May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous
cells
Neoconservatism
Neocons are attack dogs of neoliberalism and lobbyists for MIC: "national security parasites"
"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." ~Sun Tzu
Years ago, whilst this reactionary putsch was still in it's infancy,
my mom would
listen to the "news" on the local CBS affiliate,
and many times I heard her gasp and say,
referring to the "reporters"
jabbering, "My God, they're a bunch of dopes!"
The dopes areascendant; stupid, scared, violent-minded, and very well-paid.
Neoconservatives, which like Bolsheviks in the past are mostly Jewish intellectuals, are frequently described as ideologues with
pro-Israel and anti-Russian bent, but the truth is that they are far more interested in gaining access to money and power. Most of them
are useless smacks with degree in journalism or history and they would starve if not fed by military industrial complex. Being a lobbyist
of military industrial complex is the only job they can get. Add to that that most of them are personal cowards and chicken hawks and
you get the picture: they are just bottom-feeders. "National security parasites" is a very apt definition for this category of people.
The ideology of Neoconservatism was explicitly formulated in Wolfowitz Doctrine
which contains the key postulates of Neoconservatism in foreign policy. They can be summarized as "America has, and intends to keep,
military strengths beyond challenge". That partially explains unprecedented level of military expenses of the USA since 1991 (after
the dissolution of the USSR) when, effectively, the USA has not external enemies and those money can be used to improve well being
of common people in the USA. But neoliberal elite engage in building global neoliberal empire rules from Washington and that empire
needed the dominant military force to protect and expand it . From other point of view that was an attempt of the
US MIC to preserve its position acquired during the Cold War, if necessary by inventing or creating a new threats. Neocons
just happen perfectly suit the role of lobbyists of MIC interest in Washington and thus were financially and politically
supported by MIC.
Large part of neocons consist of so-called "elite-wannabes," often well-educated and highly capable, who has been denied access
to elite positions and who decided to use warmongering backdoor to get there.
Proselytizing their own brand of global regime change is just a mean to sustain the access to funds and political power. They
know perfectly well which side of the bread is buttered and by whom. We can suspect that for many of them (Max Boot is a
good example here) access to money from MIC and Israel lobby is the primary driving force. Often they are viewed as Likud lobby in the
USA: "The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel,
on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they’ve got it." (Israel lobby in the United States - Wikipedia
):
The formal component of the Israel lobby consists of organized lobby
groups, political action committees (PACs),
think tanks and
media watchdog groups. The
Center for Responsive Politics, which
tracks all lobbies and PACs, describes the ‘background’ of those ‘Pro-Israel’ as, “A nationwide network of local political action
committees, generally named after the region their donors come from, supplies much of the pro-Israel money in
US politics. Additional funds also come from individuals
who bundle contributions to candidates favored by the PACs.
The donors' unified goal is to build stronger US-Israel
relations and to support Israel in its negotiations and armed conflicts with its
Arab neighbors.”[24]
According to Mitchell Bard, there are, three key formal lobbying groups:
A summary of pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990–2008 collected by
Center for Responsive Politics indicates
current totals and a general increase in proportional donations to the
US Republican party since 1996.[46]
The Center for Responsive Politics' 1990–2006 data shows that "pro-Israel interests have contributed $56.8 million in individual,
group and soft money donations to federal candidates and party committees since 1990."[47]
In contrast, Arab-Americans and
Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000 during the
same (1990–2006) period.[48]
In 2006, 60% of the Democratic Party’s
fundraising and 25% of that for the Republican Party's fundraising came from Jewish-funded PACs. According to a Washington Post estimate,
Democratic presidential candidates depend on Jewish sources for as much as 60% of money raised from private sources.[49]
... ... ...
AIPAC does not give donations directly to candidates, but those who donate to AIPAC are often important political contributors
in their own right. In addition, AIPAC helps connect donors with candidates, especially to the network of pro-Israel political action
committees. AIPAC president Howard Friedman says “AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive
in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel’s predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole.
We even ask each candidate to author a ‘position paper’ on their views of the US-Israel relationship – so it’s clear where they stand
on the subject.”[43]
.... ... ...
Mearsheimer and Walt state that “pro-Israel figures have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute,
the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute
for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think tanks are all decidedly
pro-Israel and include few, if any, critics of US support for the Jewish state.”[50]
When strategic interests of Israeli (for example remaking of the Middle East so that Israel can exercise dominant power in this region;
which includes fragmentation of several existing states) deviate from the strategic interests of the USA (which mostly are interested
in uninterruptable supply of cheap oil) neocons do betray the USA national interests with ease. The US-Israel relationship significantly
damages the relationship between the United States and the Arab world. They also were serving as propagandists and influencers for all
recent Middle East military adventures and regime change efforts. Recently that was the case in Syria: in no way Assad government
represented a threat to the USA interests. Still the pressure of "likudniks" was such that the USA engaged in the "regime change" efforts.
But in reality they should be viewed more like lobbing group of MIC then lobbing group of Israel. As well as transnational corporations
interested in opening new markets. But recently facts that Israel spend large sums on money on trying to influence the USA politicians
came to light and to this extent one gets impression that the tail is wagging the dog.
They should probably be viewed as the lobbying and propaganda arm of military industrial complex. Is both Republican and
Democratic Party position themselves as a "War Party" they represent an important political force on the USA political landscape.
The fact that some of staunch neocons such as Max Boot recently defected to Democratic Party just confirm the fact that
in forign policy there is only one party in the usa -- the neocon party.
And there is not much conservative in neocon ideology -- it is basically a revamped Trotskyism, if not neo-fascism. Just look at
Nuland's fraternization with Ukrainian far right nationalists despite
her Jewish roots (and despite the fact that this movement was hell-bent on killing Jewish people during WWII and served as capos in
concentration camps). This was not accidental; this was a conscious political choice -- they are birds of the feather.
Ideologically they are a more militant flavor of neoliberals ("neoliberals with the gun", so to speak). They also are
more openly statist, then a typical neoliberal. But their neo-Trotskyites
roots are mostly demonstrated in foreign policy (they do not have a coherent domestic policy; but generally their views in this area are more aligned
with the Democratic Party than Republican Party views).
All-in-all, we will essentially view them as lobbyists of MIC, "neoliberals with a gun".
20190116 : Corporatism is the control of government by big business. This is what we have in the USA today. The main difference between corporatism and fascism is the level of repressions against opposition. Corporatism now tales forma of inverted totalitarism and use ostracism instead of phycal repressions ( Jan 16, 2019 , profile.theguardian.com )
The article states: " but by 2011 Boot had another war in mind. 'Qaddafi Must Go,' Boot
declared in The Weekly Standard. In Boot's telling, the Libyan dictator had become a threat
to the American homeland." -- -- - There is reported evidence that Libya was a war crime. And
the perpetrators are Free. See info below:
They speak of "The Rule of Law" while breaking the law themselves They are the dangerous
hypocrites that bombed Libya, and created hell Thousands upon thousands are dead in this
unfortunate country Many would still be alive, if our "leaders" had not been down and
dirty
Libya is reportedly a war crime and the war criminals are free Some of them are seen
posturing on the world stage and others are on T.V. Others have written books and others are
retired from public office And another exclaimed: "We came, we saw, he died" as murder was
their accomplice
They even teamed up with terrorists to commit their bloody crimes And this went unreported
in the "media": was this by design? There is a sickness and perversion loose in our society
today When war crimes can be committed and the "law" has nothing to say
Another "leader" had a fly past to celebrate the bombing victory in this illegal war Now
Libya is in chaos, while bloody terrorists roam secure And the NATO gang that caused all this
horror and devastation Are continuing their bloody bombings in other unfortunate nations
The question must be asked: "Are some past and present leaders above the law? Can they get
away with bombing and killing, are they men of straw? Whatever happened to law and order in
the so- called "democracies"? When those in power can get away with criminality: Is that not
hypocrisy?
There is no doubt that Libya was better off, before the "liberators" arrived Now many of
its unfortunate people are now struggling to exist and survive The future of this war torn
country now looks very sad and bleak If only our "leaders" had left it alone; but instead
hypocrisy: They Speak
"... There was a desperately weakened and impoverished Russia (still with its nuclear arsenal more or less intact) that, as far as they were concerned, had been mollycoddled by President Bill Clinton's administration. There was a Communist-gone-capitalist China focused on its own growth and little else. And there were a set of other potential enemies, "rogue powers" as they were dubbed, so pathetic that not one of them could, under any circumstances, be called "great." ..."
"... It was as clear as glass that the world -- the whole shebang -- was there for the taking ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer who, in February 2001, six months before the ... attacks of September 11th, wrote a piece swooning over the new Bush administration's "unilateralism" to come and the "Bush Doctrine" which would go with it. In the process, he gave that administration a green light to put the pathetic Russians in their nuclear place and summed the situation up this way: ..."
"... "America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations, and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will." ..."
"... "How did USA's oil get under Iraq's sand?" said a typical protest sign ..."
"... And yet, wrong as they may have been on such subjects, don't sell Krauthammer and the rest of that neocon crew short. They were, in their own way, also prophets, at least domestically speaking. After all, Rome, like the United States, had been an imperial republic. That republic was replaced, as its empire grew, by autocratic rule, first by the self-anointed emperor Augustus and then by his successors. Arguably, 18 years after Krauthammer wrote that column, the American republic might be heading down the same path. After all, so many years later, the neocons, triumphantly risen yet again in Washington ( both in the administration and as its critics), finally have their Caesar. ..."
"... All of this not only gave Americans a visibly unhinged president -- think of him, in axis-of-evil terms, as a rogue state of one -- but an increasingly unhinged country. ..."
"... Think of it not as an obituary for a single loopy president, a man who, with his "great, great wall," has indeed been an opiate of the masses (for his famed base, at least) in the midst of an opioid crisis hitting them hard. Yes, Donald J. Trump, reality TV star and bankruptee , he of the golden letters, was elevated to a strange version of power by a troubled republic showing signs of wear and tear. It was a republic feeling the pressure of all that money flowing into only half-noticed distant wars and into the pockets of billionaires and corporate entities in a way that turned the very idea of democracy into a bad joke. ..."
"... Someday, if people ask the obvious question -- not who lost Afghanistan, but who lost America? -- keep all those failed imperial wars and the national security state that went with them in mind when you try to answer. Cumulatively, they had a far more disruptive role than is now imagined in toppling the dominos that sent us all careening on a path to nowhere here at home. And keep in mind that, whatever Donald Trump does, the Caesarian die was cast early in this century as the neocons crossed their own Rubicon. ..."
What dreamers they were! They imagined a kind of global power that would leave even Rome at its Augustan height in the shade.
They imagined a world made for one, a planet that could be swallowed by a single great power. No, not just great, but beyond anything
ever seen before -- one that would build (as its
National Security Strategy put it in 2002)
a military "beyond challenge." Let's be clear on that: no future power, or even bloc of powers, would ever be allowed to challenge
it again.
And, in retrospect, can you completely blame them? I mean, it seemed so obvious then that we -- the United States of America --
were the best and the last. We had, after all, outclassed and outlasted every imperial power since the beginning of time. Even that
other menacing superpower of the Cold War era, the Soviet Union, the "
Evil Empire
" that refused to stand down for almost half a century, had gone up in a puff of smoke.
Imagine that moment so many years later and consider the crew of neoconservatives who, under the aegis of George W. Bush, the
son of the man who had "won" the Cold War, came to power in January 2001. Not surprisingly, on viewing the planet, they could see
nothing -- not a single damn thing -- in their way. There was a desperately weakened and impoverished Russia (still with its nuclear
arsenal more or less intact) that, as far as they were concerned, had been mollycoddled by President Bill Clinton's administration.
There was a Communist-gone-capitalist China focused on its own growth and little else. And there were a set of other potential enemies,
"rogue powers" as they were dubbed, so pathetic that not one of them could, under any circumstances, be called "great."
In 2002, in fact, three of them -- Iraq, Iran, and North Korea -- had to be cobbled together into an "
axis of evil
" to create a faintly adequate enemy, a minimalist excuse for the Bush administration to act preemptively. It couldn't have been
more obvious then that all three of them would go down before the unprecedented military and economic power of us (even if, as it
happened, two of them didn't).
It was as clear as glass that the world -- the whole shebang -- was there for the taking.
... ... ...
As President
Bush would put it in an address
at West Point in
2002,
"America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other
eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."
In other words, jihadists aside, it was all over. From
now on, there would be an arms race of one and it was obvious who that one would be. The National Security Strategy of that year
put the same thought this way:
"Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up
in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."
Again, anywhere on the planet ever .
Look at more or less any document from the period and you'll sense that they weren't shy about touting the unprecedented greatness
of a future global Pax Americana . Take, for instance, columnist Charles Krauthammer who, in February 2001, six months before the
... attacks of September 11th, wrote
a piece swooning over the new Bush administration's "unilateralism" to come and the "Bush Doctrine" which would go with it. In
the process, he gave that administration a green light to put the pathetic Russians in their nuclear place and summed the situation
up this way:
"America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly,
America is in a position to reshape norms, alter expectations, and create new realities. How? By unapologetic and implacable demonstrations
of will."
"How Did USA's Oil Get Under Iraq's Sand?"
And soon enough after September 11th, those unapologetic, implacable demonstrations of will did, in fact, begin -- first in Afghanistan
and then, a year and a half later, in Iraq.
Goaded by Osama bin
Laden, the new Rome went into action.
Of course, in 2019 we have the benefit of hindsight, which Charles Krauthammer, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and the rest of that crew didn't have as they applied their Roman-style
vision of an imperial America to the actual world. It should be added, however, that the
millions of people who hit the streets globally to protest the coming invasion of Iraq in the winter of 2003 -- "How did USA's
oil get under Iraq's sand?" said a typical protest
sign (which Donald Trump would have
understood
in his own way) -- had a far better sense of the world than did their American rulers-to-be. Like the Soviets
before them ,
in fact, they would grievously confuse military power with power on this planet.
More than 17 years later, the U.S. military remains stuck in Afghanistan, bedeviled in Iraq, and floundering across much of the
Greater Middle East and Africa on a planet with a resurgent Russia, and an impressively rising China. One-third of the former axis
of evil, Iran, is, remarkably enough, still in Washington's
gunsights , while another third (North
Korea) sits uncomfortably in a presidential bear hug. It's no exaggeration to say that none of the dreams of a new Rome were ever
faintly fulfilled. In fact, if you want to think about what's been truly exceptional in these years, it might be this: never in history
has such a great power, at its height, seemed quite so incapable of effectively applying force, military or otherwise, to achieve
its imperial ends or bring its targets to heel.
And yet, wrong as they may have been on such subjects, don't sell Krauthammer and the rest of that neocon crew short. They
were, in their own way, also prophets, at least domestically speaking. After all, Rome, like the United States, had been an imperial
republic. That republic was replaced, as its empire grew, by autocratic rule, first by the self-anointed emperor Augustus and then
by his successors. Arguably, 18 years after Krauthammer wrote that column, the American republic might be heading down the same path.
After all, so many years later, the neocons, triumphantly risen yet again in Washington (
both in the administration and as its
critics), finally have their Caesar.
Hail, Donald J. Trump, we who are about to read your latest tweet
salute you!
A Rogue State of One
Let's note some other passing parallels between the new Rome and the old one. As a start, it's certainly accurate to say that
our new American Caesar has much gall (divided into
at least three parts). Admittedly, he's no Augustus, the first of a line of emperors, but more likely a Nero, fiddling while, in
his case, the world quite
literally burns . Still,
he could certainly say of campaign 2016 and what followed: Veni, Vidi, Tweeti (I came, I saw, I tweeted). And don't forget the classic
line that might someday be applied to his presidency, " Et tu , Mueller?" -- or depending on who turns on him, you can fill in your
name of choice.
One day, it might also be said that, in a country in which executive power has become ever more imperial (as has the
power
of the Senate's majority leader), blowback from
imperial acts abroad
has had a significant, if largely hidden, hand in crippling the American republic, as was once true of Rome. In fact, it seems
clear enough that the first republican institution to go was the citizen's army. In the wake of the Vietnam War, the draft was thrown
out and replaced by an "all-volunteer" force, one which would, as it came to fight on ever more distant battlefields, morph into
a home-grown version of an imperial police force or
foreign legion . With
it went the
staggering sums that, in this century, would be invested -- if that's even the word for it -- in what's still called "defense,"
as well as in a vast
empire of
bases abroad and the national security state, a rising locus of power at home. And then, of course, there were the never-ending
wars across much of the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa that went with all of that. Meanwhile, so much else, domestically
speaking, was put on the equivalent of austerity rations. And all of that, in turn, helped provoke the crisis that brought Donald
Trump to power and might, in the end, even sink the American system as we've known it.
The Donald's victory in the 2016 election was always a sign of a deep disturbance at the heart of an increasingly
unequal and
unfair system of wealth and power. But it was those trillions of dollars -- The Donald
claims seven trillion of them -- that the neocons began
sinking into America's "
infinite
" wars, which cost Americans big time in ways they hardly tracked or
noticed
. Those
trillions didn't go into shoring up American infrastructure or health care or education or job-training programs or anything
else that might have mattered to most people here, even as untold tax dollars -- one estimate:
$15,000 per middle-class family
per year -- went into the pockets of the rich. And some of those dollars, in turn,
poured back into the American political system (with a helping hand from the Supreme Court's 2010
Citizens United decision) and, in the end, helped
put the first billionaire in the Oval Office. By the 2020 election campaign, we may achieve another all-American first: two or
even three of the candidates could be billionaires.
All of this not only gave Americans a visibly unhinged president -- think of him, in axis-of-evil terms, as a rogue state
of one -- but an increasingly unhinged country. You can feel so much of this in President Trump's confused and confusing attempts
to both end American wars and
ratchet them
up , 17-and-a-half -- he always claims
" almost 19 " -- years
after the invasion of Afghanistan. You can feel it in his gut-level urge to
attack the "deep state"
and yet fund it beyond its wildest dreams. You can feel it in his attempts to
create a corps of "my generals" and then fire
them all. You can feel the unhinged nature of events in a world in which, after so many years of war, America's enemies still seem
to have the formula for staying afloat, no matter what Washington does. The Taliban in Afghanistan is
on the rise ; al-Shabaab
in Somalia, is still going
strong ; the Houthis in Yemen
remain functional
in a sea of horror and starvation; ISIS, now without its caliphate, has from Syria to the
Philippines ,
Africa to
Afghanistan , become a distinctly
global brand ; al-Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula thrives ,
while terror groups more generally continue to
spread .
You can feel it in the president's confused and confusing explanations for his urges to withdraw American troops in
days or
four months
or
whenever from Syria and do the same or
maybe not exactly in Afghanistan. (As he
said in
his State of the Union address, American troops would both withdraw and "focus" on "counterterrorism" in that country.) You can feel
it in the way, after so many years of visible failure, the neocons are once again
riding high in Washington,
ascendant both in his administration and as critics of its global and military policies.
These days, who even remembers that classic early Cold War question -- who lost China? -- that rattled American domestic politics
for years, or later, the similar one about Vietnam? Still, if Donald Trump ever truly does withdraw American forces from Afghanistan
(undoubtedly leaving this country's allies in a Vietnam-style ditch), count on foreign policy establishmentarians in Washington and
pundits around the country to ask an updated version of the same question: Did Donald Trump lose Afghanistan?
But no matter what happens, don't make the mistake of blaming him. It's true that he tweeted endlessly while the world burned,
but he won't be the one who "lost" Afghanistan. It was "lost" in the grisly dreams of the neocons as the century began and it's never
truly been found again.
