing children from itinerant Yenish families and placing them in poor conditions in orphanages, mental asylums, and prisons so as to dilute their differences from what was perceived as a mainstream Swiss identity." ( New Lab , 2018).
Europe has a long history of protecting themselves from the threat of *savages*.
"In 1909 in Sweden, for example, the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene was founded, followed in 1910 by the Mendel Society, the first Swedish genetics association. Even before World War I, leading doctors including Herman Lundborg, a prominent figure in racial biology, saw eugenics as a means to counter the problem of immigration, and there was a widely held opinion that the racial unity of the Swedish people was threatened. (4) Just as under the Nazis, the welfare state in Sweden had to be protected from ''unproductive anti-socials'' and so it became a ''eugenic welfare state of the fittest." – Sara Salem (Discover Society, 2018)
You know who were huge supporters of eugenics ? Winston Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt. Well, and Adolph Hitler.
It is important to recognize the shameful role that Hollywood plays in all this. The apologetics from media and celebrities who seem indifferent to the actual history of America is stunning. And in particular to the continued reproduction of the violent hero, the man of action (and not thought). And, as I've noted before, it's not the issue of violence per se, for drama has always dwelt on that, but the ideological frame in which this occurs (I mean watch the new series Jack Ryan for an example that, clearly, CIA advisors are in the story meetings for all networks these days). There are very few stories of early America in which the audience is made aware that twelve presidents were slave owners. In fact the real horror of slavery is still not told.
John Wayne, Dirty Harry, and Rambo.
"The Philippine War was as unnecessary as it is unjust -- a wanton, wicked, and abominable war and what is the answer? "No useless parley! More soldiers! More guns! More blood! More devastation! Kill, kill, kill! And when we have killed enough, so that further resistance is stopped, then we shall see." Translated from smooth phrase into plain English, this is the program. In the vocabulary of our imperialists, "order" means above all submission to their will. Any other kind of order, be it ever so peaceful and safe, must be suppressed by a bloody hand."
– Carl Schurz, ( The Policy of Imperialism , 1899)
As an interesting note, water boarding was the favorite technique for American marines in the Philippines. And McKinley, then President, claimed he heard the voice of God as he paced the halls of the White House, undecided about invasion. But then God spoke to him. And God wanted America to go to war (and apparently to waterboard the savages).
The deeply embedded racism of America is still being denied. And its important to see the ways in which this denial is expressed. For they relate directly to the rugged tough guy machismo of much of white america. And not just America, for the *tough* talk is couched as *realistic* and this is what one hears in Lars Rasmussen and Victor Orban, in Salvini and the leader of the Swedish Democrats Jimmie Åkesson. It is what one hears from Trump and McCain, too. The implication is that the left is weak, and worse, effeminate. Many female politicians bend over backwards to appear 'one of the guys' (see Hillary Clinton). And the more insecure the white male, the tougher the talk. Roosevelt was an asthmatic child who was never naturally athletic or physically gifted.
"The first state to enact a sterilization law was Indiana in 1907, quickly followed by California and 28 other states by 1931 (Lombardo n.d.). These laws resulted in the forced sterilization of over 64,000 people in the United States (Lombardo n.d.). At first, sterilization efforts focused on the disabled but later grew to include people whose only "crime" was poverty. These sterilization programs found legal support in the Supreme Court. In Buck v. Bell (1927), the state of Virginia sought to sterilize Carrie Buck for promiscuity as evidenced by her giving birth to a baby out of wedlock (some suggest she was raped). In ruling against Buck, Supreme Court Justice Wendell Holmes opined, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind .Three generations of imbeciles is enough" (Black 2003). This decision legitimized the various sterilization laws in the United States. In particular, California's program was so robust that the Nazi's turned to California for advice in perfecting their own efforts. Hitler proudly admitted to following the laws of several American states that allowed for the prevention of reproduction of the "unfit" (Black 2003)."
– Laura Rivard (Sictable, 2014)
"In 1937, a Gallup poll in the USA found that 45 per cent of supported euthanasia for "defective infants". A year later, in a speech at Harvard, WG Lennox argued that preserving disabled lives placed a strain on society and urged doctors to recognize "the privilege of death for the congenitally mindless and for the incurable sick". An article published in the journal of the American Psychiatric Association in 1942 called for the killing of all "retarded" children over five years old."
– Victoria Brignell, (New Statesman, 2010)
The U.S. and Europe both are seeing a return of the most virulent xenophobic bigotry imaginable. A revanchist fascist sensibility has found a startling legitimacy in the public and in the media. And no amount of argument seems to sway white liberals today that the FBI and CIA and Pentagon are anything but virtuous and honourable institutions. And hating Donald Trump is all the justification needed to allow the thinly buried racism and privilege of most white americans to come to the surface.
None of this has ever gone away. Forced sterilizations took place as recently as 1963 in California (the leader by a wide margin in carrying out eugenics policies) and reasons included being an orphan, sexual indulgence (slut), alcoholism and foreignness. In fact post WW2 saw little retreat in eugenics policy making in the U.S.
"Today in Western North Carolina, a nonprofit group offers drug addicts money to be "voluntarily" sterilized. It is dubious whether one could honestly consider this program to be voluntary or ethical, since many people suffering from drug addictions will do nearly anything for money -- and that money will likely go to scoring their next fix."
– Keven Bigos ("The American Eugenics Movement After WW2," Indy Week 2011)
In the 60s and 70s forced sterilizations took place among gay and lesbian people, Cheyenne, Sioux , and Navajo women, and poor whites in Georgia and Alabama. The Weather Underground bombed a federal building in San Francisco to protest sterilizations in 1974. It is worth noting a few additional details about who was financing this stuff after the war. Kevin Bigos' award-winning article is worth a read in its entirety. But leading advocates included "Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton, and California eugenicists Paul Popenoe and C.M. Goethe. ( ) Hooton had worked on the "Committee of the Negro" during the 1920s as part of an effort to prove that the black race was inferior, and Goethe had openly praised Nazi eugenics programs." And then there was the biggest force for Eugenics probably in U.S. history, Dr Clarence Gamble (of Proctor & Gamble). And it should be noted that the idea of coercive sterilization was hugely popular. It was not some crazy fringe flat earth society belief -- it found support among the most prestigious Universities and Medical Institutions in the country.
The University of North Carolina throughout the 1950s handed out pro eugenics literature to students. And women were largely the target and *sex delinquency* was the primary reason given for sterilization. Criminals were also targeted. Anyone with a felony conviction was deemed unfit to reproduce. This is the 1950s remember.
Hitler praised California for its eugenics thinking. American Exceptionalism at its finest.
There is no way to over-emphasize the toxicity of U.S. (and European) history. There simply isn't. But I think somehow the deeper question is how the public has returned to an adoration of the most violent, aggressive and xenophobic figures in public life. No president is criticized for going to war, so, given all the other encouragements for war its an easy call. They will continue to find enemies to fear and reasons to increase defense spending. They will find poor nations, without defense capabilities, and send in troops to save them. Just as the Philippines were saved and civilized over a hundred years ago. And just as Africa is, again, a target for the civilizing mission of the Christian West. Of course the extraction of natural resources is the engine behind this. Profit is always the most powerful justification. But it is also more than that. It is the fear out there today in the bourgeois West -- and the crushing heat waves of this last year seem not to have even dented the belief in humanitarian intervention. Obama is literally a figure of adoration. For liberals he is something close to a deity, in fact. His actual record is of no interest. To bring it up is to just be a buzz-kill. Fear runs throughout the populace. But it is far too simple to say that because it is a complex of *fears*. And it is a strange return of core American mythology, Manifest Destiny, Indian killers, gunfighters, and land barons. The current hit TV series Yellowstone (created and written by Taylor Sheridan and starring Kevin Costner) is a prime example. Watching the show (and Sheridan is actually a better than average writer) I could never quite decide if the show was tongue in cheek or sincere. I fear the latter. Costner plays the owner of the largest ranch in the United States. At one point a visiting Japanese (!) tourist says 'this is too much land for one man to own'. Costner barks back 'this is america, we dont share land'.
Im still not sure if this was meant to be a desirable statement or not. But I suspect it was. Even if only unconsciously. And there are things, believe it or not, to applaud in this show. But the overriding love affair with power eclipses all else. America will always see conquest as individual achievement. Power as a sign of virtue. Oh and Costner occasionally looks heavenward and asks for God's help -- but in manly one syllable words.
White supremacism is a foundational feature of American society. One only has to examine the statistics for mass incarceration to prove this. Blacks are incarcerated 5 times the rate of whites, and in some states that ratio is ten times. In twelve states blacks make up more than half the prison population. Latinos are incarcerated at nearly twice the rate of whites. White supremacism and american exceptionalism. And that belief in an innate superiority is core America.
And as cultural globalism increases, with all its inequalities, the white west is increasingly frightened. And it is psychically circling the wagons. The nauseating outpouring of ersatz grief for McCain has, as I say, not much to do with McCain. It has everything to do with revalidating white virtue, and white superiority. The token superficiality of multiculturalism in arts and entertainment is only another symptom. Praising identity based garbage is really just white parternalism applied to aesthetics. But its not just dark skinned people, not just inner city black kids or Muslims or the Chinese; it is the poor, too. The "othering" of almost everyone not white, or not prosperous and western, is in overdrive. And the constant demonizing and slurs against Communists never slows down. It happens on the flaccid quasi left, too. It is just white fear. And it is radioactive. The terrified bourgeoisie of the West are in meltdown. Everywhere I go ..even to places I love such as Copenhagen or Gothenburg I sense an uptick in martial vibes. Especially among younger men. No jobs, no pride, no place for courage or honour. There is only the numbing monotony of iPads or smart phones or social media. And a debilitating projection of this fear onto immigrants and foreigners in general. In the U.S. it is worse. For in the U.S. the cultural realm has never been so denuded and dead. It is the province of the bureaucratic technicians of banality and the trivial. And it is now a country of all encompassing anger.