Of course, we no more know what's going to happen in the years ahead than the neocons did in 2001. If history has taught us anything,
it's that prediction is the diciest of human predilections. Still, think of this piece as an obituary of sorts. You know, the kind
major newspapers write about those still living and then continually update until death finally occurs.
Think of it not as an obituary for a single loopy president, a man who, with his "great, great wall," has indeed been an opiate
of the masses (for his famed base, at least) in the midst of an
opioid crisis
hitting them hard. Yes, Donald J. Trump, reality TV star and
bankruptee , he of the
golden letters, was elevated to a strange version of power by a troubled republic showing signs of wear and tear. It was a republic
feeling the pressure of all that money flowing into only half-noticed distant wars and into the pockets of billionaires and corporate
entities in a way that turned the very idea of democracy into a bad joke.
Someday, if people ask the obvious question -- not who lost Afghanistan, but who lost America? -- keep all those failed imperial
wars and the national security state that went with them in mind when you try to answer. Cumulatively, they had a far more disruptive
role than is now imagined in toppling the dominos that sent us all careening on a path to nowhere here at home. And keep in mind
that, whatever Donald Trump does, the Caesarian die was cast
early in this century as the neocons crossed their own Rubicon.
Last night on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Tucker interviewed J.D. Vance. The interview is
called "Why has the Democratic party turned into the party of the upper class" (February 14,
2019)
Carlson: Well for generations everybody in America knew what the stereotypes were
for the two political parties. Democrats were the party of the working class: Coal miners,
factory workers, your local beat cop. Republicans were the party of lawyers, and doctors, and
they spent a lot of time at country clubs. Remember? Things have changed a lot. Now Democrats
have become the party of the elite professional class. They're consultants, i-bankers,
socialites eager to lecture you about open borders, global warming, from their gated
communities. Nobody knows that change better, or has watched it more carefully than the
author of "Hillbilly Elegy," J.D. Vance. We spoke to him recently about it:
Carlson: J.D. Vance: Thanks for joining us. Because you don't live in Washington
and you think bigger thoughts than the rest of us who are completely consumed by this dumb
new cycle, I want to ask you a broader question: The parties have re-aligned. They don't
represent the same people they thought they represented, or that they've represented for the
last 70 years. I'm not sure their leaders understand this, but you do. Who do the parties
represent as of right now?
Vance: Well, at a big level the Democratic Party increasingly represents
professional class elites and Republicans represent middle and working class wage earners in
the middle of the country. Now I will say I think Democratic leaders kind of get this. If you
look at the big proposals from the 2020 presidential candidates: Universal child care,
debt-free college, even medicare for all which is framed as this lurch to the left, but is
really just a big hand-out to doctors, physicians, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals.
The sort of get that they're the party of the professional class and a lot of their policies
are geared towards making life easier for professional class Americans. The problem I have is
that my party, the Republican Party, hasn't quite figured out that we basically inherited a
big chunk of the old FDR coalition: The middle of the country, working and middle class blue
collar folks, the sort of people who work, pay their taxes, send their kids into the military
-- that's increasingly the base of the Republican Party, but the Republican donor elites are
actually not aligned with those folks in a lot of ways and so there's this really big
miss-match, big-picture, within the Republican Party.
Carlson: So I'm completely fascinated by what you just said -- something I've never
thought of in my life -- that medicare for all is actually a sop for the professional class.
That's a whole separate segment and I hope you'll come back and unpack that all. But more
broadly what you're saying I think is that the Democratic Party understands what it is, and
who it represents, and affirmatively represents them. They do things for their voters. But
the Republican Party doesn't actually represent its own voters very well.
Vance: Yes, that's exactly right. I mean look at who the Democratic Party is -- and
look, I don't like the Democratic Party's policies; most of the time I disagree with them --
but I at least admire that they know who their voters are and they actually -- just as raw,
cynical politics -- do a lot of things to serve those voters. Now look at who Republican
voters increasingly are: They're people who disproportionately serve in the military, but
Republican foreign policy has been a disaster for a lot of veterans. They're
disproportionately folks who want to have more children, they're people who want to have more
single-earner families, they're people who don't necessarily want to go to college, but they
want to work in an economy where, if you play by the rules, you could actually support a
family on one income. Have Republicans done anything for those people, really, in the last 15
or 20 years? I think you can point to some policies of the Trump administration -- certainly
instinctively the President gets who his voters are and what he has to do to service those
folks -- but at the end of the day the broad elite of the party, the folks who really call
the shots, the think-tank intellectuals, the people who write the policy, I just don't think
they realize who their own voters are. Now the slightly more worrying implication is that
maybe some of them do realize who their voters are, they just don't actually like those
voters a lot.
Carlson: Well, that's it. So, I watch the Democratic Party and I notice that if
there's a substantial block within it -- it's this unstable coalition of all these groups
that have nothing in common -- but the one thing they have in common is that the Democratic
Party will protect them. You criticize a block of Democratic voters and they're on you like a
wounded wombat -- they'll bit you! The Republicans watch their voters come under attack and
sort of nod in agreement: Yeah, these people should be attacked.
Vance: That's absolutely right. If you talk to people who spent their lives in DC
-- I know you live in DC, I've spent a lot of my life here -- the people who spend their time
in DC, who work on Republican campaigns, who work at conservative think-tanks -- now this
isn't true of everybody -- but a lot of them actually don't like the people who are voting
for Republican candidates these days. And if you ultimately boil down the Never Trump
phenomenon -- what is the Never Trump phenomenon? -- I was very critical of the President
during the campaign -- but the Never Trump phenomenon is primarily not about the President.
It's about the people who are most excited about somebody who was anti-elitest effectively
taking over the Republican Party. They recognize that Trump was -- whatever his faults -- a
person who instinctively understood who Republicans needed to be for. And at the end of the
day, I think they don't think they necessarily want the Republican Party to be for those
folks. They don't like the policies that will come from it, they don't like necessarily the
country that will come from it, and so there's a lot of vitriol directed at people who voted
for Donald Trump, whether excitedly or not.
Carlson: If the Republican Party has a future, it'll be organized around the ideas
you just laid out -- maybe led by you or by somebody who thinks like you, I'm serious. That's
what it needs. I think. J.D. Vance. Thank you.
"... As Trump found himself accused of improper ties to Vladimir Putin, Boot agitated for more aggressive confrontation with Russia. Boot demanded larger weapons shipments to Ukraine. ..."
"... Boot's stock in the Washington foreign policy establishment rose. In 2018, he was hired by The Washington Post as a columnist. The paper's announcement cited Boot's "expertise on armed conflict." ..."
"... Republicans in Washington never recovered. When Trump attacked the Iraq War and questioned the integrity of the people who planned and promoted it, he was attacking them. They hated him for that. Some of them became so angry, it distorted their judgment and character. ..."
"... Almost from the moment Operation Desert Storm concluded in 1991, Kristol began pushing for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In 1997, The Weekly Standard ran a cover story titled "Saddam Must Go." If the United States didn't launch a ground invasion of Iraq, the lead editorial warned, the world should "get ready for the day when Saddam has biological and chemical weapons at the tips of missiles aimed at Israel and at American forces in the Gulf." ..."
"... Under ordinary circumstances, Bill Kristol would be famous for being wrong. Kristol still goes on television regularly, but it's not to apologize for the many demonstrably untrue things he's said about the Middle East, or even to talk about foreign policy. Instead, Kristol goes on TV to attack Donald Trump. ..."
"... Trump's election seemed to undo Bill Kristol entirely. He lost his job at The Weekly Standard after more than 20 years, forced out by owners who were panicked about declining readership. He seemed to spend most of his time on Twitter ranting about Trump. ..."
"... By the spring of 2018, Kristol was considering a run for president himself. He was still making the case for the invasion of Iraq, as well as pushing for a new war, this time in Syria, and maybe in Lebanon and Iran, too. Like most people in Washington, he'd learned nothing at all. ..."
"... Creating complex and convincing false narratives to support demonic purposes is HARD WORK, and requires big pay. ..."
"... Lots of spilled ink here that's pretty meaningless without an answer to the following: Why does Trump employ John Bolton and Elliot Abrams? Explain Trump and Pence and Pompeo's Iran obsession and how it's any better than Kristol/Boot? ..."
One thing that
every late-stage ruling class has in common is a high tolerance for mediocrity. Standards
decline, the edges fray, but nobody in charge seems to notice. They're happy in their sinecures
and getting richer. In a culture like this, there's no penalty for being wrong. The talentless
prosper, rising inexorably toward positions of greater power, and breaking things along the
way. It happened to the Ottomans.
Max Boot is living proof that it's happening in America.
Boot is a professional foreign policy expert, a job category that doesn't exist outside of a
select number of cities. Boot has degrees from Berkeley and Yale, and is a fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations. He has written a number of books and countless newspaper columns
on foreign affairs and military history. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, an
influential British think tank, describes Boot as one of the "world's leading authorities on
armed conflict."
None of this, it turns out, means anything. The professional requirements for being one
ofthe world's Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict do not include relevant experience with
armed conflict. Leading authorities on the subject don't need a track record of wise
assessments or accurate predictions. All that's required are the circular recommendations of
fellow credential holders. If other Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict induct you into their
ranks, you're in. That's good news for Max Boot.
Boot first became famous in the weeks after 9/11 for outlining a response that the Bush
administration seemed to read like a script, virtually word for word. While others were
debating whether Kandahar or Kabul ought to get the first round of American bombs, Boot was
thinking big. In October 2001, he published a piece in The Weekly Standard titled "The
Case for American Empire."
"The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition,"
Boot wrote. "The solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their
implementation." In order to prevent more terror attacks in American cities, Boot called for a
series of U.S.-led revolutions around the world, beginning in Afghanistan and moving swiftly to
Iraq.
"Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in
Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul," Boot wrote. "To turn Iraq into a beacon of hope
for the oppressed peoples of the Middle East: Now that would be a historic war aim. Is this an
ambitious agenda? Without a doubt. Does America have the resources to carry it out? Also
without a doubt."
In retrospect, Boot's words are painful to read, like love letters from a marriage that
ended in divorce. Iraq remains a smoldering mess. The Afghan war is still in progress close to
20 years in. For perspective, Napoleon Bonaparte seized control of France, crowned himself
emperor, defeated four European coalitions against him, invaded Russia, lost, was defeated and
exiled, returned, and was defeated and exiled a second time, all in less time than the United
States has spent trying to turn Afghanistan into a stable country.
Things haven't gone as planned. What's remarkable is that despite all the failure and waste
and deflated expectations, defeats that have stirred self-doubt in the heartiest of men, Boot
has remained utterly convinced of the virtue of his original predictions. Certainty is a
prerequisite for Leading Authorities on Armed Conflict.
In the spring of 2003, with the war in Iraq under way, Boot began to consider new countries
to invade. He quickly identified Syria and Iran as plausible targets, the latter because it was
"less than two years" from building a nuclear bomb. North Korea made Boot's list as well. Then
Boot became more ambitious. Saudi Arabia could use a democracy, he decided.
"If the U.S. armed forces made such short work of a hardened goon like Saddam Hussein,
imagine what they could do to the soft and sybaritic Saudi royal family," Boot wrote.
Five years later, in a piece for The Wall Street Journal , Boot advocated for the
military occupation of Pakistan and Somalia. The only potential problem, he predicted, was
unreasonable public opposition to new wars.
"Ragtag guerrillas have proven dismayingly successful in driving out or neutering
international peacekeeping forces," he wrote. "Think of American and French troops blown up in
Beirut in 1983, or the 'Black Hawk Down' incident in Somalia in 1993. Too often, when outside
states do agree to send troops, they are so fearful of casualties that they impose rules of
engagement that preclude meaningful action."
In other words, the tragedy of foreign wars isn't that Americans die, but that too few
Americans are willing to die. To solve this problem, Boot recommended recruiting foreign
mercenaries. "The military would do well today to open its ranks not only to legal immigrants
but also to illegal ones," he wrote in the Los Angeles Times . When foreigners get
killed fighting for America, he noted, there's less political backlash at home.
♦♦♦
American forces, documented or not, never occupied Pakistan, but by 2011 Boot had another
war in mind. "Qaddafi Must Go," Boot declared in The Weekly Standard . In Boot's
telling, the Libyan dictator had become a threat to the American homeland. "The only way this
crisis will end -- the only way we and our allies can achieve our objectives in Libya -- is to
remove Qaddafi from power. Containment won't suffice."
In the end, Gaddafi was removed from power, with ugly and long-lasting consequences. Boot
was on to the next invasion. By late 2012, he was once again promoting attacks on Syria and
Iran, as he had nine years before. In a piece for The New York Times , Boot laid out
"Five Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now."
Overthrowing the Assad regime, Boot predicted, would "diminish Iran's influence" in the
region, influence that had grown dramatically since the Bush administration took Boot's advice
and overthrew Saddam Hussein, Iran's most powerful counterbalance. To doubters concerned about
a complex new war, Boot promised the Syria intervention could be conducted "with little
risk."
Days later, Boot wrote a separate piece for Commentary magazine calling for American
bombing of Iran. It was a busy week, even by the standards of a Leading Authority on Armed
Conflict. Boot conceded that "it remains a matter of speculation what Iran would do in the wake
of such strikes." He didn't seem worried.
Listed in one place, Boot's many calls for U.S.-led war around the world come off as a
parody of mindless warlike noises, something you might write if you got mad at a country while
drunk. ("I'll invade you!!!") Republicans in Washington didn't find any of it amusing. They
were impressed. Boot became a top foreign policy adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign
in 2008, to Mitt Romney in 2012, and to Marco Rubio in 2016.
Everything changed when Trump won the Republican nomination. Trump had never heard of the
International Institute for Strategic Studies. He had no idea Max Boot was a Leading Authority
on Armed Conflict. Trump was running against more armed conflicts. He had no interest in
invading Pakistan. Boot hated him.
As Trump found himself accused of improper ties to Vladimir Putin, Boot agitated for more
aggressive confrontation with Russia. Boot demanded larger weapons shipments to Ukraine. He
called for effectively expelling Russia from the global financial system, a move that might be
construed as an act of war against a nuclear-armed power. The stakes were high, but with
signature aplomb Boot assured readers it was "hard to imagine" the Russian government would
react badly to the provocation. Those who disagreed Boot dismissed as "cheerleaders" for Putin
and the mullahs in Iran.
Boot's stock in the Washington foreign policy establishment rose. In 2018, he was hired by
The Washington Post as a columnist. The paper's announcement cited Boot's "expertise on
armed conflict."
It is possible to isolate the precise moment that Trump permanently alienated the Republican
establishment in Washington: February 13, 2016. There was a GOP primary debate that night in
Greenville, South Carolina, so every Republican in Washington was watching. Seemingly out of
nowhere, Trump articulated something that no party leader had ever said out loud. "We should
never have been in Iraq," Trump announced, his voice rising. "We have destabilized the Middle
East."
Many in the crowd booed, but Trump kept going: "They lied. They said there were weapons of
mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none."
Pandemonium seemed to erupt in the hall, and on television. Shocked political analysts
declared that the Trump presidential effort had just euthanized itself. Republican voters, they
said with certainty, would never accept attacks on policies their party had espoused and
carried out.
Republican voters had a different reaction. They understood that adults sometimes change
their minds based on evidence. They themselves had come to understand that the Iraq war was a
mistake. They appreciated hearing something verboten but true.
Rival Republicans denounced Trump as an apostate. Voters considered him brave. Trump won the South Carolina primary, and shortly after that, the Republican nomination.
Republicans in Washington never recovered. When Trump attacked the Iraq War and questioned
the integrity of the people who planned and promoted it, he was attacking them. They hated him
for that. Some of them became so angry, it distorted their judgment and character.
♦♦♦
Bill Kristol is probably the most influential Republican strategist of the post-Reagan era.
Born in 1954, Kristol was the second child of the writer Irving Kristol, one of the founders of
neoconservatism.
The neoconservatism of Irving Kristol and his friends was jarring to the ossified liberal
establishment of the time, but in retrospect it was basically a centrist philosophy: pragmatic,
tolerant of a limited welfare state, not rigidly ideological. By the time Bill Kristol got done
with it 40 years later, neoconservatism was something else entirely.
Almost from the moment Operation Desert Storm concluded in 1991, Kristol began pushing for
the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. In 1997, The Weekly Standard ran a cover story titled
"Saddam Must Go." If the United States didn't launch a ground invasion of Iraq, the lead
editorial warned, the world should "get ready for the day when Saddam has biological and
chemical weapons at the tips of missiles aimed at Israel and at American forces in the
Gulf."
After the September 11 attacks, Kristol found a new opening to start a war with Iraq. In
November 2001, he and Robert Kagan wrote a piece in The Weekly Standard alleging that
Saddam Hussein hosted a training camp for Al Qaeda fighters where terrorists had trained to
hijack planes. They suggested that Mohammad Atta, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was actively
collaborating with Saddam's intelligence services. On the basis of no evidence, they accused
Iraq of fomenting the anthrax attacks on American politicians and news outlets.
Under ordinary circumstances, Bill Kristol would be famous for being wrong. Kristol still
goes on television regularly, but it's not to apologize for the many demonstrably untrue things
he's said about the Middle East, or even to talk about foreign policy. Instead, Kristol goes on
TV to attack Donald Trump.
Trump's election seemed to undo Bill Kristol entirely. He lost his job at The Weekly
Standard after more than 20 years, forced out by owners who were panicked about declining
readership. He seemed to spend most of his time on Twitter ranting about Trump.
Before long he was ranting about the people who elected Trump. At an American Enterprise
Institute panel event in February 2017, Kristol made the case for why immigrants are more
impressive than native-born Americans. "Basically if you are in free society, a capitalist
society, after two, three, four generations of hard work, everyone becomes kind of decadent,
lazy, spoiled, whatever." Most Americans, Kristol said, "grew up as spoiled kids and so
forth."
In February 2018, Kristol tweeted that he would "take in a heartbeat a group of newly
naturalized American citizens over the spoiled native-born know-nothings" who supported
Trump.
By the spring of 2018, Kristol was considering a run for president himself. He was still
making the case for the invasion of Iraq, as well as pushing for a new war, this time in Syria,
and maybe in Lebanon and Iran, too. Like most people in Washington, he'd learned nothing at
all.
Trump isn't the only one hated by useless establishment Republicans – with essays like
this so will Tucker. Thanks for this takedown of these two warmongering know-nothings. I wish
Trump all the time was like he was at that debate in S Carolina where he said what every
American knows: the Iraq invasion was stupid and we should not have done it!
So why are these professional war peddlers still around? For the same reason that members of
the leadership class who failed and continue to fail in the Middle East are still around.
There has not been an accounting at any level. There is just more talk of more war.
Well, the headline pretty much answers its own question if you know the purpose of Experts.
In any subject matter from science to economics to politics, Experts are paid to be
wrong. Nobody has to be paid to observe reality accurately with his own senses and rational mind.
Every living creature does that all the time. It's the basic requirement of survival.
Creating complex and convincing false narratives to support demonic purposes is HARD WORK,
and requires big pay.
""The September 11 attack was a result of insufficient American involvement and ambition,"
Boot wrote. "The solution is to be more expansive in our goals and more assertive in their
implementation.""
In other words, if we had only squandered even more blood and treasure, why, everything
would have been fine.
Why do so many true believers end up with some variation on the true believer's wheeze:
"Communism didn't fail ! It was never tried!" Then again one can't be sure that Boot
is a true believer. He might be a treacherous snake trying to use American power to advance a
foreign agenda.
Max Boot has indeed been an advocate of overseas intervention, but you fail to point out
that he has recanted his support of the Iraq War. In his 2018 book "The Corrosion of
Conservatism: Why I left the American Right," he states:
". . . I can finally acknowledge the obvious: it (The Iraq War) was all a big mistake.