That McCain was given (or gave himself, who knows) the moniker "maverick" says it all. Its a nostalgia for a counterfeit past. For an invented history wiped clean of atrocity. And it provides ever less even momentary relief from the dire future everyone knows is coming. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: John Steppling
John Steppling is an original founding member of the Padua Hills Playwrights Festival, a two-time NEA recipient, Rockefeller Fellow in theatre, and PEN-West winner for playwriting. Plays produced in LA, NYC, SF, Louisville, and at universities across the US, as well in Warsaw, Lodz, Paris, London and Krakow. Taught screenwriting and curated the cinematheque for five years at the Polish National Film School in Lodz, Poland. A collection of plays, Sea of Cortez & Other Plays was published in 1999, and his book on aesthetics, Aesthetic Resistance and Dis-Interest was published this year by Mimesis International.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.globalresearch.ca
Robert Kagan. William Kristol. Paul Wolfowitz. Richard Perle. John Bolton. Elliott Abrams. Gary Schmitt. These are a few of the names generally associated with a strain of far-right political thought called neoconservatism. [1][2]
Politically, the neocons favour a world in which the United States adopts a much more aggressive military posture, and utilizes its military might to not only contain terrorist and related threats to its security, but force regime change in regions like the Middle East. They further take on the task of 'nation-building' all in the name of creating a safer world for 'democracy.' It was the neocons who promoted the stratagem of pre-emptive military action. [3]
The neocons enjoyed a robust period of influence under the Bush-Cheney administration. The 9/11 attacks and the triggering of a 'war on terrorism' enabled a series of foreign policy choices, most notably the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq, which aligned with the aims and aspirations of the group once referred to by President George Bush Sr. as the 'crazies in the basement.'[4]
The neocons did not vanish with the departure of the Bush Republicans from office, and the rise of Obama . Indeed, the clout of this group and their grip on power is arguably as strong as ever. Not only did they continue to shape the U.S. foreign policy establishment, but they have managed to alter what constitutes acceptable public and media discourse within the world's remaining superpower. The trajectory of neocon influence in Washington is explored in depth in the documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda, by independent journalist and film-maker Robbie Martin.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/9kHHR_yy9CE
In part one of a special two part interview by Global Research News Hour guest contributor Scott Price , Martin describes the inspiration behind making the film, the post 9/11 atmosphere in which the neocons flourished, and the neocons' role in fostering the new Cold War mentality which contributed to the smearing of his better-known sister, former RT host Abby Martin .
This feature is followed by an interview with writer, ecological campaigner, and Deep State researcher Mark Robinowitz . Originally recorded and aired in January 2018, Robinowitz helps delineate the factions of power shaping the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, as well as the players within the National Security State, including the neocons, that appear to be manipulating him and his presidency, possibly maneuvering him towards an impeachment within the next year.
Robbie Martin is a journalist, musician and documentary film-maker. He is co-host with his sister Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio. A Very Heavy Agenda can be streamed or purchased here . Soundtrack for Film and music for these series from Fluorescent Grey (Robbie Martin).
Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us as well as jfkmoon.org . He is based in Eugene, Oregon.
LISTEN TO THE SHOW
Click to download the audio (MP3 format)
Transcript – Interview with Robbie Martin, July 2018
Global Research: Through the late 20th and early 21st century, the neoconservatives loomed large in American foreign policy the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the Bush administration. In 2018, it may seem that their power and influence has waned, but in fact, many of these neoconservatives still hold influence, and their legacy has had a much larger impact on politics and society.
In this Global Research News Hour special, we talk with journalist, filmmaker, and musician Robbie Martin on his 3-part documentary, A Very heavy Agenda. This film series covers the rise and continued influence of the neoconservatives. In Part 1, Robbie talks about the artistic and political influence for A Very Heavy Agenda and some of the early history of the war on terror.
Talking more broadly about the documentary, what was.. sort of the genesis of the idea for A Very Heavy Agenda? The documentary has a very distinct style and you don't do a lot of editorializing. So what was the inspiration for all that? And why did you choose the kind of this topic and the kind of technique that you were using for this documentary film?
Robbie Martin: I think I probably should give a shout out to filmmaker Adam Curtis right off the top, because I don't give him enough credit when I talk about the inspiration for this film. As you may know, or if you're not familiar with it but he made a film series called The Power of Nightmares during the Bush administration that was sort of charting the neoconservative influence in the Bush administration and before, and how they've sort of mirrored the Wahhabist, Islamic, you know, fundamentalists and Al Qaeda figures by using what Adam Curtis described as the Power of Nightmares, that by concocting these nightmare fantasy scenarios, you could gain power, and people like Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were able to do that by spinning these hysterical fear-mongering tales about, oh, what would happen if a bio-terrorist attack happened? You know what would happen if terrorists attacked the World Trade Centers?
That was a big inspiration for me during the Bush administration. It sort of helped me become more politically aware. It made me question a lot of things after 9/11 and having to do with the Iraq war. But over time, i just became sort of just, oh the neocons, they're the people who were mainly behind the Iraq war. They're sort of an evil class of foreign policy makers in DC who really want war at every opportunity. And that's just how I thought of them throughout the years.
It wasn't until my sister, Abby Martin, and for those listening who aren't aware of this, my sister actually had a show on the Russian-owned television channel, Russia Today America out of DC from the years around 2012 to, I think, early 2015.
So she had a show on RT for about three years, and while she was there, I remember having a conversation with her very early on saying, you know, we have to be ready for when the U . S . g overnment decides that they're going to get mad at what this channel's doing. because when she started working there in 2012, it didn't seem like there was any attention whatsoever to RT, this idea of Russian meddling, this idea of Russian propaganda, no one cared about it.
In fact, U.S. officials at the time marginalized it and even one of my characters in my film, Victoria Nuland, says it has a very tiny audience. She actually marginalized it during a Brookings panel in DC. Now, that was the attitude back when my sister first started working there, but over time, we started seeing early signs of what appeared to be an information war being waged against the Russian government by shady actors inside the United States.
And that may sound a little bit ironic, considering the way that we see everything through this lens now of Russian meddling, that everyone in the U.S. would describe RT as a form of information war now. You know , that's how everybody would describe it now, but back then it was such a small channel it barely anybody watched it, I mean that was kind of more true what they were saying back then, U.S. officials marginalizing it that was more of the true narrative. It was a small channel and had very little influence.
But yet maybe just a year or two into her working there, maybe a year and a half, we really started to notice something strange happening in the United States where there was all this focus starting to accumulate towards Putin and Russia and why Russia was so bad. And it started more subtly, kind of in the background. The Sochi Olympics , however, was sort of when we noticed -- it was almost like all these coordinated narratives started to really flood out of U.S. media channels, and all this awareness all of a sudden about the Russian gay law, which as someone who's very adamantly pro gay rights, I was bothered by it as well, but I mean even at the time I remember thinking, now this is an odd amount of focus towards the Russian gay law when yet Saudi Arabia actually executes gays still, and there's hardly any talk about that in the U.S. media. W hat's actually happening here?
So there was some early signs and sort of like what me just sort of my gut reaction and my sister's gut reaction to that climate at the time wondering what was going on. And of course, right after the Sochi O lympics, is when the Euromaidan protest in Ukraine, it kind of boiled over to the point where there were, you know, walls of flaming tires all over Euromaidan – basically a war zone. And of course the Ukrainian government fell due to a coup which many believe, including myself, was partially U.S. sponsored by the U.S. S tate D epartment.
And then things from there, Scott, just started to spiral out of control , and from the period between 2014 to 2018, it was like an exponentially rising climate of propaganda against Russia coming from the U.S. media, and when I made my film series, I didn't I made it before the election, s o I didn't realize how hysterical it was going to get after the election, and frankly, I had no idea it was going to get this bad, to the point that it's got now.
i know that doesn't quite answer your question about my inspiration, but it 's kind of a long answer to your question is my film itself is essentially.. was tracking the neocon influence and how the neoconservatives from the Bush era that pushed the Iraq war, that constructed the blueprints to the I raq war, how they also were the earliest pioneers pushing this Russiagate Cold War 2.0 mentality.
Neocon 101: What do neoconservatives believe?.And how it only took . you know . certain nudges and pushes and policy papers , and here we are. T hey essentially got their way, and Russia has never been more demonized since the fall of communism and the Berlin wa ll and the Soviet Union. So that's I don't know if that was too long of an answer for your question , but that's what was sort of my inspiration for how I made it. My sister was also kind of a part of the story because some of these neocons actually tried to smear her while she was working for RT.
GR: Right yeah
RM: And that's maybe a more literal answer to your question is – that was the key inspiration for me like, oh, wait these n eocons are still around, they're waging some kind of cutting edge information war against Russia at the Obama a dministration doesn't seem to care about, and they're out there trying to ruin my sister. So all those factors combined, sort of coalesced at once, and I'm like , I have to do something about this because no one else is talking about this push, what I saw as a propaganda push to try to push us into kind of a war-footing with Russia. Whether you want to call it World War III or an ideological confrontation.
GR: Right, yeah, and I mean , some of the more, the details of some of these things we'll get into. I mean, I don't want to get too far into it, because I want people to to to watch your.. the documentary, because I think it's so great. And especially I'm 31 so I kind of, the 9/11 thing really shaped myself and my generation in so many ways. But even in watching this, there's so many things that I forgot about or didn't even know about? You know like we kind of form these narratives and we don't really think about it or you know who's controlling this stuff and for what purposes. But I think you give a good summation of that.
But one of the things too about the film itself is you use a lot of footage of these people if it's one of the K agans or Bill Kristol or whomever I mean, obviously this was a conscious decision to use their own words, so could you talk a little bit about why you decided to do it that way? Because I think in watching the how many hours it is over the three parts, you get, you kind of see the same themes coming up again, but it's from these people themselves that are saying this stuff. Could you talk about the power of that and why you decided to do that?
RM: Yeah, that's a really good question. I think at first, I was really fascinated by the psychology of these key neoconservatives. I was watching, at first I didn't even know I was going to make a film. I was kind of in this weird place mentally, my sister had just been put through the wringer, she had over 200 basically hit piece stories written about her within the span of a week, and I was just in this kind of depressed place checking in with her making sure she was doing okay, and not basically getting too stressed out from all this media pressure and this barrage of negative stories. So I was just watching these videos basically from the neocon think-tank that I believe was behind the smear campaign against her.
So I was watching videos from this think tank, they were called the Foreign Policy Initiative, and I quickly learned maybe over 48 hour period, oh, the Foreign Policy Initiative is actually a re-branded, reopened version of the Project for The New American Century think tank, which was the most infamous neocon think tank that was behind the Iraq War. Once I realized that, then I just then I was obsessed with watching these videos. I watched probably every single video on their YouTube channel, and the majority of them were incredibly boring, very dry. And I was already in a depressed place, so, you know, it was kind of just putting me into this weird state where I was watching nothing but these dry foreign policy think tank videos for weeks on end.
Finally I got to Robert Kagan. And I was listening to him, and it struck me differently from the way that most other neoconservatives would talk, because I perceived him as being more candid about the way American foreign policy has actually conducted itself, and also more clever with the way that I perceived him as, re-branding, repackaging neocon rhetoric for the Obama era. Once I saw this, I became fascinated with his psychology. And I was already sort of fascinated with Bill Kristol's psychology, you know , going back to when I was a young man when I would watch Fox News you know during the Iraq War, I would watch Bill Kristol, and I found him fascinating back then because he seemed on a different level than most other, you know, war hawks that would go on Fox News.
But it was really Robert Kagan though that made me think, you know, his own words are so fascinating and so candid and so revealing without adding any editorial content that I wonder if this will work, if I present it just simply in his own words.
And then the other reason, if I'm being completely honest, I didn't feel confident at the time to actually add any of my own editorial narration. I kind of cringe sometimes at movies that do that too much, especially political documentaries. Without naming names or crapping on anyone, let's just say I watched a political documentary that had the word wars in the title. And I felt that the filmmaker himself was made himself the main character, and while the content of the film was great, he talked about Yemen, Somalia all these how do I say it without revealing the film maker? All these wars, hidden wars, happening in all these other countries, the filmmaker made himself the main character, and I cringe so much at that I kind of was in this position where I was like, I don't even know how to enter my own editorial point of view into this other than my editing and the way I'm presenting all this footage.
So when I made P art 1, it was out of necessity, mostly because I didn't know how to do that yet, and I didn't feel confident enough to do it, but then also the footage I was grabbing was so compelling to me on its own, I felt that maybe this could work just on its own. Like I wasn't When I was originally making it it didn't even cross my mind to add narration. It was only until later when I was like, I need to release this and show people that I actually decided to add narration. But as you're saying Part 1, I think you're mostly talking about Part 1, has no narration whatsoever. And it's just It's mostly just a collage of footage of these neoconservatives talking, and conversing and revealing sort of how they truly think.
GR: Yeah, so in talking about it like how they, the neocons , think and what their worldview really is I think a lot of listeners of CKUW and the Global Research News Hour would be familiar when you say neocons and Project for a New American Century, but I think the overriding perception is that they're a thing of the past. They were kind of, they had their time with the Bush and through the 2000 s and then they're gone. So why should people still be paying attention to the neocons in 2018?
RM: Great question . I mean a nd you're right to say that. The general perception is that they kind of got shamed out of existence based on the failure "the failure" of the Iraq War and the amount of public pressure against that, and how most people have come to the belief that it was a disaster. And the neocons are largely associated with that military invasion and frankly, that massacre that was done completely for no logical reason whatsoever unless we're talking about imperialistic games. The WMDs argument is complete BS and everyone knows that now.
So their names were largely associated with the worst lies of the Bush a dministration , and that was my perception of it too until I started working on this documentary film, is that they had gone away and they weren't really a problem anymore. And even when I started to see some of the same faces pop up talking about Russia and how evil Putin was back in like 2014, I didn't personally think it was that big of a deal because I thought, well these people are super marginalized. Who's really listening to them anymore? Obama is clearly not listening to them. But that actually turned out not to be true. The Obama part He actually was listening to them as described in my film.
But I think one way to describe why they're so important and they're still so influential is because they managed to, a very small handful of them, maybe less than a dozen figures, managed to convince the rest of, what people describe as the DC blob, the sort of foreign policy consensus in DC overall, the neocons managed to rebrand themselves, massage their rhetoric, and make themselves seem less crazy in order to influence the larger DC foreign policy community into basically accepting and going along with almost all their foreign policy platforms, with the exception of overtly wanting to invade Iran which arguably that is the neocon prize but see, a lot of these smarter neocons like Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol, and a lot of these neocons who managed to convince the blob, they have hidden, and not been open about the fact that they want to overthrow the regime of Iran.
That's one of their foreign policy platforms they've sort of brushed under the rug, because that's one of The reason I'm giving that example is because that's how they have managed to cross the aisle, so to speak, in DC and put a hand out to the neoliberal think tanks and say, hey we're kind of on the same side in this, and we all think Putin's bad, and let's really go after him. Let's overthrow Assad. So these are things that the neocons managed to essentially convince and influence the rest of the DC foreign policy community to believe.
So yes, it's true that there are not that many actual literal neocons, but a lot of people now who are sort of anti-war, do work in anti-war or do foreign policy critique, they don't see much of a difference any more between sort of the neoliberal foreign policy group in DC, which is most of it, and the actual neocons anymore. Because they have essentially merged in a non-partisan fashion, and it's been very surreal to watch, especially after the 2016 election when you actually saw neocons saying well you should vote for Hillary. For the first time ever they all said that you shouldn't vote for a R epublican.
That's so I don't know that fully answers your question, but I think to su m it up it's because the neocons have influenced everybody. So now that they've been able to do that you don't really need that many of them around you know making that much trouble because everybody is carrying out their agenda essentially. In this DC foreign policy think-tank.
GR: Yeah I think the way you kind of describe it in maybe it's I don't know if you personally describe it, but I wrote it down in my notes about how neoconservatism is almost like a species and it kind of evolved over the last 20 years in a way? So I think what you're talking about how there's a shift to Hillary, and, but I mean that shift is more that the neoconservative line really became the mainstream line, whereas, you know, maybe in the early 2000s, like, there was a larger perception, yes, they were in the White House, but these people are also crazy, whereas now is kind of like the mainstream, which is quite scary. Which is something I think we'll talk about in a little bit. But kind of what I was talking about a bit before what I referenced was that I was a teenager when 9/11 happened, and it really shaped my generation and the world that I'm living in now
But as I was watching the 3-part documentary, there were several things that I was like kind of blown away by how these things kind of just went down the memory hole, and I want to talk about those things because several of these things I vaguely kind of remember now but for some odd reason I had totally forgotten about them, and they're not really within the wider narrative of 9/11 and the war on terror.
So the first one is that how right after 9/11, several of these neocons, I think it's Don and Fred Kagan, went on TV and radio kind of immediately after for at least a 24-hour 48-hour period after 9/11 and basically blamed Palestinians for the attack, and were basically outright calling for the U.S. to attack Palestine. And even saying that they had no evidence but we should just go and attack them. So could you talk about what happened there, and what was the effect there? Everyone kind of forgets about this but what happened there, and what do you think the effect of that was?
RM: You just opened up a really big can of worms with that question. Well, to fully answer that it would require a totally separate interview, but I'll do my best to answer it in this short time that we have. What you're describing is, what I would say, is the neocons flipping up and revealing too much of an early iteration of their script, than the rest of the consensus was ready to reveal or get on board with. And perhaps, even, they jumped ahead with something that the rest of the neocons already decided, we can't go there. Because, and this is important to know, that Don Kagan is one of the only three authors credited as writing Rebuilding America's Defenses, the infamous paper that PNAC released that says we need a new Pearl Harbor, a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
Don Kagan is someone who just, mostly an obscure figure in this, but I'd like to believe that if he was saying that on the radio within 24 hours of 9/11, that it was something being heavily discussed within that community behind the scenes. And h e and his son Fred Kagan are two of the most intellectual, influential neoconservatives in DC. Fred Kagan is behind the Iraq surge, he is also behind the Afghanistan s urge for Obama, directly working under David Petraeus. So these are not just like random neocons. It's important to stress that they are some of the most influential neocon brain-trust type people in DC even though they're so relatively obscure They're not household names.
So to hear both of them saying that we need to clean out Palestine with the U.S. Delta Force raids and the full panoply of U.S. military tools and arsenal, it's a very shocking thing to hear. Even though I've long believed that neocons are some of the most evil people on the planet, that was even surprising for me to hear. That they went ahead and openly said that the U.S. military should do that, and actually, in their broadcast they make it clear that they don't even care who's behind 9/11. Which is strange. They say that if we run around tracing the actual perpetrators, we're just going to be wasting our time and we won't get anywhere. So what they are saying is that we should just go attack all these countries anyways because even if they're behind it or not, they hate us and want to kill us.