Saddam Hussein was heinous, but Iraq was better off under his tyrannical rule than the chaos
that followed. I regret advocating the invasion and feel guilty about all the lives lost. It
was a chastening lesson in the limits of American power."
I'm glad to see that Boot, along with yourself and other Republicans, realize that
American use of force must have a clear objective with reasonable chance of success. I
suggest you send this article to John Bolton. I'm not sure he agrees with you.
Excellent article. It's a shame that the Bush era GOP took Boot and Kristol seriously. That
poor judgment led Bush to make the kinds of mistakes that gave Democrats the opening they
needed to gain power, which in turn led them to make even more harmful mistakes.
Being against the Iraq 2 I find this populist arguing very 'eye-rolling' as you were pimping
this war to death back in the day. (In fact I remember Jon Stewart being one of the few
'pundits' that questioned the war in 2003 & 2004.) And has dovish as Trump as been, his
administration is still filled with Hawks and if you are concerned about wars then maybe use
your TV show for instead of whining for past mistakes:
1) The administration action in Iran is aggressive and counter-productive to long term
peace. The nuclear deal was an effective way of ensuring Iran controlling behavior for 15
years as the other parties, Europe and China, wanted to trade with Iran. (Additionally it
makes our nation depend more on the Saudia relationship in which Washington should be slowly
moving away from.)
2) Like it or not, Venezuela is starting down the steps of mission creep for the Trump
Administration. Recommend the administration stay away from peace keeping troops and suggest
this is China's problem. (Venezuela in debt to their eyeballs with China.)
3) Applaud the administration with peace talks with NK but warn them not to overstate
their accomplishments. It is ridiculous that the administration signed big nuclear deals with
NK that don't exist.
I find it amazing that Boot is considered one of the "world's leading authorities on armed
conflict,"yet never appears to have served in any branch of the armed forces, nor even heard
a shot fired in anger. He is proof that academic credentials do not automatically confer
"expertise."
Any war, anytime, any place, and cause just so long as American boys and girls can be in the
middle of it.
Welcome to the American NeoCon movement, recently joined by Republican Never Trumpers,
elected Democrats, and a host of far too many underemployed Beltway Generals &
Admirals.
From a reformed Leftist, thank you Tucker for calling out the stank from the Republicans. The
detailed compilation of lowlights from Max Boot and Bill Kristol (don't forget Robert Kagan!)
should be etched in the minds of the now pro-war Democratic Party establishment.
I laughed out loud while reading this, and continued laughing through to the end, until I
saw who had the audacity to tell the truth about these utter incompetent failures (who have
failed upwards for more than a decade now) who call themselves "foreign policy experts."
Yeah -- "experts" at being so moronically wrong that you really start wondering if perhaps
the benjamins from another middle eastern nation, that can't be named, has something to do
with their worthless opinions, which always seem to do made for the benifit of the nameless
nation.
So hurrah for you!!!
Let the truth set us all free!
Praise the Lord & Sing Songs of Praise to his Name!!!!
Literally that's how great it is to hear the pure & unvarnished TRUTH spoken out loud in
this publication!
I hope you get such awesome feedback that you are asked to continue to bless us with more
truths!
Thank you! You totally made my day!
And thank you for your service to this country, where it used to be considered patriotic
to speak the truth honestly & plainly!
"Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in
Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul," Boot wrote.
To which the reader might reasonably reply, "What do you mean we , Paleface?"
When I see Max Boot or Bill Kristol in uniform, carrying a rifle, and trudging with their
platoon along the dusty roads of the Middle East, I'll begin to pay attention to their bleats
and jeremiads.
Until that day, I'll continue to view them as a pair of droning, dull-as-ditchwater
members of the 45th Word-processing Brigade. (Company motto: "Let's you and him fight!")
It is my understanding that HRC led the charge to overthrow and hang Gaddafi in spite of a
reluctant Obama administration. Did Boot, in fact, influence her?
"Most Americans, Kristol said, "grew up as spoiled kids and so forth."" Unintentional irony, one must presume. Still it is astonishing that it took someone as addled as DJT to point out the
obvious–Invading Iraq was a massive mistake.
Just like Eliot Abrams, John McCain, GWB, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld or any other neocon, there is
no justice or punishment or even well deserved humiliation for these parasites. They are
always misinformed, misguided, or "well intentioned."
The US can interfere with sovereign governments and elections at will I guess and not be
responsible for the the unintended consequences such as 500k+ killed in the Middle East since
the Iraq and Afghan debacle.
There are sugar daddies from the MIC, the Natsec state (aka the Swamp), AIPAC, and even
Jeff Bezos (benefactor of WaPo) that keep these guys employed.
You need to be more critical of Trump also as he is the one hiring these clowns. But other
than that, keep up the good work Mr. Carlson!
These Chairborne Rangers in Washington know nothing about war. They are the flip side of the radical Dems. "Hey, we lost in 2016. Let's do MORE of what
made us lose in the first place!"
The GOP is as much an enemy to the Trump revolution
as the left. The Bush/Clinton/Obama coalition runs DC – controls the federal workforce, and
colludes to run the Federal government for themselves and their pet constituents.
Trump should have stuck it out on the shutdown until those federal workers left. I think
it was called RIF wherein after 30 days, he could dump the lot of em.
THE GOP IS NOT THE PARTY OF LESS GOVERNMENT. That's there motto for busy conservatives who
don't have the time or inclination to monitor both sides of the swamp.
Lots of spilled ink here that's pretty meaningless without an answer to the following:
Why does Trump employ John Bolton and Elliot Abrams? Explain Trump and Pence and Pompeo's Iran obsession and how it's any better than
Kristol/Boot?
Funny how when liberals said it was wrong to be in Iraq they were vilified. Yes some
conservatives changed their minds. Trump however is all over the map when it comes to wars.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176527/
911 was the greatest false flag ever. Two planes hit two towers and three towers fall
down. You would not believe that if it were in a movie. Then quick as a wink. It seemed like
the "homeland security" legislation was already written. Poof there goes your civil rights,
and your constitution is nothing but toilet paper.
911 and the Kennedy assassination need to be really investigated.
"And it couldn't have been headier, even aftera tiny Islamist terror outfit
hijacked four American jets and took out New York's World Trade Center and part of the
Pentagon on September 11, 2001. "
"... Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . ..."
"... At this point the US government barely even bothers to cover itself with plausible stories but just goes ahead with it's open violence. Who is there to stop it? ..."
In 2011, the U.S. regime, then under a
different
nominal
leader than in the Iraq invasion,
invaded
and
destroyed
Libya -- also on the basis of lies that its press (which is controlled by the same billionaires
who control the nation's two political Parties) stenographically published from the Government and refused
ever to expose as being lies.
On February 8th, the Latin American
Geopolitical Strategic Center (CELAG) issued their study,
"The Economic Consequences of the Boycott of Venezuela"
, and reported that throughout the five-year
period of 2013-2017, Venezuela's "economy and society suffered a suffocation [of] $ 22.5 billion in annual
revenues, as a result of a deliberate international strategy of financial isolation [of Venezuela].
Evidently, this financial pressure intensified since 2015 with the fall in the price of crude oil." So:
that's a total loss of over $112 billion from Venezuela during the entire 5-year period, and the result has
become (especially after 2014) the impoverishment of the country. The U.S. regime and its allies and their
propaganda-media blame, for that, not themselves, but the very same Government they're trying to take down.
The U.S. regime and its allies have contempt for the public everywhere. The more that Venezuelans blame
their own Government for this impoverishment, instead of blame America's Government for it, the more that
their exploiters will have contempt for them, but also the more that their exploiters will benefit from
them, because the exploiters' taking control of the Government will then be much easier to do.
The U.S-and-allied exploiters are
attempting to install in Venezuela
a man who has absolutely no justification under the Venezuelan Constitution to be claiming to be the
country's 'interim President'
. For some mysterious reason, Venezuela's President isn't calling for that
traitor to be brought up on charges of treachery -- attempting a coup -- and facing Venezuela's Supreme
Judicial Tribunal on such a charge, which Tribunal is the Constitutionally authorized body to adjudicate
that matter. So, Venezuela's Government is incompetent -- but so too have been all of its predecessors since
at least 1980, and incompetence alone is
not
Constitutional grounds for replacing Venezuela's
President by
a foreign-imposed coup
. At least Venezuela's actual President is no traitor, such as his would-be
successor, Juan Guaido,
definitely
is
.
Did Venezuela invade America so as for
America's economic war against it
to be justified? Did Iraq invade America so as for America's
destruction of it to be justified? Did Libya invade America so as for America's destruction of it to be
justified? Did Syria invade America so as for America's destruction of it to be justified? Did Ukraine
invade America so as for America's destruction of it to be justified? None of them did, at all. In each and
every case, it was pure aggression, by America, the international rogue nation.
Back in 1986, regarding America's
international relations including its coups and invasions, the U.S. quit the International Court of Justice
(ICJ), when that Court ruled against the U.S. in the Iran-Contra case,
Nicaragua v. United States
, which concerned America's attempted coup in that country. But though
the U.S. propaganda-media reported the Government's rejection of that verdict in favor of Nicaragua, they
hid the more momentous fact: the U.S. Government stated that it would not henceforth recognize any authority
in the ICJ concerning America's international actions. The public didn't get to know about that. Ever since
1986, the U.S. Government has been a rogue regime, simply ignoring the ICJ except when the ICJ could be
cited against a country that the U.S. regime is trying to destroy ('democratize'). And then, when the ICJ
ruled on 9 March 2005 against the U.S. regime in a U.S. domestic matter where the regime refused to adhere
to the U.S. Constitution's due-process clause regarding the prosecutions and death-sentences against 51
death-row inmates, and the Court demanded retrials of those convicts,
the U.S. regime, in 2005, simply withdrew completely from the jurisdiction of the ICJ
. Ever since 9
March 2005, the U.S. regime places itself above, and immune to, international law, regarding everything.
George W. Bush completed what Ronald Reagan had started.
This rogue regime has
no real legitimacy
even as a representative of the American people. It
doesn't really represent the American public at all
. It is destroying the world and lying through its
teeth all the while. Its puppet-rulers on behalf of America's
currently 585 billionaires
are not in prison from convictions by the International Court of Justice in
the Hague. They're not even being investigated by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. That's a
U.N. agency. Does the U.N. have any real legitimacy, under such circumstances as this? Can an international
scofflaw simply refuse to recognize the authority of the international court? This mocks the U.N. itself.
The U.S. places itself above the U.N.'s laws and jurisdiction and yet still occupies one of the five
permanent seats on the U.N's Security Council and still is allowed to vote in the U.N.'s General Assembly.
Why doesn't the U.N. simply expel America? It can't be done? Then why isn't a new international legal body
being established to
replace
the U.N. -- and being granted legal authority everywhere
regardless
of whether a given national regime acknowledges its legal authority over matters of international law? Why
is Venezuela being internationally isolated and sanctioned, instead of the U.S. being internationally
isolated and sanctioned?
On top of all that, this is the same
U.S. regime that has blocked the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and that has broken one international
agreement after another -- not only NAFTA, and not only the nuclear agreement on Iran, and not only many
nuclear agreements with first the Soviet Union and then Russia, but lots more -- and all with total impunity.
And it's not only the countries that
the U.S. invades or otherwise destroys, which are being vastly harmed by this international monster-regime.
How many millions of the flood of asylum-seekers who are pouring into Europe have done that in order to
reach safety from America's bombs and proxy-troops -- jihadists and fascist terrorists -- which have ravaged
their own homelands? What is that flood of refugees doing to Europe, and to European politics -- forcing it
ever-farther to the right and so tearing the EU apart? Why are not Europeans therefore flooding their own
streets with anti-American marches and movements for their own Governments to impose economic sanctions
against all major American brands, and demanding prosecution of all recent American Presidents, starting at
least with G.W. Bush -- or else to vote out of office any national politicians who refuse to stand up against
the American bully-regime?
It isn't only weak nations such as
Nigeria
that are corrupt and rotten to the core. The entire U.S. empire, and
especially
its U.S.
masters, are.
How much more will the peoples of the
world remain suckers to the vast corporate propaganda-operation by that out-of-control beast of a rapacious
regime, which displays the Orwellian nerve to label as being a 'regime' each and every Government that it
seeks to overthrow and to call itself a
'democracy'
? The U.S. regime is itself actually allied the most closely with the world's most barbaric
rulers, the Saud family, that own Saudi Arabia. The U.S. regime is also allied with the apartheid and
internationally aggressive regime in Israel. Is such an international gang, as this is, going to get off
scot-free, as if there were no international law -- or at least none that applies to itself?
And, if the U.S. regime is so concerned
to 'protect democracy' and 'protect human rights' all over the world (as that perennially lying bunch always
claim to be the 'justification' for their invasions and coups), then why isn't it starting first by
prosecuting itself? (Or, maybe, by prosecuting Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman al-Saud, for his many crimes
-- and prosecuting his predecessors for
financing the 9/11 attacks
against Americans?) Well, of course, Hitler didn't do anything of the sort.
(Nor did he prosecute his allies.) He set the standard. Maybe, ideologically, Hitler and Mussolini and
Hirohito actually won the war, though this has happened after they first physically lost what everyone had
thought
was the end of WW II. After all, nobody is prosecuting the U.S. regime today. Isn't that
somewhat like a global victory for fascism -- the Axis powers -- after the fact? Maybe "we" won the war, only
to lose it later. Doesn't that appear to be the case? Mussolini
sometimes called fascism "corporationism"
, and this is how it always functions, and functions today by
agreement amongst the controlling owners of international corporations that are headquartered in the U.S.
and in its vassal-nations abroad.
Is this to go on interminably? When will
this international reign of fascism end?
What would happen if all the rest of
the world instituted an international legal and enforcement system (under a replacement U.N.) in which all
commitments and contractual proceeds to benefit American-based international corporations and the U.S.
Government were declared to be immediately null and void -- worthless except as regards the claims
against
the U.S. entities? (The owners of those entities have been the beneficiaries of America's international
crimes.) Contracts can be unilaterally nullified. The U.S. Government does it all the time, with no
justification except lies. Here, it would be done as authentically justifiable penalties, against actually
massive global crimes.
The U.S. militarily occupies the world;
this is a global empire; it has over a thousand military bases worldwide. Why aren't the people in all of
those occupied countries demanding their own governments simply to throw them out -- to end the military
occupation of their land?
You can't have a world at peace, and
anything like international justice, without enforcing international law. This is what doing that would look
like.
What we know right now is actually a
lawless world. That's what every international gangster wants.
America is a Corporate Fascist Military Industrial-Intelligence Police State. The Intelligence Agencies are
inseparable from the Corporations, The Bankers, and The Billionaires they work for. Most of the
economic-social-media pathways are controlled by the Magic Jews. Elections are a fraud. You have seen what
happened when the person they picked, Hillary didn't win. Trump may be an idiot but he won fair and square.
The entire Mueller Fiasco is a demonstration of the Intelligence State and a warning for anyone who doesn't
play their game. The Super Jew Zionist Senator Shumer warned Trump in a Freudian Slip about upsetting the
Intelligence agencies which the Jewish Media quickly tried to hide.
This is the county where dimwits like
Cortez complain about Mexican kids on the border while Obama and his associates bombed 7 Muslim countries,
murdered and starved hundreds of thousands of children including those in Yemen and not a fucking thing was
said by anyone on the left.
America and the world are headed for the dark ages. I doubt if anyone will really survive. Think Tanks
for the super rich run by Intel know this and are preparing for the worse case scenario are you!
"Total lockdown against truth and for internatio al conquest . . .mass murder and destruction on the basis
of sheer lies. That's today's U. S. Government, that's it's reality."
It worked so well in WWI and WWII,
why mess with a sure thing?
To behave otherwise, that is, honestly and decently would return a heap of millionaires to their
rag-picker tin-peddlar origins.
Ever since 1986, the U.S. Government has been a rogue regime
Why the leniency for a regime that has been led by gangsters of varying shades for the best part of the
post-WWII era, hands down? Unless the Vietnam war and the companion Gulf of Tomkin lie, the mass murder in
Laos and Cambodia and the Korean war are brushed aside. As was the kidnapping of Aristide of Haiti and
Panama's Noriega are trivial mobster rule blips and the sodomising of Ghadhafi's cadaver by "rebels" after
relentless bombing that left a once prosperous nation in utter ruin regarded as an unfortunate "aberration".
The tainting of American hands with the blood of millions of innocents extends well beyond the leaders who
presided over arguably the worst atrocities and crimes of the post-WWII era. For a nation that takes pride
in its slogan of a government of, for and by the people, the people cannot escape responsibility for the
horrendous crimes committed in their name.
Reasonable article but US a fascist country? And I was reading elsewhere that this same US is now a
communist country, with those billionaires apparently secret communists. Really!?! How can we have a
meaningful debate if we can't agree even on basic definitions of what we're arguing about?
I think some of this is over the top. However, I am not sure that one can excuse challenging the case based
on news reports. The case on its face had little of any supporting material. But there were news agencies
that provided a counter narrative, they just weren't the mainstream sources. Which is why I think your
giving an out where none exists.
Instead, a better case could be made as to how those that questioned the case got the boot and in some
cases got it good. Those voices were not only muted out by the media, the advocates, but the public as well.
One cannot ignore the palpable anger after 9/11. The country wanted revenge. And they would have it. Unlike
Mr. Neeson, we did not restrain ourselves from acting out, against anyone of we held suspect as similar in
nature -- we lashed out with few reservations.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Now I have to admit that the questions of international order are tricky. Who wants to take on enforcing
the rule of law against the US when she violates the very rules she helped create and espouses. When the
leadership bends, breaks or ignores the rules in the name of country. It's hard to make a case that everyone
else abide by the rules if you yourself breaks them. Maybe people pf conscience will hire people who
actually abide by what they say they will do when applying for the job of leadership.
But I have to be honest, I am cautious when it comes bodies of international order: UN, IMF, World Bank,
WTO, NAFTA, and others. I appreciate the value of NATO, but I am a bit dubious about the agitation that the
US take the lead in addressing Europe's security, at our expense. And while I would like to avoid what
about, most nations treat the international bodies of justice with no small amount of reticence on their own
account. I am unclear of China has backed away from provoking the Phillipines after the UNCLOS ruling
regarding commercial development zones. They have made a point to say they will abide by UNCLOS except where
they disagree. The short answer is that ultimately the developed world has to operate with some integrity.
There's a lot of complaining about the Saudis and Israel. But those states can simply point to the US or the
Europeans states and make a constituent claim,
"What's good for the gander . . ."
There is a manner of discipline and that is to our failures and the cost. We are at the moment large
enough to absorb them (not sure that is not more face saving facade than truth). Iraq is a failure. Libya is
a failure. Afganistahn most likely a failure, even we end up with some manner of negotiated settlement, it
will still be far short of our objective(s). The Ukraine still threatens to fall into a full blown civil
war. After five years plus of bombing Yemen, the end is nowhere in sight. If the Saudis think the Yemenis a
threat, then they should deal with it. The Syria gambit was never a smart move and it has cost us. I am a
firm believer that part of these issues results in not having a national draft system where our entire
population is bought in on the US project and in so doing have an incentive to hold its government
accountable. Because there is no body count to shock the public into reality as in previous military
engagements.
We simply are not electing enough men such as representative Walter Jones into office, who upon
recognizing an error will seek to change course. And I like him, I suspect, get increasingly restless about
how our unrequited hypocrisy (if continued) will play out for us in the end. I think there are signs of
trouble, just hints, that we need to get our ducks in order.
We honor and protect our sovereignty by respecting that of others (minus some outstanding extreme
circumstance).