And Palestine was one of their primary targets to retaliate against in response to 9/11. Now that's very strange when you look at the day of 9/11, and I've actually done a podcast on this, I call it the Palestinian Frame-up, on 9/11, there were four separate incidences that were run throughout U.S. media throughout the day of 9/11 that were attempting to blame Palestinians for the attacks before Bin Laden became the primary culprit that the U.S. media latched on to. So I find that very strange.
And I'm not going to try to explain it here during this interview, but you can look into that. It's all documented. The news media played footage of Palestinians allegedly celebrating the attacks in the middle of a national emergency at 12 p.m. while thousands of people were still missing during the World Trade Center attacks. So this is the kind of stuff that U.S. media was doing.
So it's very interesting for me to see neocons actually piggy-backing on that and saying we should attack Palestine. And that's a rare thing, I think, to find neocons slipping up that badly. And I guess I find that clip particularly fascinating because it's really one of the only ones like that out there, and to my knowledge, I'm the first one to find it by combing through all these archives. I've never heard of it before, never even heard of any neocon s saying that before on record.
And then also something else interesting Don Kagan brings up in the recording, and maybe you were going to mention this next, but I'll just say it because it's so weird, as he says what would have happened, and keep in mind this is 9/12-01, one day after 9/11. He says, what would have happened if the terrorists had Anthrax on that plane?
GR: Right. Yeah.
RM: And on October 5, weaponized anthrax was sent through the U.S. mail. While the Bush Administration was already inoculated with Cipro. the antibiotic taken to prevent Anthrax infection. So there's a lot of interesting and very scary questions that are raised just by that single clip. and I'm to this day it's still a mystery to me.
GR: That was Part 1 of the Global Research News Hour special with Robbie Martin on his documentary series, A Very Heavy Agenda that explores the rise and continued influence of the neoconservatives. Part 2 will air next week where we will explore the anthrax attacks, the role of Vice in spreading U.S. propaganda. You can buy or stream A Very Heavy Agenda at averyheavyagenda.com. Music for this special provided by Fluorescent Grey, AKA Robbie Martin. For the Global Research N ews H our, I'm Scott Price.
-end of transcript-
Global Research News Hour Summer 2018 Series Part 5
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
tac , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 4:51 pm GMT
@annamariaannamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 6:09 pm GMT... ... ...
Today's latest offering is that the 'Russians' in the 'mugshots' released last week are 'already dead' having been 'executed by Putin' to stop them talking, forever. Which neatly avoids the British state asking Russia for help in identifying them. London's failure to do so was already arousing suspicion amongst a cynical public. There is now no point, the would-be assassins are now six-feet below the permafrost of Anglo-Russian relations.
The media here have completely ignored the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury, preferring instead the cheap barroom brawling of the British prime minister on the floor of the House of Commons cheered on by the vulgar popular press and their more refined elder sisters in the upmarket papers and on the BBC.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/438157-skripal-syria-allegations-russia/
@tac
FSB arrests ISIS member 'who planned murder of a Donbass leader on behalf of Ukraine'The Russian security service, the FSB, says it has arrested an Islamic State operative who was planning to murder one of the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) on behalf of the Ukrainian authorities.
The suspected terrorist was identified as Mejid Magomedov, who was born in 1988 in Russia's southern Dagestan republic. He was arrested on Sunday in Russia's Smolensk region in the west of the country.
https://www.rt.com/news/438028-fsb-isis-member-ukraine/"the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury "
Explosive Skripal allegations may blow up in Syria - George GallowayToday's latest offering is that the 'Russians' in the 'mugshots' released last week are 'already dead' having been 'executed by Putin' to stop them talking, forever. Which neatly avoids the British state asking Russia for help in identifying them. London's failure to do so was already arousing suspicion amongst a cynical public. There is now no point, the would-be assassins are now six-feet below the permafrost of Anglo-Russian relations.
The media here have completely ignored the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury, preferring instead the cheap barroom brawling of the British prime minister on the floor of the House of Commons cheered on by the vulgar popular press and their more refined elder sisters in the upmarket papers and on the BBC.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/438157-skripal-syria-allegations-russia/
Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They suffer the same disease as their Israeli and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision. For any living organism, no feedback means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the future for their immediate progeny, nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in the blood of the innocent.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
anonymous , [251] Disclaimer says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 4:28 pm GMT
All Trump has to do to get rid of the Op Ed guy is to fire all those who want to go to war with Russia.
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
c matt , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 3:03 pm GMT
If there are chemical weapons that are used, we know exactly who's going to use them.mr meener , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 6:57 pm GMTFinally, Haley the Whore speaks some truth! We will know because we will be the ones who use them!
Nimrata Randhawa alias Niki Haley says she has intelligence that Putin and Assad were seen in wal mart with a shopping cart full of Clorox bleach which indicates a chemical attack for sure. she also said when the US bombed Syria because of the last chemical attack Putins passport was found in the rubble
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
Canuck , says: September 10, 2018 at 3:32 pm GMT
Those who planned and caused to happen 9/11 clearly were not American patriots. The attack was physically and psychically and politically against the people of the United States, including the American military.jilles dykstra , says: September 10, 2018 at 5:26 pm GMTA large number of key perpetrators and participants were citizens of Israel, or had primary loyalty to Israel.
Neither the FBI nor the CIA nor military intelligence prevented the attack, and after the attack, these agencies did not pursue the guilty. They betrayed their country.
The former 'traditional' US mass media has either almost entirely participated in the cover-up, or refused to tell the truth. They have betrayed their country.
The political system of the United States has remained mute or supported the cover-up. They have betrayed their country.
Other countries have largely remained silently complicit or supported the cover-up. As a direct result of 9/11, Iraq and Libya have suffered terrible destruction and loss of life via wars of aggression, Syria has suffered great harm, and Afghanistan has been attacked and occupied with large loss of life.
9/11 then is a kind of litmus test for vast social pathology and dysfunction: that so many people would fall so easily for the bs; that so few people in positions of influence and power would have sufficient backbone and integrity to speak truth.
But ultimately, the tide can turn. The lies take so much energy to maintain; the chutzpah not enlivening but demeaning; the maintenance of the lies so desperately necessary.
9/11 thus presents an ongoing 'Achilles heel', a potentially terminal 'Pyrrhic victory' for the vile scum that pulled off 9/11. The scum's rise to the top enhances its visibility and vulnerability.
@Patricus The plotters moved explosive charges into he three buildings and there had to be thousands of these weighing a great amount. It was then necessary to install the explosive equipment. No one ever noticed?CanSpeccy , says: Website September 10, 2018 at 5:28 pm GMTDoes anyone question that the aircraft actually struck the buildings?
The conspirators had to precisely coordinate the controlled explosions with the moment the jets hit the buildings. Why didn't they just demolish the buildings with explosives then take credit as some Islamic terror group? Why make a plot so complicated? This requires close cooperation between Muslim terrorists and Israelis who are not often best friends.
If Israel engineered all this to get Americans active in the Middle East could anyone call the end results a success? I can't see how Israel's position has improved. The security of the towers was done by a firm owned by a brother of Bush jr.
No problem in installing the explosives.
Precisely coordinate, any terrorist explodes a bom with a mobile phone.
You really think that those who perpetrated Sept 11 were unable to begin a series of explosions, resembling destruction by gravity ?
Alas, they miscalculated.
It went too fast.
The planes, far more propaganda effect than just demolition.
Israel's position not improved ?
Is not Saddam out of the way, and is not Iraq destroyed ?dearieme , says: September 10, 2018 at 5:30 pm GMT9/11 Was an Israeli Job
Rubbish. It was the job of Ron's NeoCon friends.
Israelis played an important role, not as instigators, but as agents of the US (deep state) Government.
@Vojkan What you say is not consistent with what I see in those videos:Anonymous , [426] Disclaimer says: September 10, 2018 at 5:37 pm GMTwww.google.fr/search?as_q=tower+collapse+9%2F11+video&as_epq=&as_oq=north+south
Not saying that it wasn't a false flag, not saying who did or didn't do it, just saying what I see. The South tower destruction goes from impact to bottom, from top to impact isn't visible due to dust and smoke. The North tower destruction goes from impact to top and from impact to bottom, at least that's what I see in the videos. As I wrote in another comment, that's one heck of an engineering feat if it was planned that way. The WTC 7 seems to fall on its bottom, which, at the difference of the fall of the twin towers, is consistent with all the videos of controlled demolition that can be found around the web. Then, I think the collapse of the twin towers represent enormous mass falling at high speed to the ground, and I tend to think that such mass is not unlikely to shake the ground on which it falls and send a shock wave that can in turn shake the foundations of buildings in the vicinity, for instance WTC 7. In fact, I don't know and neither do truthers. They assume parametres for their calculations that they can't be sure of.
Then again, even if the assumptions about 'how' are false, it doesn't mean that assumptions about 'who' are too, and vice-versa. The thing is only those who did it know and we hardly ever will.
The point is that whoever however did it, the war against Iraq was a crime against peace as the very same Americans co-defined it in the Nuremberg Statute. "the war against Iraq was a crime against peace"It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder.
9/11 = Israel + Saudi Arabia + US neoconsChris Mallory , says: September 10, 2018 at 6:31 pm GMTA blending of Zionists and oil interests.
Surprise surprise that this is the axis of power in the Middle East that was against Iraq and now Syria and Iran.
@Patricus The plotters moved explosive charges into he three buildings and there had to be thousands of these weighing a great amount. It was then necessary to install the explosive equipment. No one ever noticed?Does anyone question that the aircraft actually struck the buildings?
The conspirators had to precisely coordinate the controlled explosions with the moment the jets hit the buildings. Why didn't they just demolish the buildings with explosives then take credit as some Islamic terror group? Why make a plot so complicated? This requires close cooperation between Muslim terrorists and Israelis who are not often best friends.
If Israel engineered all this to get Americans active in the Middle East could anyone call the end results a success? I can't see how Israel's position has improved.
I can't see how Israel's position has improved.
The opium poppies are growing again. Iraq is destroyed. Libya was disarmed and destroyed. Syria has been neutralized for the past few years and is still struggling to recover from the US/Saudi/Israeli supported ISIS. The Palestinians and Iran are both targets of American conservatards. Welfare payments to Israel have been increased and a tripwire consisting of a handful of American troops has been placed in Israel.
Israel isn't any better off?
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2018 | www.unz.com
Tom Welsh , September 11, 2018 at 8:00 pm GMT
@Tyrion 2 I get it. You're Palestinian. You're aggrieved. Every single year for 70 years your guys have refused to come to a deal and every single year your hand has gotten weaker. That must be hugely frustrating.But best for you that you live in the real world. 3 random comments from you on an interesting but minor and consistently prognosticatarily incorrect site is not the real world.
Israel doesn't want Iran in Syria long-term. Everyone else but hardline elements of the Iranian state agree, so they have now been pushed.
That is the end of the matter, along with some reasonable autonomy for the Kurds. It'd be lovely for them to have a proper sovereign country over all of the areas they'd like to lay claim to, but the Kurds appreciate their position and play with the hand they are dealt.
Also, making up phrases and putting them in quotes as if I have ever said them is strikingly dishonest. "I get it. You're Palestinian. You're aggrieved. Every single year for 70 years your guys have refused to come to a deal and every single year your hand has gotten weaker. That must be hugely frustrating".
In other words, as the Athenian spokesman told the Melians 2434 years ago,
"For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretences – either of how we have a right to our empire or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us – and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must "
The founders of the state of Israel took the land which it now claims from its real owners by unlimited violence, simply killing everyone who resisted. If, for 70 years, the Palestinians have "refused to come to a deal", it is for the same reasons that the victims of murder and robbery do not agree to "a deal" with the criminals who murdered their families and robbed them of their ancestral possessions.
Remind me, what is the statute of limitations on murder, robbery and genocide? Are Israelis to be forgiven sooner than Nazis who committed identical crimes?
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2018 | www.unz.com
says: Website Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 7:13 am GMT 200 Words
The United States, which has trained and armed some of the trapped gunmen and even as recently as a year ago described the province as "al-Qaeda's largest safe haven since 9/11
Since we've been told a gazillion times al Qaeda did 9/11 and now, the Pentagon is using it's resources to fund, equip, train and protect al Qaeda and their CIA-created spin-off groups, the White House needs to answer this question:
Since the US is now supporting the terrorist outfit we've been told did 9/11, that means that either al Qaeda didn't do 9/11 and we've been lied to ever since or the USG is now officially a terrorist regime, since we support–in endless ways–the group that you said attacked the US on 9/11, al Qaeda.
They can only choose one answer.
Did Ynet make a mistake and accidentally release the pre-written PR too early?
/nBREAKING NEWS
Report: Chlorine gas attacks in Idlib
Ynet|Published: 09.10.18 , 10:36Syrian president Bashar Assad used chlorine gas in his attacks on the rebels last stronghold in Idlib, reported an American source to the Wall Street Journal.
It has further been reported that US president Donald Trump threatened "a massive attack" against Assad's regime if he commits a massacre in Idlib.
annamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 1:43 pm GMT
@Greg Baconannamaria , says: Next New Comment September 11, 2018 at 2:43 pm GMTSince we've been told a gazillion times al Qaeda did 9/11 and now, the Pentagon is using it's resources to fund, equip, train and protect al Qaeda and their CIA-created spin-off groups, the White House needs to answer this question:
The United States, which has trained and armed some of the trapped gunmen and even as recently as a year ago described the province as "al-Qaeda's largest safe haven since 9/11
Since the US is now supporting the terrorist outfit we've been told did 9/11, that means that either al Qaeda didn't do 9/11 and we've been lied to ever since or the USG is now officially a terrorist regime, since we support--in endless ways--the group that you said attacked the US on 9/11, al Qaeda.
They can only choose one answer.
Did Ynet make a mistake and accidentally release the pre-written PR too early?
"Since the US is now supporting the terrorist outfit we've been told did 9/11, that means that either al Qaeda didn't do 9/11 and we've been lied to ever since or the US Government is now officially a terrorist regime, since we support the group that you said attacked the US on 9/11, al Qaeda."
BREAKING NEWS
Report: Chlorine gas attacks in Idlib
Ynet|Published: 09.10.18 , 10:36Syrian president Bashar Assad used chlorine gas in his attacks on the rebels last stronghold in Idlib, reported an American source to the Wall Street Journal.
It has further been reported that US president Donald Trump threatened "a massive attack" against Assad's regime if he commits a massacre in Idlib.
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5346705,00.html
-- This is an excellent Q for the ADL, AIPAC, White House, State Department, satanic Pompeo, "patriotic" Cheney (the greatest traitor to the USA citizenry), and the richly decorated US brass serving the Jewish Power, financiers, and mega war-profiteers.2017: " 20 veterans a day commit suicide. The numbers come from the largest study undertaken of veterans' records by the VA " https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-among-veterans-higher-states/
@Tyrion 2No. Don't you get bored of being wrong? Have any of your predictions come true? America and allies are quite at peace with how Syria is unfolding. If you don't get that, you don't get anything. "Staged Filming of False Flag 'Chemical Attacks' Has Begun in Idlib:" https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-11/russian-defense-ministry-says-filming-mock-chemical-attack-has-begun-idlib
Target Syria
Will a new war be the October Surprise
From the comment section:
1. "The only way for Syria and Iran and Russia to defend Syria is to clearly tell Washington, London, Paris (the main ZOGs) and Israel that attacks on Syria will be responded to by attacks on Israeli military and intel sites. The introduction of any nuclear device of any size will result in a full-scale nuclear response.
That is the only play otherwise Syria simply bleeds to death as t he Jews get their puppets to keep fomenting terror and dropping bombs on SAA efforts to fight those terrorists . We come to the moment when Russia either defends Syria by hitting Israel or it decides to accept the Long Death of Anglo-Zionist megalomania."2. "I really do wish Russia would just instantly bomb Israel. That would be the best way to separate us from that satanic rope around our necks."
3. "I call everyone in the military to disobey orders for attacking anything in Syria except Isis. Need to spread this on social media. Don't be mercenaries of Israel ."
-- Your "most victimized" have squandered all and any sympathy for your "incomparable sufferings" by promoting the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East. The Jewish State and its subordinate zionized US have become the gravest danger to humanity.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2018 | www.unz.com
Over the next few days, as the government and the media accused Osama bin Laden and 19 Arabs of being responsible for the attacks, I told a friend that what I was hearing wasn't believable; the official story was full of holes. I am a born and bred New Yorker with a long family history rooted in the NYC Fire and Police Departments, one grandfather having been the Deputy Chief of the Fire Department, the highest ranking uniformed firefighter, and the other a NYPD cop; a niece and her husband were NYPD detectives deeply involved in the response to that day's attacks. Hearing the absurd official explanations and the deaths of so many innocent people, including many hundreds of firefighters, cops, and emergency workers, I felt a suspicious rage. It was a reaction that I couldn't fully explain, but it set me on a search for the truth. I proceeded in fits and starts, but by the fall of 2004, with the help of the extraordinary work of David Ray Griffin, Michael Ruppert, and other early skeptics, I could articulate the reasons for my initial intuition. I set about creating and teaching a college course on what had come to be called 9/11.
But I no longer refer to the events of that day by those numbers. Let me explain why.
By 2004 I had enough solid evidence to convince me that the U.S. government's claims (and The 9/11 Commission Report ) were fictitious. They seemed so blatantly false that I concluded the attacks were a deep-state intelligence operation whose purpose was to initiate a national state of emergency to justify wars of aggression, known euphemistically as "the war on terror." The sophistication of the attacks, and the lack of any proffered evidence for the government's claims, suggested that a great deal of planning had been involved.
Yet I was chagrined and amazed by so many people's insouciant lack of interest in questioning and researching the most important world event since the assassination of President Kennedy. I understood the various psychological dimensions of this denial, the fear, cognitive dissonance, etc., but I sensed something else as well. For so many people their minds seemed to have been "made up" from the start. I found that many young people were the exceptions, while most of their elders dared not question the official narrative. These included many prominent leftist critics of American foreign policy, such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Alexander Cockburn, and others, whose defenses of the official government and media explanations (when they even made such defenses; often they just trashed skeptics as "9/11 conspiracy nuts," to quote Cockburn) totally lacked any scientific or logical rigor or even knowledge of the facts. Now that seventeen years have elapsed, this seems truer than ever. There is a long list of leftists who refuse to examine matter to this very day. And most interestingly, they also do the same with the assassination of JFK, the other key seminal event of recent American history.
I kept thinking of the ongoing language and logic used to describe what had happened that terrible day in 2001 and in the weeks to follow. It all seemed so clichéd and surreal, as if set phrases had it been extracted from some secret manual, phrases that rung with an historical resonance that cast a spell on the public, as if mass hypnosis were involved. People seemed mesmerized as they spoke of the events in the official language that had been presented to them.
So with the promptings of people like Graeme MacQueen, Lance deHaven-Smith, T.H. Meyer, et al., and much study and research, I have concluded that my initial intuitive skepticism was correct and that a process of linguistic mind-control was in place before, during, and after the attacks. As with all good propaganda, the language had to be insinuated over time and introduced through intermediaries. It had to seem "natural" and to flow out of events, not to precede them. And it had to be repeated over and over again.
In summary form, I will list the language I believe "made up the minds" of those who have refused to examine the government's claims about the September 11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks.