Note: not all of the US military programs are about the use of force. The US does huge amounts of
humanitarian aide, independently and in conjunction with with are numerous aid depts. And as a nation we
remain the most effectively generous (giving nations) on the planet to others in need, including private
charitable organizations, no small number of them faith and practice based.
How many multitudes of sins that will cover is unknown to me.
A typical piece of American racism. Naturally, the peoples of all these countries are far too primitive and
far too stupid to see that they are being manipulated!
To quote your first para: 'In 2003, America (and its lap-dog UK) invaded and destroyed Iraq on
the basis of lies to the effect that the U.S. (and UK) regime were certain that Saddam Hussein had and was
developing weapons of mass destruction.'
It should read: 'In 2003, the UK (and its lap dog USA) invaded and destroyed Iraq. I know you Americans like to think that the USA is sovereign in its bullying of the world, but many
people apart from myself, see it differently.
Rothschild runs the 'free west' and he is based in The City of London where he operates the world's drug
money laundering operation. Yes, even all the drugs moved out of Afghanistan by his private drug army you
call the CIA, those profits are laundered in London.
It is Rothschild in London that decides who to invade and why. The USA is Rothschild's private supply of
canon fodder, weaponry and congenital idiots who think Jesus of Nazareth, that you erroneously call Jesus
Christ, condones the violence, the blood baths and the pure evil that is the USA.
Your nation and its corrupt state is the puppet of Rothschild. I can understand it is especially hard for
you to finger one of your own, especially as you consider yourself to be the goyim's friend, but that is not
actually true is it?
What sort of idiot would want to get involved in a three year old war in 1917? What sort of buffoon would
want to get involved in a Europe in the 1940s and in the Orient at the same time, if there were not vast
profits to be made?
Everything that has happened since 1914 when the Fed came in to existence right up to the attacks on
Venezula today, only make sense if you are Rothschild.
I'm not into America-bashing. Life's too short, and, besides, I did half-seriously think of
emigrating from the States, and didn't do it.
But–but–I think there's enough evidence to support the writing of a "black book" of American democracy
since 1945, a hit piece modeled on a similarly titled book about Communism's depredations that, I think, was
first published in France maybe thirty years ago.
Better observers than I can probably offer a laundry list of American cruelties worth including, and some
of those better observers comment here on
Unz Review
.
American military interventions, a Constitution drained of effectiveness and meaning, the "ethnic
cleansing" of American cities, the gratuitous cruelties of American health care,
etc
.
Keep the book short, about 250-350 pp., and include good front and back matter to focus the reader's
attention.
@niteranger
If the author of this piece a child who believes in fairy stories about American exceptionalism . America is
more powerful than other countries and if it is "The International Rogue Nation" then it is solely as a
result of being more powerful that other countries, for were they as strong as America they all would do the
same as America.
This is the county where dimwits like Cortez complain about Mexican kids on the border while Obama
and his associates bombed 7 Muslim countries, murdered and starved hundreds of thousands of children
including those in Yemen and not a fucking thing was said by anyone on the left.
The Democrats want future voters to swamp the votes of native-born Americans. The kids in Yemen are
irrelevant. So are the innocent kids in countries like Syria.
America is a Corporate Fascist Military Industrial-Intelligence Police State
That is just a long winded way of saying it is a state. Like any other state America can't call 911 if it
gets into trouble so it has to do its own dirty work. Or, of course. America could just surrender to moral
imperatives and live as tree huggers in perpetual peace. Except it would come to an end, just as it did for
the Tibetans (and their trees).
These U.S. allegations were based on provable falsehoods when they were stated and published, but the
regime's 'news'-media refused to publish and demonstrate (or "expose") any of these lies.
Back in the late summer of 2003, when Washington finally admitted there were no WMD in Iraq, the Danish
Public Broadcaster had invited four of the heaviest hitters in Danish MSM, four foreign policy editors of
the largest news outlets in Denmark.
The conversation was supposed to be about something else, but the WMD-news had dropped that same morning,
and at one point they discuss the missing WMD. One guy spontaneously says: "I never believed in the
WMD-story anyway." The three others quickly agree, because they don't want to be seen as the slow, gullible
kid in the class.
So they'd been peddling this WMD-nonsense aggressively since the invasion, but they didn't actually
believe that story themselves? The broadcast was taken off the internet 24 hours later, but I have their
names in my little book.
What we know right now is actually a lawless world. That's what every international gangster wants.
Well yes, but they also want not only a monopoly on violence and compliant tax, debt, wage and dollar
slaves, but also "legal" support for it all, hence "gubbermint." Keep payin' dem taxes and hoping for da Messiah in the forms of the likes of the Cacklin' Hyena, The
Trumpster, and "Bibi."
And another thing: back in the day, the PM, Anders "Fogh of War" Rasmussen spoke frequently about Saddam in
the Danish parliament. But he never said "weapons of mass destruction", he said "dangerous weapons" – didn't
want to be caught lying to the legislature, would you? Nobody ever called him out on it; you'd think
journalists were familiar with sleazy rhetoric, but not on this occasion. He went on to become secretary
general of NATO.
Rather than presenting a balanced viewpoint where we hear both sides of the story regarding nuclear
treaty violations by both sides, we are subjected to what can best be termed "fake news".
"Is this to go on interminably? When will this international reign of fascism end?"
The plutocrat criminal elite are working fast and furiously to import a new electorate and slave labour
force: At some point they will no longer be able to finance the machine, because you get what you pay for,
and bread and circuses aren't cheap, and at that point the machine will pull back from the world, if not
outright devolve into mayhem in its streets.
Just came across these powerful words from Kevin Tillman, Pat Tillman's brother.
Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the
world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade
uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to
establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can't be called a civil
war even though it is. Something like that.
Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons
around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them
with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few "bad
apples" in the military.
Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a
picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra
pad in a helmet. It's interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing
from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a
helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes
apart and his skin melts to the seat.
Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.
Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an
illegal invasion they started. Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and
illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the
ground.
Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.
Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.
Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.
Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.
Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.
Somehow torture is tolerated.
Somehow lying is tolerated.
Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.
Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.
Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.
Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that
it is.
Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most
irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.
Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active
ignorance.
Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge
of this country.
Somehow this is tolerated.
Somehow nobody is accountable for this.
In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don't be shocked when our
grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely,
they will come to know that "somehow" was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country
vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.
Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It
can start after Pat's birthday.
Global empires rise because of the desire for power, which is also their Nemesis. Power gives prestige,
status, wealth, security and a sense of invincibility: the opposite of what is feared most. But they cannot
hold that power forever, though they try, and eventually they end up getting the war they have always
dreaded: utter defeat. But their leaders are deluded, blindly leading their people to annihilation – even
nuclear – because power is the one thing they will destroy themselves and everyone else over. The pattern of
history is clear.
Feb 11, 2019 Venezuelans' message to the US: Hands off our country
The Grayzone reports from inside
Venezuela, where millions of people waited in long lines to sign an open letter to the US public, strongly
rejecting foreign intervention in their country.
15.04.2017 Americans Are No Different Than Germans Were (and Are)
Daniel Goldhagen blamed the Holocaust on "the Germans" (by which he meant the German people), and said
that they perpetrated the Holocaust because they positively enjoyed murdering "the Jews".
Feb 18, 2013 Corporatocracy, Globalization, An Empire Expands
A short video clip from the Documentary
Zeitgeist: Addendum, in it a Corporatocracy is explained. "A Incredible cozy relationship between Government
and Corporations"
@niteranger
I think this sums up things pretty well:
"All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering
into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has
never yet melted." D. H. Lawrence.
Reasonable article but US a fascist country? And I was reading elsewhere that this same US is now a
communist country, with those billionaires apparently secret communists. Really!?! How can we have a
meaningful debate if we can't agree even on basic definitions of what we're arguing about?
Fascist country, Communist country – a more understandable definition would be a Mafia run state.
The US regime uses violence and threats (local and international) to get its way. It corrupts and
terrorizes politicians and forces through its projects. It's all about money and power and it rubs
traditional Anglo society's face in the mud while its getting looted.
@Justsaying
You have a pointy head, but rubbish conclusions I am also tired of hearing 'sodomy' or 'sodomized' re.
Ghaddafi, assaulting the anus and rectum with bayonets is not 'sodomy'.
Hillary Clinton enjoyed it, I world prefer not to repeat her moronic statement, but will because of the
many morons are on this site now, 'we came, we saw, he died, (cackle, cackle, cackle'). She liked to pretend that this is her classical education. She clearly has none.
But she sure has an ugly pair of cankles.
Fifth Column:
Is any group of people who undermine a larger group from within, usually in
favour of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces
gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack. This term is also extended to
organised actions by military personnel. Clandestine fifth column activities can involve acts of
sabotage, disinformation, or espionage executed within defense lines by secret sympathizers with an
external force.
He's a
lying
New York idiot Israel firster who demonstrates a new meaning to the concept of
winning fair and square and "won" the position as Cuck-in-Chief of the Corporate Fascio-Commie Military
Industrial-Intelligence Police State, that's all. He should have saved us all a lot of trouble and just eloped with the Cackling Hyena instead.
Mrs Ilhan Omar Is the voice from the graves of Millions of Muslims murdered by US Military under leadership
of US politicians (purchased for pennies), and ordered by Israel.
@exiled off mainstreet
Interesting for me it's all known for several years, so I was about to say myself "same old, same old".
Then I read your comment and think to myself "well, contrary to my belief, obviously publishing this article
does make sense"
@Asagirian
Most of the european business and population do NOT agree with the yankee sanctions to Russia ( or to
Venezuela , or to Iran , Cuba .. ) . Nothing ideological , it is just that the EU has no oil , the EU needs
russian , iranian , venezuelan oil and gas , and the EU countries NEED to sell products to any country
willing to buy them . The abusive yankee pressure on the EU to santion any country that the US wants will
backfire .
"This rogue regime has no real legitimacy even as a representative of the American people. It doesn't
really represent the American public at all. It is destroying the world and lying through its teeth all
the while."
Words seem insufficient to describe the situation, don't they? What we're witnessing, apparently, is the
fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. The Satanic cult known from the Book of Revelation as the "beast from the
sea" is attempting to rise to the top of the world by "giving worth to evil" (i.e. worshiping Satan). To put
it another way, the beast rises to the top by bringing everyone and everything else down.
Being relatively small in number, the Satanic cult operates primarily by deception, corruption and
manipulation. If the beast cannot get the people to destroy themselves, it resorts to mass murder, but the
end result is always destruction.
"Its puppet-rulers on behalf of America's currently 585 billionaires are not in prison from
convictions by the International Court of Justice in the Hague."
Money has nothing to do with it (other than being another tool in the Satanists' tool box). They do what
they do because they're evil. Evil is both the means and the end. To put it in Biblical terms, the Satanists
seek to do to the whole world what Satan did to Eve. Only when whole world is brought down can evil claim
victory over good (as per the Satanic agenda set forth in Isaiah 14:13,14).
How can we have a meaningful debate if we can't agree even on basic definitions of what we're arguing
about?
Excellent question, but the two, fascism and the various forms of big "C" Communism, are not necessarily
mutually exclusive even though fascism as often used today was intended as a catch-all smear word by the
Marxist cornballs a century ago.
In fact, Marxism, Bolshevism and Stalinism are can all be or become forms of fascism. Likewise, as Orwell
saw, there is no essential difference between various iterations of capitalism and the various forms of
communism that they oftentimes supported and promoted and still do.
Also, I highly doubt whether a meaningful debate regarding politics is possible whether or not
definitions are agreed upon.
[During the war]words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them.
Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious
cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question,
inaptness to act on any.
– Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, Chap X, ~400 BC
"Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and
division of society."
– John Adams, letter to J. H. Tiffany, Mar. 31, 1819.
Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to
Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of
solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946
IOW, it's pretty much all bullsh!t. Reader and listener beware.
The gangster laughs in your face: "Whadda going to do about it, kid?". Answer is nothing can be done.
At
this point the US government barely even bothers to cover itself with plausible stories but just goes ahead
with it's open violence. Who is there to stop it?
The pattern actually goes back 121 years to the
Spanish-American war when the US smelled weakness and pounced. It's been on a roll ever since, sometimes
slowly, sometimes quickly. The barriers to the US having a completely free hand are Russia, China, Iran,
countries about which there's much heavy propaganda being thrown about. Their areas are limited though and
they can't help the Venezuelans or most of the others. The US has a huge budget for internal spying and
security to ensure that the people in charge stay that way so don't get optimistic. This supposed democracy
is rigged from start to finish. The US has been very efficient in brainwashing it's residents into thinking
it is all legit.
What sort of idiot would want to get involved in a three year old war in 1917? What sort of buffoon
would want to get involved in a Europe in the 1940s and in the Orient at the same time, if there were not
vast profits to be made?
Talk about sweet summaries; yours is masterful!
Anyone who doubts it would do well to read Fish's,
Tragic Deception,
FDR and America's involvement in World War II
@Stephen Paul Foster
This thread is uncommonly full of great comments and yours is another. Excellent.
This question [about the UN] is proof that the author needs psychiatric assistance.
And more than a brief stay in a reprogramming (anti-brainwashing) camp.
The UN was formed by the usual One World (globalist) crowd to serve their ends and theirs only. Anyone
who fails to see that needs to be questioned deeply, no matter how correct he or she is about other matters.
Like any other state America can't call 911 if it gets into trouble so it has to do its own dirty
work. Or, of course. America could just surrender to moral imperatives
This is exactly right. The UN member nations are ready to replace the UN with an organization that can curb
criminal regimes like the US. This has been the case since the 80s.
Considering the terminal degeneracy of the criminal enterprise that runs the US, it's going to take a
war. Classified US policy is to use urban populations as human shields for the CIA COG autocracy. COIN
drills like Watertown are dry runs for CIA martial law during war with Russia.
The one hopeful sign is superior SCO missile technology, which allows kinetic warheads to be substituted
for nuclear ones. This permits regime decapitation by somewhat less destructive means. Most of you are still
going to die, of course. But Russia and China will leave some habitable zones for people they can trust.
Make sure you know human rights and humanitarian law,
and you can demonstrate a record of sticking up for them, and the postwar criminal tribunals will let you
reconstruct a peaceful and lawful American state.
It's a shame it's going to take a couple hundred million dead, mostly American, to stop the CIA regime,
but the world knows it's got to be done. If we're too chicken to storm Langley and hang those criminal
scumbags, we're going to have to pay.
This continuous harping on international law should be wearing thin even with you, Mr. Zuesse. The US
outspends the next 24 nations combined on arms, I understand. For the US might is right. Until you and those
who oppose US policy have an army that can break the US military might you have no hope.
You really need
to think this through and stop the empty posturing. The bird flipped to the International Court of Justice
by John Bolton for the third time apparently should teach you a lesson. Three strikes and you're out. Go
home.
"Elections are a fraud. You have seen what happened when the person they picked, Hillary didn't win.
Trump may be an idiot but he won fair and square."
If elections are a fraud (which they obviously are) how can orange clown be said to have won "fair and
square"? It's a contradiction. The evil orange clown had to lie to win the election; he had to completely
misrepresent himself. What orange clown did was tantamount to stealing ballots/rigging voting machines.
Orange clown is nothing but Satanic low-life scum.
Also, how do you know Clinton was "the person they picked [to win]"? That's very speculative, IMO. A
solid argument can be made that orange clown was actually the chosen one.
"What sort of idiot would want to get involved in a three year old war in 1917?"
An evil idiot.
"What sort of buffoon would want to get involved in a Europe in the 1940s and in the Orient at the
same time, if there were not vast profits to be made?"
An evil buffoon.
"Everything that has happened since 1914 when the Fed came in to existence right up to the attacks on
Venezula (sic) today, only make sense if you are Rothschild."
@Commentator Mike
Fascists, communist, liberal and conservative. Those terms don't have as much meaning as you might think. In
fact they are used as tools.
@Harold Smith
The Rothschild's are the Kings of the Jews. They have conquered the Bourbon, Habsburgs, the Hohenzollern,
the Romanovs. They have merged with the house of Windsor. They have been mercilessly harvesting the entire
planet for 200 years. They send Moslems against Christians, Christians agains Moslems, Moslems against
Hindu's, Chirstians against Christians, Christians against Chinese, Christians against Hindus, Japanese
against Chinese, US Christians against Japanese, Zulu against white, and on and on. Wars are the jews
harvest.
They also sent all of these groups to get slaves from each other in raids and wars to provide
human material from all the other races, except jewish, to sell on these jewish run slave markets. For
centuries.
They extracted blood and organs from the children of the victims for use in the kabalistic rituals.
America's lying to get us into wars goes farther back than the 1950's to 2000's. The reasons for WW2 against
Germany was based on devilish lies. So we claimed Hitler had to be stopped because he planned on taking over
the whole world and that he had killed millions of innocent people(which he hadn't) but then turned around
and helped the real murderers of millions of people which was the Soviet Union. And it goes on and on and
there will be more lies and more wars to follow.
@DESERT FOX
You can almost tell just how important the issue of private central banking is by the fact that you can't
get anyone to really explain it, or even talk about it. Right now I would settle for just knowing exactly
who owns it.
America's lying to get us into wars goes farther back than the 1950's to 2000's. The reasons for WW2
against Germany was based on devilish lies
All true.
So we claimed Hitler had to be stopped because he planned on taking over the whole world
When in fact it was a handful of mafiosi financial oligarchs, many based in New Yoik, who desired to
control the whole world via co-opted Marxist principles. One of their tools was the "holy" UN which the
author seems to think is some sort of Messiah. A Rockefeller "donated" the land for the UN Headquarters
building, and the UN was formed under the direction of Commies and their sympathizers associated with FDR.
I'm convinced that WW2 was instigated partly to begin imposing globalism on the rest of us, just as the
constitution of Uncle Shylock was rammed down our throats. All for the benefit of us lowly proles, peasants
and peons, of course.
I'm giving about 1.8 cheers for this piece. I agree with much of it, but I surely don't share the author's
enthusiasm for this International Court of Justice, not for the workings of the United Nations in general.
Give one of these international legal outfits any actual power in America, and "hate crime" laws? You
ain't seen nothin' yet. In much of the world, "anti-Semitism" (whatever that's construed to mean) is already
a criminal offense. Hell, leave it up to these international bodies, and the Unz Review goes dark -- and
quickly, too. No, thanks.
@Hank
The owners are the Rothschilds, the Rockerfellers. the Warburgs , the Schiffs, etc., all satanic zionists
and they control every central bank in the world including the FED and the Bank of England.
"They send Moslems against Christians, Christians agains Moslems, Moslems against Hindu's, Chirstians
against Christians, Christians against Chinese, Christians against Hindus, Japanese against Chinese, US
Christians against Japanese, Zulu against white, and on and on. Wars are the jews harvest."
The Satanists are small in number and generally cowardly so their general modus operandi is to get their
victims to destroy themselves. To put it in Biblical terms, their goal is to do to the whole world what
Satan did to Eve; they deceive, corrupt, manipulate and ultimately stand tall over the destruction they've
brought about. They're destroyers.
Speaking of the UN and war, Douglas Reed provides a lot of great info about the two; too much to summarize
here, but I offer a sample for the curious.
The Second War produced a third result, additional to the advance of the [Marxist permanent]
revolution into Europe and the establishment by force of the Zionist state: namely,
the second attempt
to set up the structure of a "world government", on the altar of which Western nationhood was to be
sacrificed.
This is the final consummation to which the parallel processes of Communism and Zionism
are evidently intended to lead; the idea first emerged in the Weishaupt papers, began to take vigorous
shape in the 19th Century, and was expounded in full detail in the Protocols of 1905. In the First War it
was the master-idea of all the ideas which Mr. House and his associates "oozed into the mind" of
President Wilson, and sought to make the president think were "his own". It then took shape, first as
"The League to Enforce Peace" and at the war's end as "The League of Nations".