Pearl Harbor . As pointed out by David Ray Griffin and others, this term was used in September 2000 in The Project for the New American Century's (PNAC) report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (p.51). Its neo-con authors argued that the U.S. wouldn't be able to attack Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. "absent some catastrophic event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Then on January 11, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's "Space Commission" warned that the U.S. could face a "space Pearl Harbor" if it weren't careful and didn't increase space security. Rumsfeld urged support for the proposed U.S. national missile defense system opposed by Russia and China and massive funding for the increased weaponization of space. At the same time he went around handing out and recommending Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision (1962) by Roberta Wohlstetter, who had spent almost two decades working for The Rand Corporation and who claimed that Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack that shocked U.S. leaders. Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor, Pearl Harbor – those words and images dominated public consciousness for many months before 11 September 2001, and of course after. The film Pearl Harbor , made with Pentagon assistance and a massive budget, was released on May 25, 2001 and was a box office hit. It was in the theatres throughout the summer. The thought of the attack on Pearl Harbor (not a surprise to the U.S. government, but presented as such) was in the news all summer despite the fact that the 60 th anniversary of that attack was not until December 7, 2001, a more likely release date. So why was it released so early? Once the September 11 attacks occurred, the Pearl Harbor analogy was "plucked out" of the social atmosphere and used constantly, beginning immediately. Another "Day of Infamy," another surprise attack blared the media and government officials. A New Pearl Harbor! George W. Bush was widely reported to have had the time that night, after a busy day of flying hither and yon to avoid the terrorists who for some reason had forgotten he was in a classroom in Florida, to allegedly use it in his diary, writing that "the Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century took place today. We think it is Osama bin Laden." Shortly after the 50 th anniversary of Pearl Harbor on December 7 th , Bush then formerly announced, referencing the attacks of September 11, that the U. S. would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The examples of this Pearl Harbor/ September 11 analogy are manifold, but I am summarizing, so I will skip giving them. Any casual researcher can confirm this. Homeland . This strange un-American term, another WW II word associated with another enemy – Nazi Germany – was also used many times by the neo-con authors of "Rebuilding America's Defenses." I doubt any average American referred to this country by that term before. Of course it became the moniker for The Department of Homeland Security, marrying home with security to form a comforting name that simultaneously and unconsciously suggests a defense against Hitler-like evil coming from the outside. Not coincidentally, Hitler introduced it into the Nazi propaganda vernacular at the 1934 Nuremberg rally. Both usages conjured up images of a home besieged by alien forces intent on its destruction; thus preemptive action was in order. Now the Department of Homeland Security with its massive budget is lodged permanently in popular consciousness. Ground Zero . This is a third WWII ("the Good War") term first used at 11:55 A.M. on September 11 by Mark Walsh (aka "the Harley Guy" because he was wearing a Harley-Davidson tee shirt) in an interview on the street by a Fox News reporter, Rick Leventhal. Identified as a Fox free-lancer, Walsh also explained the Twin Towers collapse in a precise, well-rehearsed manner that would be the same illogical and anti-scientific explanation later given by the government: "mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense." Ground zero – a nuclear bomb term first used by U.S. scientists to refer to the spot where they exploded the first nuclear bomb in New Mexico in 1945 – became another meme adopted by the media that suggested a nuclear attack had occurred or might in the future if the U.S. didn't act. The nuclear scare was raised again and again by George W. Bush and U.S. officials in the days and months following the attacks, although nuclear weapons were beside the point in terms of the 11 September attacks, but surely not as a scare tactic and as part of the plan to withdraw from the ABM treaty that would be announced in December. But the conjoining of "nuclear" with "ground zero" served to raise the fear factor dramatically. Ironically, the project to develop the nuclear bomb was called the Manhattan Project and was headquartered at 270 Broadway, NYC, a few short blocks north of the World Trade Center. The Unthinkable . This is another nuclear term whose usage as linguistic mind control and propaganda is brilliantly analyzed by Graeme MacQueen in the penultimate chapter of his very important book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception . He notes the patterned use of this term before and after September 11, while saying "the pattern may not signify a grand plan . It deserves investigation and contemplation." He then presents a convincing case that the use of this term couldn't be accidental. He notes how George W. Bush, in a major foreign policy speech on May 1, 2001, "gave informal public notice that the United States intended to withdraw unilaterally from the ABM Treaty"; Bush said the U.S. must be willing to "rethink the unthinkable." This was necessary because of terrorism and rogue states with "weapons of mass destruction." PNAC also argued that the U.S. should withdraw from the treaty. A signatory to the treaty could only withdraw after giving six months notice and because of "extraordinary events" that "jeopardized its supreme interests." Once the September 11 attacks occurred, Bush rethought the unthinkable and officially gave formal notice on December 13 to withdraw the U.S. from the ABM Treaty, as previously noted. MacQueen specifies the many times different media used the term "unthinkable" in October 2001 in reference to the anthrax attacks. He explicates its usage in one of the anthrax letters – "The Unthinkabel" [sic]. He explains how the media that used the term so often were at the time unaware of its usage in the anthrax letter since that letter's content had not yet been revealed, and how the letter writer had mailed the letter before the media started using the word. He makes a rock solid case showing the U.S. government's complicity in the anthrax attacks and therefore in the Sept 11 attacks. While calling the use of the term "unthinkable" in all its iterations "problematic," he writes, "The truth is that the employment of 'the unthinkable' in this letter, when weight is given both to the meaning of this term in U.S. strategic circles and to the other relevant uses of the term in 2001, points us in the direction of the U.S. military and intelligence communities." I am reminded of Orwell's point in 1984: "a heretical thought – that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least as far as thought is dependent on words." Thus the government and media's use of "unthinkable" becomes a classic case of "doublethink." The unthinkable is unthinkable. 9/11 . This is the key usage that has reverberated down the years around which the others revolve. It is an anomalous numerical designation applied to an historical event, and obviously also the emergency telephone number. Try to think of another numerical appellation for an important event in American history. It's impossible. But if you have a good historical sense, you will remember that the cornerstone for the Pentagon was lain on September 11, 1941, three months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and that the CIA engineered a coup against the Allende government in Chile on Sept 11, 1973. Just strange coincidences? The future editor of The New York Times and Iraq war promoter, Bill Keller, introduced the emergency phone connection on the morning of September 12th in a NY Times op-ed piece, "America's Emergency Line: 911." The linkage of the attacks to a permanent national emergency was thus subliminally introduced, as Keller mentioned Israel nine times and seven times compared the U.S. situation to that of Israel as a target for terrorists. His first sentence reads: "An Israeli response to America's aptly dated wake-up call might well be, 'Now you know.'" By referring to September 11 as 9/11, an endless national emergency fear became wedded to an endless war on terror aimed at preventing Hitler-like terrorists from obliterating us with nuclear weapons that could create another ground zero or holocaust. Mentioning Israel ("America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world," George W. Bush would tell the Israeli Knesset) so many times, Keller was not very subtly performing an act of legerdemain with multiple meanings. By comparing the victims of the 11 September attacks to Israeli "victims," he was implying, among other things, that the Israelis are innocent victims who are not involved in terrorism, but are terrorized by Palestinians, as Americans are terrorized by fanatical Muslims. Palestinians/Al-Qaeda. Israel/U.S. Explicit and implicit parallels of the guilty and the innocent. Keller tells us who the real killers are. His use of the term 9/11 is a term that pushes all the right buttons, evoking unending social fear and anxiety. It is language as sorcery. It is propaganda at its best. Even well-respected critics of the U.S. government's explanation use the term that has become a fixture of public consciousness through endless repetition. As George W. Bush would later put it, as he connected Saddam Hussein to "9/11" and pushed for the Iraq war, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." All the ingredients for a linguistic mind-control smoothie had been blended.I have concluded – and this is impossible to prove definitively because of the nature of such propagandistic techniques – that the use of all these words/numbers is part of a highly sophisticated linguistic mind-control campaign waged to create a narrative that has lodged in the minds of hundreds of millions of people and is very hard to dislodge.
It is why I don't speak of "9/11" any more. I refer to those events as the attacks of September 11, 2001, which is a mouth-full and not easily digested in the age of Twitter and texting. But I am not sure how to be more succinct or how to undo the damage, except by writing what I have written here.
Lance deHaven-Smith puts it well in Conspiracy Theory in America .
The rapidity with which the new language of the war on terror appeared and took hold; the synergy between terms and their mutual connections to WW II nomenclatures; and above all the connections between many terms and the emergency motif of "9/11" and "9-1-1" – any one of these factors alone, but certainly all of them together – raise the possibility that work on this linguistic construct began long before 9/11 .It turns out that elite political crime, even treason, may actually be official policy.
Needless to say, his use of the words "possibility" and "may" are in order when one sticks to strict empiricism. However, when one reads his full text, it is apparent to me that he considers these "coincidences" part of a conspiracy. I have also reached that conclusion. As Thoreau put in his underappreciated humorous way, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
The evidence for linguistic mind control, while the subject of this essay, does not stand alone, of course. It underpins the actual attacks of September 11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks that are linked. The official explanations for these events by themselves do not stand up to elementary logic and are patently false, as proven by thousands of well-respected professional researchers from all walks of life – i.e. engineers, pilots, scientists, architects, and scholars from many disciplines (see the upcoming 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth, to be released September 11, 2018). To paraphrase the prescient Vince Salandria, who said it long ago concerning the government's assassination of President Kennedy, the attacks of 2001 are "a false mystery concealing state crimes." If one objectively studies the 2001 attacks together with the language adopted to explain and preserve them in social memory, the "mystery" emerges from the realm of the unthinkable and becomes utterable. "There is no mystery." The truth becomes obvious.