Well yeah. The Anglo/Zionist Empire is an evil empire indeed. I've known that since serving under President
Johnson in the mid sixties.
The geniuses over at ZeroHedge will be surprised to learn about imperial aggression against Venezuela.
They believe the explanation for Venexuela's troubles is "Socialism doesn't work".
I'm a Nationalist. So I say screw your International Court of Justice. What the U.S. needs is a New
Republic complete with a new constitution. Failing that, secession will be the way forward.
"... American imperialists (and many Americans) truly believe that they are superior and that the world would become a better place if nations submitted to their leadership ..."
"... Early promoters of American intervention were zealous patriots. They proclaimed love of country and loyalty to the flag. Yet they could not imagine that people from non-white countries might feel just as patriotic. ..."
"... Americans have been said to be ignorant about the world. ..."
"... Violent intervention in other countries always produces unintended consequences. ..."
"... Generations of American foreign policy makers have made decisions on three assumptions: the US is the indispensable nation that must lead the world; this leadership requires toughness; and toughness is best demonstrated by the threat or use of force. ..."
"... Most American interventions are not soberly conceived, with realistic goals and clear exit strategies. ..."
"... Foreign intervention has weakened the moral authority that was once the foundation of America's political identity. Today many people around the world see it as a bully, recklessly invading foreign lands. ..."
"... Nations lose their virtue when they repeatedly attack other nations. ..."
"... America is the HIGHLY narcissistic, high functioning, psychopathic garden variety neighbor, highly destructive businessman you work hard to avoid. ..."
"... As Taleb nicely put: Our political leaders have no skin in the game and are completely unaccountable. Best preconditions for disaster! ..."
"... They even call the idea of not mass murdering people 'isolationism'. Hey, well guess what? I don't want to murder other people who never bothered me. ..."
As the world watches aghast at another US and allies' attempt to engineer a coup in
Venezuela, I would like to offer a few insights from Stephen Kinzer' provocative chapter, "The
deep hurt," (pp. 227-250) in his book, The True Flag: Theodore
Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of the American Empire (2017). This remarkable text
carries some hope and lessons for all of us. It tells the story of the great conflict around
the turn of 20th century about the role that the US might play in either dominating the world
or building a cosmopolitan democracy where all people feel secure that they reside in one
country, the earth.
Indeed, Kinzer states:
"Anti-imperialists decisively influenced American history by helping to ensure that the
first burst of American annexation would be the last" (p. 228).
Even swash-buckling Teddy Roosevelt was influenced, losing his zest for the idea of
conquest. When he charged into the White House he held two views simultaneously, intervene to
help other people, without oppressing them. Kinzer thinks that this dichotomy "torments our
national psyche" (p. 229). In the early parts of the book Kinzer sets out the anti-imperialist
(Mark Twain) and pro-imperialist visions (Henry Cabot Lodge). These speeches are worth
gathering round for reflection.
During the following hundred years much of what the anti-imperialists predicted has come to
pass. The United States has become an "actively interventionist power. It has projected
military or covert power into dozens of countries on every continent except Antarctica"(ibid.).
George Frisbie Hoar was right, Kinzer points out, when he "warned that intervening in other
lands would turn the United States into a 'vulgar, commonplace empire founded upon physical
force"" (ibid.).
Anti-imperialists also predicted that an "aggressive foreign policy would have pernicious
effects at home" (ibid.). Military budgets have soared to heights unimaginable in the days of
fervent expansionism in the 1898 war with the Philippines. The armaments industries wield
extraordinary clout. The wealth-soaked elites dominate politics. The invasion and overthrowing
of distant regimes resides in the hands of a few decision-makers. And militaristic values and
rituals saturate American life and expunge peaceful ones.
To be sure, American intervention brought some material blessings (good schools and orderly
systems of justice, etc) and rising American power was perceived as "good for everyone simply
because it means strengthening the world's most beneficent nation" (p. 230). The expansionists
of 1898 believed that America was "inherently benevolent," and subject nations would rally
around the May pole in celebratory dance. "The opposite happened .Carl Schurz was right when he
warned that dominating foreigners would ultimately force Americans to 'shoot them down because
they stand up for their independence'" (p. 231).
Kinzer states that: " In the face of profound new challenges, Americans are once again
debating the role of the United States in the world. Should it intervene violently in other
countries? This remains what Senator William V. Allen called it in 1899: 'The greatest question
that has ever been presented to the American people'" (p. 231). American culture carries a
current of anti-imperialism and commitment to an international legal order. They played a big
role in the establishment of the UN and nurturing global governance. They remain the world's
only superpower with enormous capacity to move towards building the cosmopolitan world order.
What is evident now in this dark moment of history is that the world as it is, is not the way
it has to be.
It is difficult, I think, for the United States with its inordinate military might and
present delusionary self-understanding to wrench itself free from wanting to intervene for
political and economic reasons. Many in the post-WW I world had placed their bet for a better
world on the Presbyterian professor Woodrow Wilson. Famously, Wilson triggered immense
hopefulness to the disenfranchised in the colonies of European powers. He preached that they
should "choose the sovereignty under which the shall live" (p. 232). In office, American troops
were dispatched to intervene in Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and Russia .Like
his predecessors -- and successors -- Wilson insisted that he was doing it for the good of the
target countries. Americans would leave them alone, he promised, as soon as they learned 'to
elect good men'" (ibid.). Today scholars speak of the "shattered peace" of the post-WW I world.
Was the desire to begin building, slowly, carefully, a cosmopolitan world order, as Jan Smuts
thought, an "impossible dream"?
Kinzer observes that "this most compassionate of presidents not only invaded countries that
defied the United States, but studiously ignored appeals from colonized people outside Europe,
notably in Egypt, India, Korea, and Indochina. His hypocrisy set the stage for generations of
war and upheaval" (ibid.). Margaret MacMillan's lively and densely detailed book, Paris 1919
(2001) , provides the stories for these outcast colonized countries.
Today, the US has intervened one more time. The difference now may well be that there is
little pretence that the US is engaging in the bully politics of "might is right." They don't
care two hoots about what the world thinks. They do not give a damn about the
self-determination of all countries and peoples. This invasion is stripped of any moral or
legal justification. The US has decided to declare the Speaker of the House, Juan Guaido,
president. This is unheard of! And Canada has forsaken the best of its liberal and social
democratic traditions of adherence to rule of law to hitch its caboose to the US's rampaging
imperialist train.
There are several lessons that Kinzer draws from American history of intervention that our
worth careful reflection.
1) American imperialists (and many Americans) truly believe that they are superior and
that the world would become a better place if nations submitted to their leadership . The
United States would be better off, Kinzer says, if it became a learning nation and not a
teaching one.
2) Early promoters of American intervention were zealous patriots. They proclaimed love of
country and loyalty to the flag. Yet they could not imagine that people from non-white
countries might feel just as patriotic. Love of country was a mark of civilization. Lesser
peoples, therefore, couldn't grasp it.
3) Americans have been said to be ignorant about the world. They are, says Kinzer, but so
are other peoples. The difference is that American leaders, puffed with a sense of mission,
acted on ignorance. American leaders see little reason to bother learning about the nations
whose affairs they intrude.
4) Violent intervention in other countries always produces unintended consequences. Cuba
was turned into a protectorate in 1901. A fine idea? It led ultimately to a bitter
anti-American regime. Intervention in the Philippines sparked waves of nationalism across
East Asia that contributed to the Communist revolution in China in 1949. Later American
interventions also had terrible results planners never anticipated. From Iran and Guatemala
to Iraq and Afghanistan, intervention has devastated societies and produced violent
anti-American passion.
5) Generations of American foreign policy makers have made decisions on three assumptions:
the US is the indispensable nation that must lead the world; this leadership requires
toughness; and toughness is best demonstrated by the threat or use of force. Thus: America is
inherently righteous; its influence on rest of world always benign.
6) Most American interventions are not soberly conceived, with realistic goals and clear
exit strategies. But violent invasions always leave so-called "collateral damage": families
killed, destroyed towns, ruined lives, damaged land.
7) The argument that the United States intervenes to defend "freedom" rarely matches facts
on the ground. Many (most?) interventions prop up predatory regimes. The goal is simply to
increase American power rather than to liberate the suffering.
8) Foreign intervention has weakened the moral authority that was once the foundation of
America's political identity. Today many people around the world see it as a bully,
recklessly invading foreign lands. The current invasion of Venezuela is such an example. The
name "United States" is associated with bombing, invasion, occupation, night raids, covert
action, torture, kidnapping, and secret prisons. Who wants to be saved by America? John
Bolton recently threatened Maduro with prison in Guantanamo if he doesn't get the hell out of
Venezuela.
9) Nations lose their virtue when they repeatedly attack other nations. That loss, as
Washington predicted, has cost the United States its felicity. Kinzer says that the US can
regain it only by understanding its own national interests more clearly. He thinks it is late
for the United States to change its course in the world -- but not too late.
America has not become an interventionist power. What has happened is a Coup d'Etat has
been staged through Congressional rules that give unconstitutional powers to a tiny group on
the basis of their 'seniority' and reconcilliation committee appointment. These few, not the
American people want intervention, war, you name it. They spent $5 trillion in the Middle
East alone. So, let's not blame the American people.
5) Generations of American foreign policy makers have made decisions on three assumptions:
the US is the indispensable nation that must lead the world; this leadership requires
toughness; and toughness is best demonstrated by the threat or use of force. Thus: America is
inherently righteous; its influence on rest of world always benign.
6) Most American interventions are not soberly conceived, with realistic goals and clear
exit strategies. But violent invasions always leave so-called "collateral damage": families
killed, destroyed towns, ruined lives, damaged land.
7) The argument that the United States intervenes to defend "freedom" rarely matches facts
on the ground. Many (most?) interventions prop up predatory regimes. The goal is simply to
increase American power rather than to liberate the suffering.
8) Foreign intervention has weakened the moral authority that was once the foundation of
America's political identity. Today many people around the world see it as a bully,
recklessly invading foreign lands. The current invasion of Venezuela is such an example. The
name "United States" is associated with bombing, invasion, occupation, night raids, covert
action, torture, kidnapping, and secret prisons. Who wants to be saved by America? John
Bolton recently threatened Maduro with prison in Guantanamo if he doesn't get the hell out of
Venezuela."
America is the HIGHLY narcissistic, high functioning, psychopathic garden variety
neighbor, highly destructive businessman you work hard to avoid. How any American can see the US and it's people as exceptional is beyond me. No yellow vests anti WAR protests have evolved to STOP the US genocidal killing
machine.
The US, the white supremacist nation has zero trouble killing maiming and displacing
millions of brown Muslims & Christians in 3 world countries. This WILL come home to roost as what the Zionazi empire of psychopaths does to other
countries they will do to US
9) "Nations lose their virtue when they repeatedly attack other nations. That loss, as
Washington predicted, has cost the United States its felicity. Kinzer says that the US can
regain it only by understanding its own national interests more clearly. He thinks it is late
for the United States to change its course in the world -- but not too late."...
I don't even think Teddy as self righteous and psychopathic as he was at the turn of the
20th Century would have ponied up to cannibalizing his own ( https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it
) in order to build ever more "pretexts" through the torture and murder of other sovereign
nations simply as a means to "control" resources for the good of his $currency and it's banks
and not a Country and it's peoples under the rule of law to a parasite/cyst that it is
willing to die for (
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-19/top-us-general-says-american-troops-should-be-ready-die-israel
) before it's own Nation!...
Another gr8 lesson about American freedom and democracy is in book: The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. Americans should know that before slaves from Africa white trash from Britain was shipped
as slaves. See: They were white and they were slaves.
" Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.
... In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate
antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be
excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be
cultivated....
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow
citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and
experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican
government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the
instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive
partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they
actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of
influence on the other....
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our
commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as
we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us
stop. ... GEORGE WASHINGTON
Foreign intervention has weakened the moral authority that was once the foundation of
America's political identity. Today many people around the world see it as a bully,
recklessly invading foreign lands.
Indeed, as that's the nature of the state in any and all its iterations. Reform it? Yes. But only by eradicating it altogether. Why? Because, as the great Albert
Jay Nock said,
"Sending in good people to reform the state is like sending in virgins to
reform the whorehouse."
McCabe, evil whitey on the front line here too? ; chickens coming home to roost
finally? Guess there are two kind of people, those who work for a living, and the barbarians who
appropriate the fruits of other's labor.
Mark Twain wrote savagely and derisively about the Moro Massacre, where the US killed
around a thousand Filipino natives who were hiding in a dormant volcano, they just rimmed it
with artillery and killed everyone.
Because they would not pay tribute. We waterboarded about 200 important people, the
equivalent of mayors and councilmen, ranking officers in militias we had no business
disbanding.
1898 was lies and deceit from the outset. We promised the Philippine General Aguinaldo
that if he fought the Spanish on land, then we would fight them at sea. In exchange for
victory over the Spanish, the Philippines would be freed from colonization.
Except then we took it ourselves and killed anyone who disagreed. Slaughter, rape,
torture, it was never for one moment noble. The USA granted the Philippines its independence
after the Japanese conquered them, lol.
Empires do not give up power, their grip weakens ... Empires do not devolve back into "republics", they crash and burn ... And there are really only two options: a) soft collapse b) hard collapse (there is no [c] option)
Exactly -The article was written by another delusional trying to reconstruct/masquerade
the US criminal empire behind the a new facelift, too little too late. The guy didn't get the
memo from Putin/Xi, telling him tat it is a multipolar world & that the US criminal
empire is death & that it will never come back in any shape, way or form, to violate
international law & carry out war crimes.
American or uk coups are not beneficial. Very sad. Checking USA coups online there is a huge list, after the Allende govt in Chile, comes
Australia, the Whitlam govt, much loved, but ousted in a coup, bloodless by his choice. The
people were waiting for Gough to call them out. Newspaper staff arrived from overseas.
first day in office his govt had let the conscientious objectors out of the 2 years they
were serving in jail. There had been mass demonstrations against Aus participation and
incarceration to no avail with the previous govt. Brought back our Australians from Vietnam,
and twenty or 30 or more major things. Every day.
We have learned nothing. Apparently we are using the taming of the lion method which has
been used for thousands of years to take control of countries on Venezuela. The apparent goal
is to take over several Latin and south American countries. Will this be good or bad? Our
past history indicates it will be a disaster. Have we had any successes?
Craving for respect. This started after the first bite in the apple, history said.
Religion is based on that happening. Americans invented the extra load called fastest. Watch
Hollywood portraying it. Respect shown all over the show for plain murderers. Graveyard
managers and priest making the picture complete. Making that part of the world the right
place for a second coming. Resulting in sending all believers to the place named hell.
The fact that this is not taken for granted is exactly what is wrong with America. If only
we could just learn to leave other people alone unless attacked. They even call the idea of
not mass murdering people 'isolationism'. Hey, well guess what? I don't want to murder
other people who never bothered me. I can't say I'm a Christian, but aren't they supposed to
disagree with this sort of thing? They're also supposed to be like 80% of the population, why
don't we ever hear, 'murder bad' from them?
"... Why does the USA care about internal Venezuelan politics? Because it cares about every country's politics and demands every country bow down and kneel to the USA. The voters, aka morons, support this, both liberal and right wing, and have for generations. ..."
"... The morons pay their taxes to meddle in other countries and for a giant military to slaughter people who do not obey. ..."
Venezuela invasion thing is double-faceted: a trap for Trump & a bluff. if the
invasion is, then bye-bye 2020 election, mission accomplished. if no invasion on sight then
the bluff of Pompeo-Bolton-Abrams is called & the 2020 reelection assured. Venezuela in
the role of bait.
The real issue lies in the voting class which cowers in fear all day long and
seeks saviors every four years via rigged circus. Trump = Obama = CIA meddling in every
country. Presidents never change, only the perception of the morons changes.
Why does the USA care about internal Venezuelan politics? Because it cares about every
country's politics and demands every country bow down and kneel to the USA. The voters, aka
morons, support this, both liberal and right wing, and have for generations.
The morons pay their taxes to meddle in other countries and for a giant military to
slaughter people who do not obey. Freedom at the point of a gun. Nothing quite says
democracy like having the US president tell the Venezuelans how to run their country.
"... It's likely that the Brazilian and Colombian governments don't command the loyalty of their armed forces (especially the foot soldiers who would have shoulder the burden of invasion) to the extent that the Venezuelan government under Maduro does of its own. Especially if money allocated to the armed forces in Brazil and Colombia has gone to a few favored individuals in the officer hierarchies while the grunts have seen no increased pay or support, or have even seen their pay levels dwindle as their responsibilities grow. ..."
"... That's a possible scenario in Brazil given that since Dilma Rousseff's impeachment as President in 2016 it has been governed by corrupt neoliberal politicians. ..."
"... In Venezuela's situation, the crux is in how prepared are the Venezuelan officers to defend their own country on an officer's salary and on promises of future rewards by Maduro and his team. Therefore, nationalism and patriotism of the military may be that little straw which tips the balance in favour of keeping Venezuela free. At least we hope ..."
"... The last two places where Gene's revolutions have worked out were Macedonia and Armenia, but there is not much there to steal (rather profitless victories). ..."
Far more likely that Brazil and Colombia refuse to commit any troops or other support for a US-led coalition to invade
Venezuela. These countries have long borders going through thinly populated tropical forest or mountain areas with Venezuela.
They don't want the prospect of fighting continuous border wars with militias that would sap their own military strength
and which could go deep into their own territories. Imagine how unpopular that would make their current governments with
their publics.
It's likely that the Brazilian and Colombian governments don't command the loyalty of their armed forces (especially
the foot soldiers who would have shoulder the burden of invasion) to the extent that the Venezuelan government under Maduro
does of its own. Especially if money allocated to the armed forces in Brazil and Colombia has gone to a few favored
individuals in the officer hierarchies while the grunts have seen no increased pay or support, or have even seen their pay
levels dwindle as their responsibilities grow.
That's a possible scenario in Brazil given that since Dilma Rousseff's impeachment as President in 2016 it has been
governed by corrupt neoliberal politicians.
Thanks for providing further detail into the inner workings of the US appointed Columbian and
Brazilian military. I do not think that those two militaries do not want to get involved in
Venezuela, but they are not volunteering forward to be the thieve's fools on an officer's
salary.
Any military which would leave its border is a mercenary, which means that the
pay/benefits must be more proportional to the loot than even to the risk (i.e. they want a
huge cut).
In Venezuela's situation, the crux is in how prepared are the Venezuelan officers
to defend their own country on an officer's salary and on promises of future rewards by Maduro and his team. Therefore, nationalism and patriotism of the military may be that little
straw which tips the balance in favour of keeping Venezuela free. At least we hope.
The second important factor is that the Gene Sharp's "non-violent action" regime change
system (revolution in a box) has been busted somewhat. The new potential victims are not as
naive and as unprepared as the initial victims of the "branded revolutions" were.
Therefore,
the resistance to thievery is increasing. In case of Venezuela, the "revolutionaries",
including the Random Guy, have been trained by the late Gene's best apostles, organisation
Otpor, but it still has not worked out yet. The last two places where Gene's revolutions have
worked out were Macedonia and Armenia, but there is not much there to steal (rather
profitless victories).
I like to view Gene Sharp as the Lenin of the end of the 20th century. It is just so
sad how much of human history is all about thieving on the back of highbrow principles and
pretend-humanitarian ideologies . I pity people who argue about communism versus
capitalism and any other ideologies. C'est tout la meme chose, someone is always taking
someone else's women and cattle, only packaged in (MSM) verbal bullshit.
US Representative Ilhan Omar's (D-Minnesota) tweet is a critique of US-Israel collusion in
the Middle East, Institute for Public Accuracy's Sam Husseini tells RT America's Manila Chan.
#RTAmerica#InQuestionRT#QuestionMore
https://democracynow.org - Democratic Congressmember Ilhan Omar of Minnesota is facing
criticism today after commenting on a tweet by Glenn Greenwald. On Sunday, Greenwald tweeted,
"GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their
criticisms of Israel.
It's stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it
means attacking free speech rights of Americans." Rep. Omar retweeted his post and added the
line: "It's all about the Benjamins baby."
She later named AIPAC as the organization paying American politicians to be pro-Israel.
Barely a day has passed since Richard Burr signaled that the Senate Intelligence Committee's
investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia
had turned up nothing substantive - and certainly not a "contract signed in blood"
declaring
"hey Vlad, we're going to collude".
And already, more details are leaking out about the Democrats' plans to launch a wide
ranging investigation that not only will re-litigate the collusion narrative, but will also
reportedly focus on allegations of money laundering and other financial improprieties.
Mueller is just the beginning. House Democrats plan a vast probe of President Trump and
Russia -- with a heavy focus on money laundering -- that will include multiple committees and
dramatic public hearings, and could last into 2020.
The state of play: The aggressive plans were outlined yesterday by a Democratic member of
Congress at a roundtable for Washington reporters. The member said Congress plans interviews
with new witnesses, and may go back to earlier witnesses who "stonewalled" under the
Republican majority.
Why it matters: The reporters, many of them steeped in the special counsel's
investigation, came away realizing that House Dems don't plan to depend on Robert Mueller for
the last word on interference in the 2016 election.
Instead, Dems will use their new subpoena power to produce a voluminous exposé of
their own.
The investigation will involve multiple committees, and by all accounts be far more critical
than the House probe that ended last year.
At least three committees are already involved: The House Intelligence Committee is taking
the lead, coordinating with House Financial Services on money-laundering questions and with
House Foreign Affairs on Russia.
Democrats are considering ways to uncover what was said in a Trump private meeting with
Putin, "whether that's subpoenaing the notes or subpoenaing the interpreter or other
steps."
On the issue of Trump family finances, the president said he's "not in a position to draw
red lines."
"I am concerned that he may have drawn a red line that the Department of Justice may be
observing."
"If we didn't look at his business...we wouldn't know what we know now about his efforts
to pursue what may have been the most lucrative deal of his life, the Trump Tower in Moscow -
something the special counsel's office has said stood to earn the family hundreds of millions
of dollars."
"Now, most of his stuff isn't building anymore: It's licensing , and it doesn't make that
kind of money. So, this would have been huge."
"[T]he fact that the president says now: 'Well, it's not illegal and I might have lost the
election. Why should I miss out, basically, on all that money?' He may very well take the
same position now: 'I might not be re-elected, and so why shouldn't I...still pursue
it?'"
Of course, none of this should come as a surprise: Maxine Waters and Adam Schiff (who are
two prime candidates for the source of the latest round of leaks) have made no secret of their
plans to subpoena
Deutsche Bank to learn more about its lending relationship with the president. And as Dems
prepare to let the subpoeanas fly, we imagine we'll be learning more in the near future.
Adam Schitt, a real slimy, corrupt politician. Maxine Waters, another financial and
political criminal. If you could get them to spill their guts you'd be amazed at all the
transgressions they have committed during their careers (they'd go to prison for certain).
These two should be shot off into space or something. Shouldn't be allowed to continue
harrassing the POTUS.
Since the Mueller probe is ending and no longer serves as a shield from having to answer
questions concerning his own corruption, Adam Schiff had to get a new probe going so he'd
have an excuse to conveniently remain silent on questions he'd rather not address. Schiff is
the very one who should be investigated.
I think the Dems have switched tactics; forget about impeaching Donnie's while he's in
office when he could theoretically pardon himself, and instead focus on dragging out the
investigation(s) until he has left office.
When Donnie realizes this, he'll be EVEN MORE compliant with serving the neocons, the Deep
State and The Swamp.
I always doubted that Donnie ever intended to "drain the swamp," but I fear that he'll
become an even bigger neocon warmonger now that the Dems have him checkmate.
The results of the investigation don't matter, the Dems will simply pull more ******** out
of their collective Go-Green asses and start new investigations, all financed by the
taxpayers of course.
The real collusion of course is between Trump and Israel/AIPAC, but ssshhhhhhh, you're not
allowed to talk about that. That's a big """""secret.""""
A debate about the power in Washington of the pro-Israel lobby is underway, after Rep. Ilhan
Omar, D-Minn., responded sharply to reports that Republican leader Kevin McCarthy was targeting
both Omar and fellow Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat from Michigan.
Omar quoted rap lyrics -- " It's all about the Benjamins baby
" -- to suggest McCarthy's move was driven by the lobby's prolific spending. Asked specifically
who she was referring to, Omar responded, " AIPAC !"
The debate over the influence of pro-Israel groups could be informed by an investigation by
Al Jazeera, in which an undercover reporter infiltrated the Israel Project, a Washington-based
group, and secretly recorded conversations about political strategy and influence over a
six-month period in 2016. That investigation, however, was never aired by the network --
suppressed
by pressure from the pro-Israel lobby .
In November, Electronic Intifada obtained and published the four-part
series, but it did so during the week of the midterm elections, and the documentary did not get
a lot of attention then.
In it, leaders of the pro-Israel lobby speak openly about how they use money to influence
the political process, in ways so blunt that if the comments were made by critics, they'd be
charged with anti-Semitism.
"Congressmen and senators don't do anything unless you pressure them."
David Ochs, founder of HaLev, which helps send young people to American Israel Public
Affairs Committee's annual conference, described for the reporter how AIPAC and its donors
organize fundraisers outside the official umbrella of the organization, so that the money
doesn't show up on disclosures as coming specifically from AIPAC. He describes one group that
organizes fundraisers in both Washington and New York. "This is the biggest ad hoc political
group, definitely the wealthiest, in D.C.," Ochs says, adding that it has no official name, but
is clearly tied to AIPAC. "It's the AIPAC group. It makes a difference; it really, really does.
It's the best bang for your buck, and the networking is phenomenal." (Ochs and AIPAC did not
immediately return The Intercept's requests for comment.)
Without spending money, Ochs argues, the pro-Israel lobby isn't able to enact its agenda.
"Congressmen and senators don't do anything unless you pressure them. They kick the can down
the road, unless you pressure them, and the only way to do that is with money," he
explains.
He describes a fundraiser for Anthony Brown, a Democrat running for Congress in Maryland, as
typical. "So we want the Jewish community to go face to face in this small environment, 50, 30,
40 people, and say, 'This is what's important to us. We want to make sure that if we give you
money, that you're going to enforce the Iran deal.' That way, when they need something from him
or her, like the Iran deal, they can quickly mobilize and say look, we'll give you 30 grand.
They actually impact," Ochs tells the reporter.
Such a claim is not so different from what Omar was describing, and for which she was
roundly condemned. In the wake of Omar's tweets, the Washington Post,
for instance, reported , "The American Jewish Committee demanded an apology, calling her
suggestion that AIPAC is paying American politicians for their support 'demonstrably false and
stunningly anti-Semitic.'" (On Monday, Omar apologized for her tweets, but
insisted that AIPAC and other lobbyist groups are harmful to U.S. politics.)
In the censored documentary, Ochs went on to describe a fundraiser hosted by
Jeff Talpins , a hedge fund giant, as similar as well. "In New York, with Jeff Talpins, we
don't ask a goddamn thing about the fucking Palestinians. You know why? 'Cause it's a tiny
issue. It's a small, insignificant issue. The big issue is Iran. We want everything focused on
Iran," Ochs says. "What happens is Jeff meets with the congressman in the back room, tells them
exactly what his goals are -- and by the way, Jeff Talpins is worth $250 million -- basically
they hand him an envelope with 20 credit cards, and say, 'You can swipe each of these credit
cards for a thousand dollars each.'"
Ochs explains that the club in New York required a minimum pledge of $10,000 to join and
participate in such events. "It's a minimum commitment. Some people give a lot more than
that."
AIPAC, on its own
website , recruits members to join its "Congressional Club," and commit to give at least
$5,000 per election cycle.
Eric Gallagher, a top official at AIPAC from 2010 to 2015, tells the Al Jazeera reporter
that AIPAC gets results. "Getting $38 billion in security aid to Israel matters, which is what
AIPAC just did," he notes at one secretly recorded lunch. "Everything AIPAC does is focused on
influencing Congress."
The film, called "The Lobby," was produced by Al Jazeera's investigative unit, and features
hidden-camera footage obtained by the reporter, who posed as a Jewish, pro-Israel activist from
Britain who wanted to volunteer with the Israel Project. Join Our NewsletterOriginal reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you. I'm in Outfitted with a
luxury apartment in Dupont Circle, the reporter hosted multiple gatherings and otherwise
socialized broadly within the pro-Israel community, winning the confidence of senior officials,
who divulged insider details, many of which have been leaked and created international
news.
A companion version of the film, which looked at the Israel lobby's influence in the United
Kingdom, did make it to air and was the subject of intense controversy. It exposed a plot by an
Israeli embassy official in the United Kingdom to "take down" pro-Palestinian members of
Parliament, leading to his resignation.
That film, however, included a snippet of footage from the United States. Officials here
quickly realized that they, too, had been infiltrated. In the U.K., the Israel lobby lodged an
official complaint claiming the series was anti-Semitic, but the U.K.'s communications agency
rejected the claim, finding that "the allegations in the programme were not made on the grounds
that any of the particular individuals concerned were Jewish and noted that no claims were made
relating to their faith."
Pro-Israel officials in the United States, rather than file an official complaint, exerted
political pressure. A bipartisan group of 19 lawmakers
wrote to the Justice Department requesting an investigation into "the full range of
activities undertaken by Al Jazeera in the United States," and suggesting that the organization
be made to register as a foreign agent. Ultimately, Qatar bent to the pressure and killed the
documentary.
"... So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live under. ..."
"... Notwithstanding what the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous, self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was supposed to mean, exactly). ..."
"... Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever. What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces, media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in Venezuela. ..."
"... And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. ..."
Maybe Donald Trump isn't as stupid as I thought. I'd hate to have to admit that publicly,
but it does kind of seem like he has put one over on the liberal corporate media this time.
Scanning the recent Trump-related news, I couldn't help but notice a significant decline in the
number of references to Weimar, Germany, Adolf Hitler, and "
the brink of fascism " that America has supposedly been teetering on since Hillary Clinton
lost the election.
I googled around pretty well, I think, but I couldn't find a single
editorial warning that Trump is about to summarily cancel the U.S. Constitution, dissolve
Congress, and
proclaim himself Führer . Nor did I see any mention of Auschwitz , or any other Nazi
stuff which is weird, considering that the Hitler hysteria
has been a standard feature of the official narrative we've been subjected to for the last two
years.
So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He
did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the
bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist
empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live
under.
I'm referring, of course, to Venezuela, which is one of a handful of uncooperative countries
that are not playing ball with global capitalism and which haven't been "regime changed" yet.
Trump green-lit the attempted coup purportedly being staged by the Venezuelan "opposition," but
which is obviously a U.S. operation, or, rather, a global capitalist operation. As soon as he
did, the corporate media immediately suspended calling him a fascist, and comparing him to
Adolf Hitler, and so on, and started spewing out blatant propaganda supporting his effort to
overthrow the elected government of a sovereign country.
Overthrowing the governments of sovereign countries, destroying their economies, stealing
their gold, and otherwise bringing them into the fold of the global capitalist "international
community" is not exactly what most folks thought Trump meant by "Make America Great Again."
Many Americans have never been to Venezuela, or Syria, or anywhere else the global capitalist
empire has been ruthlessly restructuring since shortly after the end of the Cold War. They have
not been lying awake at night worrying about Venezuelan democracy, or Syrian democracy, or
Ukrainian democracy.
This is not because Americans are a heartless people, or an ignorant or a selfish people. It
is because, well, it is because they are Americans (or, rather, because they believe they are
Americans), and thus are more interested in the problems of Americans than in the problems of
people in faraway lands that have nothing whatsoever to do with America. Notwithstanding what
the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous,
self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were
brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he
sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was
supposed to mean, exactly).
Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a
fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less
buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever.
What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a
decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national
governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces,
media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in
Venezuela.
The entire global capitalist empire is working in concert to force the elected president of
the country out of office. The US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Austria, Denmark,
Poland, the Netherlands, Israel, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Argentina have officially recognized
Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela, in spite of the fact that no one elected
him. Only the empire's official evil enemies (i.e., Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and other
uncooperative countries) are objecting to this "democratic" coup. The global financial system
(i.e., banks) has frozen (i.e., stolen) Venezuela's assets, and is attempting to transfer them
to Guaido so he can buy the Venezuelan military. The corporate media are hammering out the
official narrative like a Goebbelsian piano in an effort to convince the general public that
all this has something to do with democracy. You would have to be a total moron or hopelessly
brainwashed not to recognize what is happening.
What is happening has nothing to do with America the "America" that Americans believe they
live in and that many of them want to "make great again." What is happening is exactly what has
been happening around the world since the end of the Cold War, albeit most dramatically in the
Middle East. The de facto global capitalist empire is restructuring the planet with virtual
impunity. It is methodically eliminating any and all impediments to the hegemony of global
capitalism, and the privatization and commodification of everything.
Venezuela is one of these impediments. Overthrowing its government has nothing to do with
America, or the lives of actual Americans. "America" is not to going conquer Venezuela and
plant an American flag on its soil. "America" is not going to steal its oil, ship it "home,"
and parcel it out to "Americans" in their pickups in the parking lot of Walmart.
What what about those American oil corporations? They want that Venezuelan oil, don't they?
Well, sure they do, but here's the thing there are no "American" oil corporations.
Corporations, especially multi-billion dollar transnational corporations (e.g., Chevron,
ExxonMobil, et al.) have no nationalities, nor any real allegiances, other than to their major
shareholders. Chevron, for example, whose major shareholders are asset management and mutual
fund companies like Black Rock, The Vanguard Group, SSgA Funds Management, Geode Capital
Management, Wellington Management, and other transnational, multi-trillion dollar outfits. Do
you really believe that being nominally headquartered in Boston or New York makes these
companies "American," or that Deutsche Bank is a "German" bank, or that BP is a "British"
company?
And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. Ask yourself,
honestly, what have the "American" regime change ops throughout the Greater Middle East done
for any actual Americans, other than get a lot of them killed? Oh, and how about those bailouts
for all those transnational "American" investment banks? Or the billions "America" provides to
Israel? Someone please explain how enriching the shareholders of transnational corporations
like Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin by selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabian
Islamists is benefiting "the American people." How much of that Saudi money are you seeing?
And, wait, I've got another one for you. Call up your friendly 401K manager, ask how your
Pfizer shares are doing, then compare that to what you're paying some "American" insurance
corporation to not really cover you.
For the last two-hundred years or so, we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as the
citizens of a collection of sovereign nation states, as "Americans," "Germans," "Greeks," and
so on. There are no more sovereign nation states. Global capitalism has done away with them.
Which is why we are experiencing a "neo-nationalist" backlash. Trump, Brexit, the so-called
"new populism" these are the death throes of national sovereignty, like the thrashing of a
suffocating fish before you whack it and drop it in the cooler. The battle is over, but the
fish doesn't know that. It didn't even realize there was a battle until it suddenly got jerked
up out of the water.
In any event, here we are, at the advent of the global capitalist empire. We are not going
back to the 19th Century, nor even to the early 20th Century. Neither Donald Trump nor anyone
else is going to "Make America Great Again." Global capitalism will continue to remake the
world into one gigantic marketplace where we work ourselves to death at bullshit
jobs in order to buy things we don't need, accumulating debts we can never pay back, the
interest on which will further enrich the global capitalist ruling classes, who, as you may
have noticed, are preparing for the future by purchasing luxury
underground bunkers and post-apocalyptic compounds in New Zealand. That, and militarizing
the police, who they will need to maintain "public order" you know, like they are doing in
France at the moment, by
beating, blinding, and hideously maiming those Gilets Jaunes (i.e., Yellow Vest) protesters
that the corporate media are doing their best to demonize and/or render invisible.
Or, who knows, Americans (and other Western consumers) might take a page from those Yellow
Vests, set aside their political differences (or at least ignore their hatred of each other
long enough to actually try to achieve something), and focus their anger at the politicians and
corporations that actually run the empire, as opposed to, you know, illegal immigrants and
imaginary legions of Nazis and Russians. In the immortal words of General Buck Turgidson, "I'm
not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed," but, heck, it might be worth a try, especially
since, the way things are going, we are probably going end up out there anyway.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political 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 Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
"... Cohen said the censorship that he has faced in recent years is similar to the censorship imposed on dissidents in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "Katrina and I had a joint signed op-ed piece in the New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "The alternatives have been excluded from both. I would welcome an opportunity to debate these issues in the mainstream media, where you can reach more people. And remember, being in these pages, for better or for worse, makes you Kosher. This is the way it works. If you have been on these pages, you are cited approvingly. You are legitimate. You are within the parameters of the debate." ..."
"... "When I lived off and on in the Soviet Union, I saw how Soviet media treated dissident voices. And they didn't have to arrest them. They just wouldn't ever mention them. Sometimes they did that (arrest them). But they just wouldn't ever mention them in the media." ..."
"... "And something like that has descended here. And it's really alarming, along with some other Soviet-style practices in this country that nobody seems to care about – like keeping people in prison until they break, that is plea, without right to bail, even though they haven't been convicted of anything." ..."
"... "That's what they did in the Soviet Union. They kept people in prison until people said – I want to go home. Tell me what to say – and I'll go home. That's what we are doing here. And we shouldn't be doing that." ..."
"... Russell Mokhiber is the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter.. ..."
Cohen has largely been banished from mainstream media.
"I had been arguing for years -- very much against the American political media grain --
that a new US/Russian Cold War was unfolding -- driven primarily by politics in Washington, not
Moscow," Cohen writes in War with Russia. "For this perspective, I had been largely
excluded from influential print, broadcast and cable outlets where I had been previously
welcomed."
On the stage at Busboys and Poets with Cohen was Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of
The Nation magazine, and Robert Borosage, co-founder of the Campaign for America's
Future.
Cohen said the censorship that he has faced in recent years is similar to the censorship
imposed on dissidents in the Soviet Union.
"Until some period of time before Trump, on the question of what America's policy toward
Putin's Kremlin should be, there was a reasonable facsimile of a debate on those venues that
had these discussions," Cohen said. "Are we allowed to mention the former Charlie Rose for
example? On the long interview form, Charlie would have on a person who would argue for a very
hard policy toward Putin. And then somebody like myself who thought it wasn't a good idea."
"Occasionally that got on CNN too. MSNBC not so much. And you could get an op-ed piece
published, with effort, in the New York Times or Washington Post ."
"Katrina and I had a joint signed op-ed piece in the New York Times six or
seven years ago. But then it stopped. And to me, that's the fundamental difference between this
Cold War and the preceding Cold War."
"I will tell you off the record – no, I'm not going to do it," Cohen said. "Two
exceedingly imminent Americans, who most op-ed pages would die to get a piece by, just to say
they were on the page, submitted such articles to the New York Times , and they were
rejected the same day. They didn't even debate it. They didn't even come back and say –
could you tone it down? They just didn't want it."
"Now is that censorship? In Italy, where each political party has its own newspaper, you
would say – okay fair enough. I will go to a newspaper that wants me. But here, we are
used to these newspapers."