How to communicate this when the corporate mainstream media serve the function of the government's mockingbird (as in Operation Mockingbird), repeating and repeating and repeating the same narrative in the same language; that is the difficult task we are faced with, but there are signs today that breakthroughs are occurring, as growing numbers of international academic scholars are pushing to incorporate the analysis of the official propaganda surrounding 11 September 2001 into their work within the academy, a turnabout from years of general silence. And more and more people are coming to realize that the official lies about 11 September are the biggest example of fake news in this century. Fake news used to justify endless wars and the slaughter of so many innocents around the world.
Words have a power to enchant and mesmerize. Linguistic mind-control, especially when linked to traumatic events such as the September 11 and the anthrax attacks, can strike people dumb and blind. It often makes some subjects "unthinkable" and "unspeakable" (to quote Jim Douglass quoting Thomas Merton in JFK and the Unspeakable : the unspeakable "is the void that contradicts everything that is spoken even before the words are said.").
We need a new vocabulary to speak of these terrible things. Let us learn, as Chief Joseph said, to speak with a straight tongue, and in language that doesn't do the enemies work of mind control, but snaps the world awake to the truth of the mass murders of September 11, 2001 that have been used to massacre millions across the world.
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2018 | www.unz.com
Realist, September 11, 2018 at 11:37 am GMT
Another great article by Mr. Giraldi. If Trump can't get the neocons out of the government, who possibly can?
In liberals derangement over Trump, and willingness to support anything that challenges his 2016 America First (anti-interventionist) campaign, they're willing to support the old order for fear of an "isolationist," or realist one, taking its place. If there's a large scale intervention, it'll be interesting to see what kind of left-liberal/dissident-right anti-war movement emerges, and if that furthers the deformation of the normative "liberal" "conservative" divide.
Another great article by Mr. Giraldi. If Trump can't get the neocons out of the government, who possibly can?
If you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed.
Greg Bacon ( Website), September 11, 2018 at 2:45 pm GMT
@RealistIf you believe Trump is trying to remove neocons(Deep State) from the government, explain Bolton and many other Deep State denizens Trump has appointed.
Agreed.
Drain the Swamp? Trump and his sidekick Jared K inhabit the murkiest depths of that Swamp. But people will say Tubby's being forced into a corner and just has to appoint neoCON psychopaths like Bolton. Then explain Trump appointing Nutty Nikki to the UN, at the start of his presidency? Israeli PM wanted Nutty in that job and after watching her unhinged performances in the UNGA, I see why; she's a Shabbos Goy, more than willing to do anything Israel asks, and BTW, keep me in mind for that POTUS opening, OK guys?
MAGA was Trump's 'Hope and Change' mantra that many bought.
Trump made and lost four multi-billion dollar fortunes while using NYC as his home base. Then made another multi-billion dollar fortune. One doesn't do that in NYC unless you're in bed with the same gangsters that have been looting this nation for decades, those TBTF Wall Street banks that us peasants are forced to bail-out every 10 or so years.
Trump was bought and paid for a long time ago, now he's paying off his helpers by doing their dirty work around the word while the 'marks,' us Americans, get our pockets picked.
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2018 | www.unz.com
Brabantian , says: Website September 10, 2018 at 8:03 am GMT
Above, Laurent Guyénot mentions the 'Israeli art students' who had been working in the NYC towers a few weeks before the 9-11 event, these 'students' covered by the New York Times, which showed in photos a stack of cardboard boxes alongside the 'art students', the factory code markings on the boxes later traced as referencing components of bomb detonatorsFrancesco Cossiga, formerly President of Italy, flat-out said that the major governments in Europe all privately recognise that 9-11 was run by the USA & Israel Cossiga speaking to Italy's largest newspaper, the Corriere della Serra:
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2018 | www.unz.com
Extracted from: 9-11 Was an Israeli Job by Laurent Guyénot
This "Mossad job" thesis has been gaining ground since Alan Sabrosky, a professor at the U.S. Army War College and the U.S. Military Academy, published in July 2012 an article entitled "Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake" , where he voiced his conviction that September 11 th was "a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation."
...Indeed suspicion of Israel's role should be natural to anyone aware of the reputation of the Mossad as: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act," in the words of a report of the U.S. Army School for Advanced Military Studies quoted by the Washington Times , September 10 th , 2001 -- the day before the attacks.
... ... ...
The dancing IsraelisResearchers who believe Israel orchestrated 9/11 cite the behavior of a group of individuals who have come to be known as the "dancing Israelis" since their arrest, though their aim was to pass as "dancing Arabs." Dressed in ostensibly "Middle Eastern" attire, they were seen by various witnesses standing on the roof of a van parked in Jersey City, cheering and taking photos of each other with the WTC in the background, at the very moment the first plane hit the North Tower. The suspects then moved their van to another parking spot in Jersey City, where other witnesses saw them deliver the same ostentatious celebrations.
One anonymous call to the police in Jersey City, reported the same day by NBC News, mentioned "a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there. They look like Palestinians and going around a building. [ ] I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniforms. [ ] He's dressed like an Arab." The police soon issued the following BOLO alert (be-on-the-look-out) for a "Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center. Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion."
By chance, the van was intercepted around 4 pm, with five young men inside: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner, and Omer Marmari. Before any question was asked, the driver, Sivan Kurzberg, burst out: "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem".The Kurzberg brothers were formally identified as Mossad agents. All five officially worked for a moving company (a classic cover for espionage) named Urban Moving Systems, whose owner, Dominik Otto Suter, fled the country for Tel Aviv on September 14. [4] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, pp. 278–280.
ORDER IT NOW
This event was first reported the day after the attacks by journalist Paulo Lima in the New Jersey newspaper The Bergen Record , based on "sources close to the investigation" who were convinced of the suspects' foreknowledge of the morning's attacks: "It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park".The 579-page FBI report on the investigation that followed (partially declassified in 2005) reveals several important facts. First, once developed, the photos taken by the suspects while watching the North Tower on fire confirm their attitudes of celebration: "They smiled, they hugged each other and they appeared to 'high five' one another". To explain their contentment, the suspects said they were simply happy that, thanks to these terrorist attacks, "the United States will take steps to stop terrorism in the world". Yet at this point, before the second tower was hit, most Americans believed the crash was an accident. The five Israelis were found connected to another company called Classic International Movers, which employed five other Israelis arrested for their contacts with the nineteen presumed suicide hijackers. In addition, one of the five suspects had called "an individual in South America with authentic ties to Islamic militants in the middle east". Finally, the FBI report states that the "The vehicle was also searched by a trained bomb-sniffing dog which yielded a positive result for the presence of explosive traces".
After all this incriminating evidence comes the most puzzling passage of the report: its conclusion that "the FBI no longer has any investigative interests in the detainees and they should proceed with the appropriate immigration proceedings". In fact, a letter addressed to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, dated September 25, 2001, proves that, less than two weeks after the events, the FBI federal headquarter had already decided to close the investigation, asking that "The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service should proceed with the appropriate immigration proceedings". The five "dancing Israelis", also known as "the high fivers" , were detained 71 days in a Brooklyn prison, where they first refused, then failed, lie detector tests. Finally, they were quietly returned to Israel under the minimal charge of "visa violation." Three of them were then invited on an Israeli TV talk show in November 2001, where one of them ingenuously declared: "Our purpose was simply to document the event."
... ... ...
On March 14 th , 2002, an article in French newspaper Le Monde signed by Sylvain Cypel also referred to the report, shortly before the French magazine Intelligence Online made it fully accessible on the Internet . [5] It is quoted here from Bollyn's book and from Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection , iUniverse, 2003. It said that 140 Israeli spies, aged between 20 and 30, had been arrested since March 2001, while 60 more were arrested after September 11. Generally posing as art students, they visited at least "36 sensitive sites of the Department of Defense." "A majority of those questioned have stated they served in military intelligence, electronic signal intercept, or explosive ordnance units. Some have been linked to high-ranking officials in the Israeli military. One was the son of a two-star general, one served as the bodyguard to the head of the Israeli Army, one served in a Patriot mission unit." Another, Peer Segalovitz, officer in the 605 Battalion of the Golan Heights, "acknowledged he could blow up buildings, bridges, cars, and anything else that he needed to." [6] Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, p. 159.
Of special interest is the mention that "the Hollywood, Florida, area seems to be a central point for these individuals." [7] Justin Raimondo, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection , iUniverse, 2003, p. 3. More than 30 out of the 140 fake Israeli students identified before 9/11 lived in that city of 140,000 inhabitants. And this city also happens to be the place where fifteen of the nineteen alleged 9/11 Islamist hijackers had regrouped (nine in Hollywood, six in the vicinity), including four of the five supposed to have hijacked Flight AA11. What was the relationship between the Israeli spies and the Islamist terrorists? We were told by mainstream news that the former were monitoring the latter, but failed to report suspicious activities of these terrorists to American authorities. From such a presentation, Israel comes out clean, since a spy agency cannot be blamed for not sharing information with the country it is spying in. At worst, the Israeli Intelligence can be accused of "letting it happen" -- a guarantee of impunity. In reality, the Israeli agents were certainly not just monitoring the future "hijackers," but financing and manipulating them, before disposing of them. We know that Israeli Hanan Serfaty, who rented two flats near Mohamed Atta, had handled at least $100,000 in three months. And we also learned from the New York Times on February 19, 2009 , that Ali al-Jarrah, cousin of the alleged hijacker of Flight UA93 Ziad al-Jarrah, had spent twenty-five years spying for the Mossad as an undercover agent infiltrating the Palestinian resistance and Hezbollah.