"Remember how it works. I was in TV for 18 years being paid by CBS. So, I know how these
things work. TV doesn't generate its own news anymore. Their actual reporting has been
de-budgeted. They do video versions of what is in the newspapers."
"Look at the cable talk shows. You see it in the New York Times and Washington
Post in the morning, you turn on the TV at night and there is the video version. That's
just the way the news business works now."
"The alternatives have been excluded from both. I would welcome an opportunity to debate
these issues in the mainstream media, where you can reach more people. And remember, being in
these pages, for better or for worse, makes you Kosher. This is the way it works. If you have
been on these pages, you are cited approvingly. You are legitimate. You are within the
parameters of the debate."
"If you are not, then you struggle to create your own alternative media. It's new in my
lifetime. I know these imminent Americans I mentioned were shocked when they were just told no.
It's a lockdown. And it is a form of censorship."
"When I lived off and on in the Soviet Union, I saw how Soviet media treated dissident
voices. And they didn't have to arrest them. They just wouldn't ever mention them. Sometimes
they did that (arrest them). But they just wouldn't ever mention them in the media."
"Dissidents created what is known as samizdat – that's typescript that you circulate
by hand. Gorbachev, before he came to power, did read some samizdat. But it's no match for
newspapers published with five, six, seven million copies a day. Or the three television
networks which were the only television networks Soviet citizens had access to."
"And something like that has descended here. And it's really alarming, along with some
other Soviet-style practices in this country that nobody seems to care about – like
keeping people in prison until they break, that is plea, without right to bail, even though
they haven't been convicted of anything."
"That's what they did in the Soviet Union. They kept people in prison until people said
– I want to go home. Tell me what to say – and I'll go home. That's what we are
doing here. And we shouldn't be doing that."
Cohen appears periodically on Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News. And that rankled one person
in the audience at Busboys and Poets, who said he worried that Cohen's perspective on Russia
can be "appropriated by the right."
"Trump can take that and run on a nationalistic platform – to hell with NATO, to
hell with fighting these endless wars, to do what he did in 2016 and get the votes of people
who are very concerned about the deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia," the
man said.
Cohen says that on a personal level, he likes Tucker Carlson "and I don't find him to be a
racist or a nationalist."
"Nationalism is on the rise around the world everywhere," Cohen said. "There are
different kinds of nationalism. We always called it patriotism in this country, but we have
always been a nationalistic country."
"Fox has about three to four million viewers at that hour," Cohen said. "If I am not
permitted to give my take on American/Russian relations on any other mass media, and by the
way, possibly talk directly to Trump, who seems to like his show, and say – Trump is
making a mistake, he should do this or do that instead -- I don't get many opportunities
– and I can't see why I shouldn't do it."
"I get three and a half to four minutes," Cohen said. "I don't see it as consistent with my
mission, if that's the right word, to say no. These articles I write for The Nation ,
which ended up in my book, are posted on some of the most God awful websites in the world. I
had to look them up to find out how bad they really are. But what can I do about it?"
"... Maté explains why he thinks this narrative ultimately aligns with the longstanding interests of U.S. establishment power. He calls it a "privilege protection racket" that thrives on distraction and misdirection, turning the public away from a real critique of the rise of Trumpism that would otherwise implicate the neoliberal policies of democrats and conservatives alike, foreign policy think tanks, and the media. ..."
Aaron is gong to break down "Russiagate," taking a sober look at the media frenzy of
"bombshell" stories asserting a Russian conspiracy behind the 2016 election.
Maté explains why he thinks this narrative ultimately aligns with the
longstanding interests of U.S. establishment power. He calls it a "privilege protection racket"
that thrives on distraction and misdirection, turning the public away from a real critique of
the rise of Trumpism that would otherwise implicate the neoliberal policies of democrats and
conservatives alike, foreign policy think tanks, and the media.
"... But if someone has joint US/Israel citizenship I guess the rules are different as Rahm Emanuel served as White House chief of staff - can't get much higher level government job.. ..."
During the VN War Canada stripped Canadians of their citizenship if they fought for the US
although they had had no problem having US citizens in their ranks in both world wars with no
penalty from the US. One of my uncles did that in WW1. I did not know I was a Canadian
citizen until after I had left active US government service and no longer had a US government
information security clearance.
It is possible to be a dual national in the US government but
this requires individual judgments to be made by heads of agencies and it would probably bar
someone from high level jobs.
It used to be against US law to hold a second citizenship but
the law changed to accommodate US/Israeli citizenship and of necessity now applies to all. If
you act to the detriment of the US for the benefit of your second country I would say that is
prima facie proof of dual loyalty.
But if someone has joint US/Israel citizenship I guess the rules are different as Rahm
Emanuel served as White House chief of staff - can't get much higher level government job..
You must be new here. We have been through the issue of US information security clearances
several times. This security clearance system foe access to classified information is
entirely an artifact of Executive Orders, not of laws. therefore the president as the
ultimate executive can give anyone he wants access at any level.
Members of congress and
federal judges do not have access under this system.
They have access by virtue of their
constitutional office outside the Executive Branch.
The USSR had elections of various types. They meant nothing because the Party owned
everybody.
We have elections that are far more like Soviet elections than the average 'conservative'
voter can allow himself to imagine. The great difference Soviet elections and ours today is
who – what entity – owns the system, meaning which cultural values rule,
dictate.
Ours is the Anglo-Zionist Empire. This is the end game of the Judaizing heresies that
destroyed Christendom. This nightmare is where WASP culture leads and always lead.
And in a prior NBC News article Tuesday morning, Dilanian
spelled out :
After two years and 200 interviews , the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the
end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a
conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia , according to both Democrats and
Republicans on the committee.
MSNBC anchor Hallie Jackson and her guest panelists' faces looked visibly confused and
uncomfortable as they learned the Senate report is going in the opposite direction of
everything MSNBC and other mainstream outlets have been breathlessly reporting on a near 24/7
basis.
More importantly, if this is a precursor of what the Mueller report concludes in a few
weeks/months, the TV station that built its current reputation on the premise of Russian
collusion, may have no option but to go on indefinite hiatus.
Watch the segment below, with host Hallie Jackson appearing to grow exasperated by the
2:20 mark : "If and when the president, as he may inevitably do, points to these
conclusions and says look, the Senate intelligence committee found I am not guilty of
conspiracy... he would be correct in saying that? "
Dilanian noted that while the Republican chair of the committee made what he characterized
as "partisan" comments the week prior, it turned out be unanimous fact. "What I found," he
said, "is that Democrats don't dispute that characterization ."
But perhaps sensing how "contrary" to the network's own hysterical 'Russiagate' coverage his
reporting was, he tried to soften the blow, saying, "But, again, no direct proof of a
conspiracy. As one democratic aide said to me, 'we never thought we were going to find a
Democrat between Trump and Vladimir Putin saying let's collude, but the question is how do we
interpret all these various contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.'"
Hallie Jackson followed with further probing: "Not to put too fine a point on it, but I want
to make sure I'm understanding this..." and asked "If and when the president, as he may
inevitably do, points to these conclusions and says look, the Senate intelligence committee
found I'm not guilty of conspiracy... he would be correct in saying that? "
Her face looking rather incredulous at this point, Dilanian responded by invoking the
Mueller investigation, reassuring her his inquiry is not complete and likely could uncover more
information. But then the bottom line: "That said, Trump will claim vindication through this,
and he'll be partially right," he said. But Dilanian also noted the Senate intel committee has
access to classified material, which means "if there was an intercept between officers
suggesting they were conspiring with the Trump campaign, [the committee] would see that. And
that has not emerged."
"So that evidence does not exist, and Trump will claim vindication," he repeated.
Yet after all this, during the full segment Vice News guest panelist Shawna Thomas actually
invoked impeachment in what appeared a desperate attempt to grasp for anything . "There's two
things I question about [the report]," she began.
"Number one, if and when the report finally comes out from the Senate intelligence
committee, is there anything in there that will cause, especially some of these new House Dems,
to start to clamor, even if there isn't 'conspiracy' or 'collusion', for impeachment?" said
Thomas.
But then she tried to deflate the whole thing, upsetting as it was for purveyors of the
collusion narrative: "The other thing is, based on what Ken is saying, it's all stuff we knew
already," she said.
Right... cause in MSNBC's Russiagate-land "the walls are closing in" on Trump, constantly.
Except the network just woke up to the reality that it's not the case.
We only wonder what Rachel Maddow will be left with after this.
- Ilhan Omar tweeted that AIPAC plays a role in encouraging a lot of Jewish Americans to
contribute campaign funds to congressional candidates? Is that a serious question? AIPAC is not
a PAC in American law and thus cannot make political contributions, but it illegally controls a
lot of real PACs and has a lot of political influence in the Jewish community.
- Ralph Northam said on TeeVee that the very first blacks brought to Virginia were initially
considered to be "indentured servants" in English law? He is correct although within a few
decades the colonists realized that it would be more profitable to keep them permanently as
slaves. One must remember that Northam is only now learning some actual Virginia history
- Lindsey Graham is IMO correct in suggesting that Trump should "pocket" the barrier money
in the negotiated bill, keep the government fully open, and then proceed to used additional
funds available to him as CinC to continue to build the barrier system.
- The National Guard of several states is probably serving on the border with federal
funding support although still under state control. There is a law which provides for that. If
the governors order a withdrawal from the border, Trump should IMO call these National Guard
forces into federal service. The governors would then have no control over this matter at all.
pl
To me, repeat, to me, the issue is less,, much less, what AIPAC does, or Israelis, or
American Jews do, than what the pols making policy do. I fully expect the three groups above
will try their damndest to do what they believe is in Israel's interest . I get that. I might
not like it that they are so damn successful...but that's another issue. But American pols
that betray their own Nation's interest is what bugs me. They are the ones selling their
people out. The Lobbyists are just doing their job. Dirty and counter productive job as I
think it will prove to be in the long run...
With friends like Marco Rubio, the United States doesn't need enemies. I still remember very
well, when then-candidate Donald Trump ridiculed Rubio as "little Marco" during the 2016
debates. He was perfectly right. Like Phil Giraldi demonstrated Rubio's "intellectual"
capability, It seems he has a birdbrain. Joke aside, Rubio's political busyness Israel is
concerned raises the question who owns his true loyalty. Instead of working for his
constituency, he is on the road primarily for Israel. As it seems he loves Israel more than
his birthplace the United States, and he despises Cuba that political system is more
social-oriented that the American one.
The problem with the Florida senator is his absolute blind obedience towards the Zionist
state, his engagement against the BDS movement and his loyalty to Israel's stalwarts in the
US. He is not the only US politician in Congress who is in the pocket of the Zionist lobby.
At least the American Middle Eastern policy is run by the Zionist Israel Lobby in the US. But
from all walks of life, their influence is also not to be underestimated.
The so-called unbreakable bond between the US and Israel is mere rhetoric, but most
members of Congress believe in this nonsense just out of mere political survival. Israel is
not an ally but a massive liability to US national interest in the region. The Zionist
political class uses the American political system to its advantage and pays nothing in
return. The opposite is true. The State of Israel is massively spying on the US and cause the
American people a lot of damage.
There are not only the assassinations of JFK and RFK, but also the killing of JFK, Jr.
who's private plane crashed into the sea right of the coast of Martha's Vineyard. It was the
same cover-up as in the case of his father and his uncle. There are persistent rumors in the
wind that the Israeli Mossad was behind it, such as Laurent Guyénot laid out in his
two excellent articles on UNZ Review. Among large parts of the truther movement, some
segments make a strong argument that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks, although with the
collaboration of sections of the Bush/Cheney administration.
To refer to Israel as a friend or ally such as Rubio does is just a joke. Israel is
nothing more than an albatross like an ally. The whole American-Israeli relationship must be
put to the test. There is no room for romance because such romanticism is for the sole
detriment of the United States and the American People.
How such a lightweight came to be a Senator of the United States of America eludes
me.
I know this question is meant to be a bit rhetorical but let me try and answer it.
This senator, and the vast majority of his ilk in the Congress, are venal lying whores in
thrall to a foreign party and to money interests. He is not unique in this regard but only
one of many lying whores in power.
And the American people–by and large–are so dumbed down by a dumbed down
culture and a dumbed down media that they cannot recognize these treacherous weasels for the
traitors that they are.
The Senator is using contentions meant to protect us citizens from unfair business
practices by state and enterprise to launch protections against free speech for a foreign
entity.
That is painfully funny. I hope it is only a feeling, a sensation, but our political
leadership seems to have abandoned their collective minds. But this is convenient for the
Sen. because nullifying the constitution is one way of nullifying borders.
Zionists control our money via the unconstitutional FED and that gives the Zionist banking
cabal total control over the U.S. government and we the goyim/proles!
Nathan Rothschild infamously said, I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of
England for the man who controls the money supply controls the British Empire and I am that
man!
It is the same here in America and every country in the world that has a Zionist central
bank and that is almost all of them!
Rubio is just another puppet of the Zionist banking kabal and is just like the rest of
congress and in fact congress would be better named as the lower house of the Knesset.
Marco Rubio Is A Complete And Total Politician Whore For Jew Billionaires Norman Braman and
Paul Singer and Shelly Adelson.
Marco Rubio does the bidding of Jew Billionaires by putting the interests of Israel ahead
of the interests of the United States.
Jew Billionaires Norman Braman and Paul Singer and Shelly Adelson all push nation-wrecking
mass legal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders.
Marco Rubio pushes nation-wrecking mass legal immigration and amnesty for illegal alien
invaders.
Jew Billionaires Shelly Adelson and Paul Singer and Norman Braman have bought the mass
legal immigration policies and the amnesty for illegal alien invaders immigration policy of
the Republican Party ruling class and Marco Rubio and Shyster Boy Trump.
Marco Rubio and New York City Shyster Boy Trump have been bought and paid for like common
whores by Jew Billionaires Shelly Adelson and Paul Singer and Norman Braman.
Israel is powerful only to extent its goals are well correlated with the goal of the US MIC.
So like neocons Israel serves as a collective lobbyist of MIC. If this would not be the case, all
power of AIPAC and similar organizations would disappear, and the organization itself would be
put under FARA where it belongs.
The same is true for Zionists billionaires. The minute they turn against MIC would the minute
some dirty dealing and connections with organized crime would be exposed and some pedophile
scandals put on the front pages of MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... There wouldn't be calls for BDS movement if the US wasn't providing 3.8 billion per to a country whose domestic policy is apartheid and foreign policy goal is an attack on Iran. ..."
All these anti-Semitic articles fail a basic logical test :
i) If gentiles are so smart, why are Zionists, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the
combined Western World, able to control everything? The entire premise of White Nationalism
fails.
ii) If Israel is able to manipulate the US government this totally, why can't someone like
China, with deeper pockets, do the same? Conversely, why can't Israel manipulate Russia or
the EU?
iii) Virtually everything that White Nationalists say about Zionists is what blacks say about
whites. Given the small number of Zionists and no prior history of enslavement, the WN claim
is even weaker.
There is a reason that the conspiracy theories regarding Zionists don't get any purchase
outside of a small fringe.
@Thomm i) It's not so
surprising given the wholesale lies pedaled by the predominantly Zionists media and
entertainment sectors of Western civilization, compounded by the outright censorship of
opposing views by those same groups with the assistance of the ADL, SPLC, et al. Add to that
the altruistic nature and generally independent spirit of Whites as opposed to the *dare I
say tribal* nature of Zionists.
ii) China's recent ascent to global dominance was not built on usury and manipulation of
foreign nation states through a diaspora of what has been described as "nations within
nations." I'd say Zionists in Russia (ever hear of the Holodomor?) manipulated that part of
the world for over a century quite completely, and in Eastern Europe for slightly less time,
to the tune of 100 million dead White Christians.
iii) Interesting you bring up Blacks but leave out the part about Zionists manipulating
Whites with "Birth of a Nation" being the first movie many arriving White immigrants viewed.
Shock status: imagined. Clearly, that's but one of a laundry list of things any reasonably
educated White person could hold up as an example of manipulation of public opinion.
Calling truisms tropes doesn't absolve ... crimes committed against humanity.
Every single day Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Han Chinese, are criticized and critiqued for
all sorts of reasons and all manner of circumstances. Only one category of people is immune
from criticism: Zionists. It's a double standard, and it must end.
> If gentiles are so smart, why are Zionists, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the
combined Western World, able to control everything? The entire premise of White Nationalism
fails.
WN's largely agree that Zionists are more intelligent, so they are not surprised that
Zionists have been able to achieve outsized influence (to "control everything," in the
language of this lame troll).
ii) If Israel is able to manipulate the US government this totally, why can't someone
like China, with deeper pockets, do the same? Conversely, why can't Israel manipulate
Russia or the EU?
If the Chinese attempted the same thing, Americans would be permitted to notice .
Noticing Zionists political activity is "anti-semitic", so many Americans don't notice it (or
pretend not to).
There are far fewer Zionists in the EU and Russia, but they enjoy outsized influence in
those lands too – just not to the same extent as in the U.S.
iii) Virtually everything that White Nationalists say about Zionists is what blacks say
about whites. Given the small number of Zionists and no prior history of enslavement, the
WN claim is even weaker.
Incorrect. WN's admit that Zionists are more intelligent than white gentiles; blacks who
accuse whites of racism seldom admit that whites are more intelligent than blacks.
Ultimately, WN's want separation from Zionists. Blacks who accuse whites of racism virtually
never desire separation from whites. I'm not even a WN, but it really shouldn't be
controversial to admit these obvious facts.
Why does Phil have such a hard time banning moronic trolls like this clown? (Who everybody
suspects is just a sad little hindoo, but it's possible is a deranged little zionut.)
There wouldn't be calls for BDS movement if the US wasn't providing 3.8 billion per to a
country whose domestic policy is apartheid and foreign policy goal is an attack on Iran.
I was disappointed to see that one of my two senators voted for the bill. And I would have
to say the biggest surprise was Sen. Gillibrand who probably wanted to say 'aye' but
didn't.
The next step is likely to be that any public disagreement with the state of Israel is
akin to antisemitism. Which I'm certain that the Republicans will be happy to throw at the
Dem. congress.
Ocasio-Cortez is rolling out the "Green New Deal" with Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), which she says
calls for a "national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since
World War II and the New Deal," and is "a wartime-level, just economic mobilization plan to get
to 100% renewable energy."
The plan also aims "to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future,
and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant
communities" and other "frontline and vulnerable communities. "
Ocasio-Cortez's plan, which has several doesn't outline specific policy proposals (they'll
"work it out" we guess), and promises grandiose measures using broad brush strokes such as
achieving "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all
communities and workers. Everybody gets a job, clean water, healthy food, and "access to
nature," whatever that means.
Where it does get slightly more specific, the resolution, obtained by
NPR , mandates among other things (via
NPR ):
" upgrading all existing buildings" in the country for energy efficiency ;
working with farmers " to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions... as much as
is technologically feasible " (while supporting family farms and promoting "universal access
to healthy food");
"Overhauling transportation systems" to reduce emissions -- including expanding electric
car manufacturing, building "charging stations everywhere," and expanding high-speed rail to
"a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary";
A guaranteed job "with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid
vacations and retirement security" for every American ;
"High-quality health care" for all Americans.
For a deeper analysis which we noted earlier,
click here .
"... However, he was one of the few politicians initially supporting the Iraq invasion to later express profound public regret over his decision , and went on to become a consistent advocate for ending regime change wars and Washington's military adventurism abroad. As part of these efforts, he was an original Board Member of the Ron Paul Institute. ..."
Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. died at the age of 76 on Sunday after an extended illness for which was a granted a leave of absence from
Congress last year.