Israeli agents apparently appreciate operating under the cover of artists. Shortly before September 11, a group of fourteen Jewish "artists" under the name of Gelatin installed themselves on the ninety-first floor of the north tower of the World Trade Center. There, as a work of "street art," they removed a window and extended a wooden balcony. To understand what role this piece of scaffolding may have played, it must be remembered that the explosion supposedly resulting from the impact of the Boeing AA11 on the North Tower took place between the ninety-second and the ninety-eighth floors. With the only film of the impact on the North Tower being that of the Naudet brothers, who are under suspicion for numerous reasons, many researchers are convinced that no aircraft hit this tower, and that the explosion simulating the impact was provoked by pre-planted explosives inside the tower.
... ... ...
Another chief of the cover-up was Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 presidential Commission established in November 2002. Zelikow is a self-styled specialist in the art of making "public myths" by "'searing' or 'molding' events [that] take on 'transcendent' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene" ( Wikipedia ). In December 1998, he co-signed an article for Foreign Affairs entitled "Catastrophic Terrorism," in which he speculated on what would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing (already attributed to bin Laden) had been done with a nuclear bomb: "An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force." This is the man who controlled the governmental investigation on the 9/11 terror attacks. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, who nominally led the commission, revealed in their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (2006), that the commission "was set up to fail" from the beginning. Zelikow, they claim, had already written a synopsis and a conclusion for the final report before the first meeting. He controlled all the working groups, prevented them from communicating with each other, and gave them as sole mission to prove the official story; Team 1A, for example, was tasked to "tell the story of Al-Qaeda's most successful operation -- the 9/11 attacks."
A tight control of mainstream media is perhaps the most delicate aspect of the whole operation. I will not delve into that aspect, for we all know what to expect from the MSM. For a groundbreaking argument on the extent to which 9/11 was psy-op orchestrated by MSM, I recommend Ace Baker's 2012 documentary 9/11 The Great American Psy-Opera , chapters 6, 7 and 8.
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Secretary of Defense James Mattis acknowledges that U.S. instructors are training Ukrainian military units at a base in western Ukraine. Washington also has approved two important arms sales to Kiev's ground forces in just the past nine months. The first transaction in December 2017 was limited to small arms that at least could be portrayed as purely defensive weapons. That agreement included the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories, a sale valued at $41.5 million.
A transaction in April 2018 was more serious. Not only was it larger ($47 million) , it included far more lethal weaponry, particularly 210 Javelin anti-tank missiles -- the kind of weapons that Barack Obama's administration had declined to give Kiev.
Needless to say, the Kremlin was not pleased about either sale. Moreover, Congress soon passed legislation in May that authorized $250 million in military assistance, including lethal weaponry, to Ukraine in 2019. Congress had twice voted for military support on a similar scale during the last years of Obama's administration, but the White House blocked implementation. The Trump administration cleared that obstacle out of the way in December 2017 at the same time that it approved the initial small-weapons sale. The passage of the May 2018 legislation means that the path is now open for a dramatic escalation of U.S. military backing for Kiev.
On September 1, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker disclosed during an interview with The Guardian that Washington's future military aid to Kiev would likely involve weapons sales to Ukraine's air force and navy as well as the army. "The Javelins are mainly symbolic and it's not clear if they would ever be used," Aric Toler, a research scholar at the Atlantic Council, asserted . One could well dispute his sanguine conclusion, but even Toler conceded: "Support for the Ukrainian navy and air defence would be a big deal. That would be far more significant."
Volker's cavalier attitude about U.S. arms sales to a government locked in a crisis with Russia epitomizes the arrogance and tone-deaf nature of the views that too many U.S. foreign policy officials exhibit regarding the sensitive Ukraine issue. "We can have a conversation with Ukraine like we would with any other country about what do they need. I think that there's going to be some discussion about naval capability because as you know their navy was basically taken by Russia [when the Soviet Union dissolved]. And so they need to rebuild a navy and they have very limited air capability as well. I think we'll have to look at air defence."
One suspects that Americans would be incensed at comparable actions by Moscow if the geo-strategic situations were reversed. Imagine if Russia (even a democratic Russia) had emerged from the wreckage of the Cold War as the undisputed global superpower, and a weakened United States had to watch as the Kremlin expanded a powerful, Russian-led military alliance to America's borders, conducted alliance war games within sight of U.S. territory, interfered in Canada's internal political affairs to oust a democratically elected pro-American government, and then pursued growing military ties with the new, anti-U.S. government in Ottawa. Yet that would be disturbingly similar to what Washington has done regarding NATO policy and U.S. relations with Ukraine.
The Much Diminished Russian Bear Let's See Who's Bluffing in the Criminal Case Against the RussiansMoreover, although Kiev's cheerleaders in the Western (especially U.S.) media like to portray Ukraine as a beleaguered democracy that plays the role of David to Russia's evil Goliath, the reality is far murkier. Putin's government overstates matters when it alleges that Ukraine's 2014 Maidan revolution was a U.S.-orchestrated coup that brought outright fascists to power in Kiev. Nevertheless, that version contains more than a little truth. Prominent, powerful U.S. figures, most notably the late Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, openly sided with demonstrators seeking to unseat Ukraine's elected government. Indeed, Nuland was caught on tape with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt scheming about the desired composition of a new government in Kiev.
It is unfair to portray Ukraine's current administration led by President Petro Poroshenko as a neo-fascist regime. Post-revolution elections appear to have been reasonably free and fair, and there are major factions that are committed to genuine democratic values. But Ukraine also is hardly a model of Western-style democracy. Not only is it afflicted with extensive graft and corruption, but some extreme nationalist and even neo-Nazi groups play a significant role in the "new" Ukraine. The notoriously fascist Azov Battalion, for example, continues to occupy a prominent position in Kiev's efforts to defeat separatists in Ukraine's eastern Donbass region. Alexander Zakharchenko, prime minister of the self-declared Donetsk People's Republic in the pro-Russia rebel-occupied city of Donetsk, was assassinated on September 1 and officials there and in Russia are blaming Kiev. The Ukrainian government has denied involvement.
Other ultranationalist factions act as domestic militias that attempt to intimidate more moderate Ukrainians. Even the Poroshenko government itself has adopted troubling censorship measures and other autocratic policies. Officials in both the Obama and Trump administration have taken a much too casual attitude toward U.S. cooperation with extremist elements and a deeply flawed Ukrainian government.
Both the danger of stoking tensions with Moscow and becoming too close to a regime in Kiev that exhibits disturbing features should caution the Trump administration against boosting military aid to Ukraine. It is an unwise policy on strategic as well as moral grounds. Trump administration officials should refuse to be intimidated or stampeded into forging a risky and unsavory alliance with Kiev out of fear of being portrayed as excessively "soft" toward Russia. Instead, the president and his advisers need to spurn efforts to increase U.S. support for Ukraine. A good place to start would be to restore the Obama administration's refusal to approve arms sales to Kiev. Washington must not pour gasoline on a geo-strategic fire that could lead to a full-blown crisis between the United States and Russia.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at TAC , is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles on international affairs .
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
EarlyBird September 7, 2018 at 7:12 pm
Serious border enforcement, demanding our wealthy allies do more for their own security, infrastructure investment, the (campaign's) refutation of Reaganomics, acknowledging the costs of globalism, calling BS on all of the dominant left PC pieties and lies, were themes of Trump's campaign that were of value.Trump was able to harness and give voice to some very important energies. But being Trump, he's poisoned these issues for a couple of generations. No serious leader will be able to touch these things.
Add this to all the institutional and political ruin he has created.
|
|
|
Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com
annamaria , says: September 6, 2018 at 4:24 pm GMT
@Sam Shama Bibi is a showman, that much is clear. You seem to be making equivalencies, not in evidence.If you believe that the captain of the flight group was an insider to some alleged conspiracy, then it must have been unique, one which ran down from the ranks of the top brass all the way to the active operation captains. A tall order to believe. It would also require you to believe that in the many friendly fire incidents, involved personnel never commit errors judging the size of a vessel etc. Again, not the case. Indeed, Bibi is a shoah-man.
Meanwhile, the Jewish Al Qaeda has been on the march in Syria: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-05/israels-military-censor-removed-news-report-detailing-idf-support-syrian-armed
Comment section: " The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, also known as the Yinon Plan, is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing war on Syria, not to mention the process of regime change in Egypt, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East. The latter consists in weakening and eventually fracturing neighboring Arab states as part of an Israeli expansionist project.
"Greater Israel" consists in an area extending from the Nile Valley to the Euphrates"
– In short, the genocidal wars in Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria are the result of the Jewish aspiration for "greatness." Another Bolshevik plan that is causing the enormous tragedy for the innocent civilian populations, thanks to Jewish supremacist ideology and sadism." the Syrian Army had routinely recovered weapons and supplies [for Al Qaeda] with Hebrew inscriptions from insurgent positions were in reality accurate even though widely dismissed at the time in international media. -- And who owns the MSM? http://www.inspiretochangeworld.com/2016/10/six-jewish-companies-control-96-worlds-media/
"Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years:"
The success of Oded Yinon plan, in pictures:
Lybia:
Iraq:
Syria:
|
|
|
Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com
GoodEvil , says: Website September 5, 2018 at 5:29 am GMT
The "controversial" Al Jazeera Documentary on THE LOBBY in the USA: What it is about, and why it cannot and may never be shown to the world.https://orientxxi.info/magazine/how-israel-spies-on-us-citizens,2598
A never-shown Al Jazeera documentary on the pro-Israel lobby in the US reveals possibly illegal Israeli spying on US citizens, and the lobby's fear of a changing political mood. (This article has been published in French in Le Monde diplomatique, and translated by Le Monde diplomatique, English edition.)
|
|
|
Sep 09, 2018 | www.unz.com
anon , [228] Disclaimer says: September 4, 2018 at 7:19 pm GMT
@Moi Problem, Akbar, is that most Americans are ignorant and greedy--and the Jews fully understand that.Salaam Alaikum "(FDD) Senior Advisor Richard Gol