The Republican representative for North Carolina's 3rd congressional district since 1995 had initially been a strong supporter
of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and even became well-known for getting french fries renamed as "freedom fries" in the House cafeteria
as a protest against French condemnation of the US invasion.
... ... ...
However, he was one of the few politicians initially supporting the Iraq invasion to later express profound public regret
over his decision , and went on to become a consistent advocate for ending regime change wars and Washington's military adventurism
abroad. As part of these efforts, he was an original Board Member of the Ron Paul Institute.
Remembering Jones as a tireless advocate of peace, Ron Paul
notes that he " turned
from pro-war to an antiwar firebrand after he discovered how Administrations lie us into war . His passing yesterday is deeply mourned
by all who value peace and honesty over war and deception." The Ron Paul Institute has also called him "a Hero of Peace" for both
his voting record and efforts at shutting down the "endless wars".
And Antiwar.com also describes Jones as having been among the "most consistently antiwar members of Congress" and
a huge supporter
of their work:
By 2005, Jones had reversed his position on the Iraq War. Jones called on President George W. Bush to apologize for misinforming
Congress to win authorization for the war. Jones said, "If I had known then what I know today, I wouldn't have voted for
that resolution."
Jones went on to become one of the most antiwar members of Congress, fighting for ending US involvement in Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, and Yemen.
Also the BBC describes Rep. Jones' "dramatic change of heart" concerning the Iraq war starting in 2005, after which he began reaching
out to thousands of people who had lost loves ones in combat.
Rep. Walter Jones led an effort in the House to call French Fries "Freedom Fries" instead, but came to profoundly regret his role
in supporting Bush's war.
Noting that "no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq" and that the war was justified by the Bush administration based
entirely on lies and false intelligence, the BBC describes:
At the same time, Mr Jones met grieving families whose loved ones were killed in the war. This caused him to have a dramatic
change of heart, and in 2005 he called for the troops to be brought home.
He spoke candidly on several occasions about how deeply he regretted supporting the war, which led to the deaths of more than
140,000 Iraqi and American people.
"I have signed over 12,000 letters to families and extended families who've lost loved ones in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,"
he told NPR in 2017. "That was, for me, asking God to forgive me for my mistake."
In total he represented his district for 34 years, first in the North Carolina state legislature, then in Congress. He took a
leave of absence last year after a number of missed House votes due to declining health.
"... The 1940s are the point where the permanent military industrial complex that we know of today starts to take hold. Slightly later it got the name by which we call it today thanks to a speech by President Eisenhower at the very tail end of his presidency in 1961. Sadly Mr. Eisenhower did nothing to stop the growth of the war-machine only choosing to warn us about it with nearly no time left in office. One would have expected bold action from a man known for his bravery and cunning ..."
"... Washington chose to go with "Global Hegemon" America and has not looked back. But at this point massive military spending still required some sort of reason to spend hundreds of billions per year. Iraq and Afghanistan were enough justification to keep millions of men in uniforms on bases all over the world mostly doing pushups and cleaning the toilets in a "global war on terror". ..."
"... Since war is no longer necessary to justify the MIC the US is much more free to not engage in warfare. In fact war is completely unnecessary. At some point advertisements for automobiles had to stop mentioning their superiority to horses. We are at the same point with the MIC. Politicians and the mainstream media do not need to search for/create enemies because they are no longer needed. The US military is to be forever massive and expensive and profitable and it may even become very peaceful because of this. Why work when you can make billions doing virtually nothing? ..."
The US Military
Industrial Complex no longer needs neither actual wars nor the threat of war for its own survival.
This factor could actually change dynamic of this institution/bureaucracy in our lifetimes and it
may actually be changing as we speak.
Very often something will evolve and become ubiquitous to the degree that we forget its
origin.
Putting a dead tree in your house on Christmas is a good example, few people think
of why this is done, they just do it because it has been done for a long time and thus seems
completely natural and important to do so every year. A justification for doing it is no longer
needed, it is something done by default. In some ways the necessity to start questionable wars of
luxury is much like that Christmas tree – an odd tradition that is not of an importance or value
anymore.
In order to break this down we need to go back to the start.
It is hard for people in our times, especially foreign people to understand the fact
that the United States was not a massive military power until WWII.
Today sole hyperpower
was at a time not that long ago a much different nation militarily and foreign policy speaking. In
1914 at the start of the Great War in Europe the territorially massive United States had a total
armed forces of
around
166,000 men
.
From 1776 until that point the manpower of US forces was minimal by
European standards
. That America of those times was an isolated self-focused America that
many today long for. When the US entered WWI shedding the binds of its isolationist tendencies it
bulked up to nearly 3,000,000 soldiers by the end of 1918. However, directly after the Great War
finally ended the military severely deflated itself back down much closer to its original size.
"The Good War" in the 1940's was the final nail in the isolationist coffin
as
American forces would forever remain in the millions of men after the defeat of Germany and Japan
by the Allies.
The 1940s are the point where the permanent military industrial complex that we know of
today starts to take hold.
Slightly later it got the name by which we call it today thanks
to a speech by President Eisenhower at the very tail end of his presidency in 1961. Sadly Mr.
Eisenhower did nothing to stop the growth of the war-machine only choosing to warn us about it with
nearly no time left in office. One would have expected bold action from a man known for his bravery
and cunning.
The ideological justification for retaining a massive US military in peacetime was
Communism.
A global Communist threat seemed like something grand enough to be worth
throwing away a large portion of America's traditional (and very successful) identity.
As time went on wars of questionable origins in Korea and Vietnam continued to provide proof of
the need for massive military spending and continued expansion.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90's American forces could have (in theory)
reduced in size as there was no longer any real geopolitical competitor to the US.
This was
a "turning point" moment when America could possibly have gone back to being the America that was
and scaled down to a few hundred thousand men under the umbrella of a few thousand nuclear warheads
and enough billions of dollars to make sure that the US would never "fall behind" from a weapons
standpoint.
But this was not to be.
Washington chose to go with "Global Hegemon"
America and has not looked back. But at this point massive military spending still required some
sort of reason to spend hundreds of billions per year. Iraq and Afghanistan were enough
justification to keep millions of men in uniforms on bases all over the world mostly doing pushups
and cleaning the toilets in a "global war on terror".
Now there is a new "Russian threat" that is hard for politicians to define or prove
exists but is just juicy enough for them it is still call for increasing defense spending or build
system X in European country Y that they can't find on a map.
As we can see since WWII, the US military has gone from dealing with direct threats
(Germany, Japan) to direct threats via proxy (The Soviet Union in Korea/Vietnam) to overinflated
threats (Iraq, Afghanistan) to fake threats (today's Russia).
I would argue and even offer
that at this point there is no political means nor will to ever go "back" to the isolated America.
That America as a concept is dead and both the politicians and the public understand and support
the US having a massive military. No threat is needed any more as having a massive military is no
longer even a question. It is a default position like seeing the world as round – only a tiny
handful of lunatics of zero influence could argue otherwise and debating with them is pointless.
Furthermore as we have seen any politician who goes against the military industrial
complex (MIC) is deemed a traitor and "against the troops".
This current state of things is actually very good from the standpoint of peace and America's
reputation.
Since war is no longer necessary to justify the MIC the US is much more free to
not engage in warfare. In fact war is completely unnecessary.
At some point advertisements
for automobiles had to stop mentioning their superiority to horses. We are at the same point with
the MIC. Politicians and the mainstream media do not need to search for/create enemies because they
are no longer needed. The US military is to be forever massive and expensive and profitable and it
may even become very peaceful because of this.
Why work when you can make billions
doing virtually nothing?
"... Is this political nationalism a viable way of resisting neoliberalism today? Can it gainsay the primacy of economic rationality and the culture of narcissist consumerism, and restore meaning to the political question concerning the common good? Or has nationalism irreversibly become an ethnic, separatist project? It is not easy to say. So far, we have witnessed one kind of response to the social insecurities generated by the global spread of neoliberalism. This is a return to ethnicity and religion as havens of safety and security. ..."
Nationalism was an emancipatory political project during the anti-colonial struggles of the
second half of the 20th century. It was not tribalist or communalist.
According to Eric Hobsbawm in Nations and Nationalism since 1780, its aim was to extend the
size of the social, cultural and political group. It was not to restrict it or to separate it
from others. Nationalism was a political programme divorced from ethnicity.
Is this political nationalism a viable way of resisting neoliberalism today? Can it gainsay
the primacy of economic rationality and the culture of narcissist consumerism, and restore
meaning to the political question concerning the common good? Or has nationalism irreversibly become an ethnic, separatist project? It is not easy to say. So far, we have witnessed one kind of response to the social
insecurities generated by the global spread of neoliberalism. This is a return to ethnicity and
religion as havens of safety and security.
When society fails us owing to job insecurity, and, concomitantly, with regard to housing
and healthcare, one tends to fall back on one's ethnicity or religious identity as an ultimate
guarantee.
Moreover, nationalism as a political programme depends on the idea of the state. It holds
that a group defined as a "nation" has the right to form a territorial state and exercise
sovereign power over it. But given the decline of the state, there are reasons to think that
political nationalism has withdrawn as a real possibility.
By the "decline of the state" I do not mean that it no longer exists. The state has never
been more present in the private life of individuals. It regulates the relations between men
and women. It regulates their birth and death, the rearing of children, the health of
individuals and so forth. The state is, today, ubiquitous.
What some people mean by the "decline of the state" is that, with the existence of
transnational corporations, it is no longer the most important site of the reproduction of
capital. The state has become managerial. Its function is to manage obstacles to liberalisation
and free trade.
Perhaps that is one of the challenges of the 21st century. How is a "nation" possible, a
"national community" that is not defined by ethnicity, on the one hand, and, on the other, that
forsakes the desire to exercise sovereign power in general and, in particular, over a
territorial state?
The university is perhaps the place where such a community can begin to be thought.
Rafael Winkler is an associate professor in the philosophy department at the University
of Johannesburg
@Cassander There is no democracy in US. There is civil war between two dysfunctional
parties. How come you did not notice? Or you just came from enchanted kingdom?
'Populism' is just democracy in action and most people seem to think democracy is a good
thing. So what's the problem? Apparently the masses don't want what's being shoved down their
throats by undemocratic rulers so now we have this ongoing conflict. One can only hope that
the populists get the upper hand in all this. We need a new political terminology because it
seems strange to use the label "liberal" for a group of people that are such aggressive
war-mongers. There doesn't seem to be much that's liberal about them.War lovers and
anti-democratic, they have much in common with fascism.
"... By Jerri-Lynn Scofield, who has worked as a securities lawyer and a derivatives trader. She is currently writing a book about textile artisans. ..."
"... Quip, then Clear, Simple Statement. ..."
"... The thing that worries me is that congress might find some way to remove her or shut her up if she continues to ruffle neoliberal feathers like this. ..."
"... Fascinating as this is, I worry that AOC might get the "Rosa Luxembourg" treatment from the present day power elites. ..."
This is a must-watch clip. I hesitate to add much commentary, as anything I write will
likely not add all that much, and might instead only distract from the original.
Nonetheless, full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes! I will hazard adding some commentary.
I only ask that you watch the clip first. It'll only take five minutes of your time. Just
something to ponder on what I hope for many readers is a lazy, relaxing Sunday. Please watch
it, as my commentary will assume you've done so.
How to Explain What's At Stake with a Complex Subject
I've spent many, many years thinking about how business influences public policy – and
trying to get people to understand some of the details of how that's done, in a variety of
contexts.
Here, AOC breaks down one aspect of the problem, and clearly and succinctly explains what's
the deal, in terms that've obviously resounded with people and led them to share her primer
with their friends.
Quip, then Clear, Simple Statement. She opens with a self deprecating aside –
perhaps a bit too self-deprecating, as she doesn't pause long enough to elicit many chuckles.
Am I imagining a sense of "What's she up to?" emanating from the (sparse) crowd in that quick
initial establishing shot of the hearing chamber?
And then explains what she's up to:
Let's play a lightning round game.
I'm gonna be the bad guy, which I'm sure half the room would agree with anyway, and I want
to get away with as much bad things as possible, really to enrich myself and advance my
interests, even if that means putting my interests ahead of the American people.
I've enlisted all of you as my co-conspirators, so you're going help me legally get away
with all of this."
Framing. Turning this into a lightning round taps into popular culture. Most TV
viewers know what a lightning round is, certainly far more than regularly watch congressional
hearings on C-Span.
And using the Q & A format requires those summoned to testify at the hearing to affirm
each of her points. This reminded me a bit of the call and response technique that some
preachers employ.
By structuring this exercise in a lightning round format, each witness can only answer yes
or no, allowing little room to obfuscate – I'm looking at you, Bradley A. Smith, chairman
of the Institute for Free Speech (IFS). (Here's a link to the Washington Post op-ed AOC refers
to:
Those payments to women were unseemly. That doesn't mean they were illegal. )
AOC has no time for any waffling, "Okay green light for hush money, I can do all sorts of
terrible things, It's totally legal now for me to pay people off " She's not just working from
a great script – but is quick on her feet as well. Nice!
Simple Language, Complex Points
The language is simple, and sounds like the way ordinary people speak – "bad
guy," Followed later by "super bad guy."
"Totally."
"Okay great."
"Fabulous."
"Okay, so, awesome."
I think it's easier for her to do this, because she's not a lawyer. Even when she's
discussing questions of legality, she doesn't slip into legalese -- "super legal" isn't the
sort of phrase that would trip easily from the tongues of most lawyers– even recovering
ones, or those who got sidetracked into politics.
Repetition of One Point: This is All Legal
AOC channels Michael Kinsley's observation, "The scandal isn't what's illegal, the scandal
is what's legal." I hesitate to repeat that saying here, as for political junkies, it's been
been heard all too many times before.
AOC fleshes out the details of a message many Americans understand: the system is broken,
and under the current laws, no one's going to jail for doing any of this stuff. Instead, this
is standard operating procedure in Washington. And that's the case even though as this May
headline for report by the Pew Research Centre's headline makes clear:
Most Americans want to limit campaign spending, say big donors have greater political
influence .
AOC has great skill in understanding how language works, it is kind of mesmerizing
watching her thinking and talking on her feet -- she intertwines big narratives with smaller
ones seamlessly. Just brilliant.
She is gifted. She has demonstrated remarkable poise in her reactions to Pelosi. She
refuses to sling dirt, instead acting in deference to her power with a confidence that her
own principles will eventually prevail. It's an incredibly wise approach and extremely
counter-intuitive to most.
by supporting pelosi, calling her a progressive she shows acknowledgement of her role in
the system. it may be the confidence that her principles of being part of the club will
prevail. if you pay any attention at all to the system you'd understand it isn't broken, it
works as designed.
This past summer right around the time she went to Iowa with Bernie that she was on a
Sunday morning talk show. The host asked a question that was pointed and would pin most pols
into a corner they'd likely not want to be pinned to. AOC hesitated, thought, and said, "Yes,
i'll grant that. I agree with that." or something very similar.
Her hesitation and then acceptance told me two things:
1. She knows herself and she's not frightened by it. Other pols lapse into meaningless
nonsense and think defense first. AOC just moves forward aggressively because she's confident
in what she believes in.
2. She knows her audience. She understands who she's talking to.
Criticism just bounces off someone like that.
I had already seen the Now This video, and what is striking to me is that we have social
media content producers like Now This that are willing to treat AOC seriously and give a
platform for her ideas, unlike the TV news or most newspapers. Now This and AJ+ (Al Jazeera
social video) specialize in making videos viral, so they are the proximate cause of this
video going viral, unlike some earlier AOC videos.
Now This is owned by Group Nine Media which is an independent
startup that has received millions in venture funding as well as a significant investment by
Discovery Media, according to Wikipedia.
Also, Facebook's role is interesting because they are still allowing at least some
left-leaning videos to go viral.
How much longer will we have these outlets before they turn into CNN, MSNBC, NYT,
etc.?
Thanks for this, JLS. I was very impressed with AOC when I first saw her campaign video in
her race against Joe Crowley. Since that time she has become a force of nature not just in
Washington but across the country and internationally. I believe she is most impressive
politician I have ever seen and I am in my late sixties. She is simply thrilling to watch and
I think she appeals to many outside of her progressive base. Naturally the Washington Post,
with its neocon and neoliberal editorial page, will use every tool at its disposal to
discredit her and any other progressive.
The thing that worries me is that congress might find some way to remove her or shut
her up if she continues to ruffle neoliberal feathers like this.
While it would be a very extreme measure, do you think that Congress might try to place
her under Censure, and possibly even try building a case for Congressional Expulsion on bogus
charges? It would be a very underhanded thing to do, but on the other hand, the neoliberals
in both parties in Washington D.C. probably want to mount her head on a wall at this
point.
AOC isn't beholden to the corporate donor/lobbyist/consultant owners of the Dem estab. If
she isn't spending 30 hours a week dialing-for-dollars, and is free to represent her voters
interests, she might give other Dems ideas, especially the younger ones . Gasp! can't have
that! (/s)
I saw this one on Friday .captivating and jaw-dropping. I almost couldn't believe she just
got as blunt as that.
I wonder if she's preparing anything to get a little revenge on Pelosi for the brilliantly
withering scorn she dropped on the GND, turning it into the "Green Dream". I found myself
laughing and annoyed at the same time.
Pelosi knows she's got a grip on the reigns of power and she's happy to rub it in the face
of the new freshman class of what she sees as little more than noisemakers (not to dismiss
the power of the noisemakers, they've done more than I could have anticipated).
AOC and friends have cards to play .let's see how they play them. They can't directly
attack her, of course, they need her. But they can get attention, pressure and embarrass her
to take various actions.
AOC is not reacting to Trump's socialism challenge. She is ignoring it as if it came from
someone unqualified to be president. Imagine that. Or from masterful legislators so
compromised by corruption they will only change when they get good and frightened. It might
take a while because they have been too impervious to fear anything for so many decades they
might not realize they are in danger. They might as well be very, very stupid. No, she's not
taking the bait. Instead, she is pointing out what a corrupt thing both branches of
government are, the legislature and, even worse and more dangerous, the president, and not
merely because he is controlled by the military. She's playing chess for now. Checkmate will
probably come from left field in the form of an economic collapse. Nothing to see here. Move
along.
Fascinating as this is, I worry that AOC might get the "Rosa Luxembourg" treatment
from the present day power elites.
Murder has become a standard operating procedure for American operatives overseas; see drone
warfare as an example. The logic of Empire predicts that in general, the tactics used by the
Empire overseas will be brought back to the Homeland for eventual use against domestic
'enemies.'
The 'Tinfoil Hat Cadres' can cite numerous examples of domestic killings with suspicious ties
to internal politics. In the main, these 'examples' of evil are tied to individuals and
smaller groups of the power elites. I fear that political murder has become normalized inside
America's political classes.
Many here joke about "Mr. or Mz. 'X' better not take any small airplane flights for the
foreseeable future." It may be a 'joke' to us, but it certainly is not a joke to those
viewing their impending demise from 10,000 feet up in the air.
They probably will not have to go to that much trouble. They can always invent a
quasi-legal or illegal procedure to remove her from the senate, like the example I gave above
with Censure or Expulsion. Plus, this will be officially-sanctioned by Washington D.C. and
all of the major media outlets will be able to portray it as getting rid of a troublemaker
who did not want to be a team player.
Freuddian slip that, " remove her from the senate"? Actually, there have been open calls
from within the establishment to primary her, or most recently, to gerrymander her House
district out of existence. But that would just free her up to run for US Senate. It has been
suggested that possibility might cause Sen. Schumer to put the kabosh on any effort to
eliminate her district. As for a primary challenge, while it certainly would mean lots of
walking around money for a select group of Democratic political consultants (the Republicans
seem to have slurped up all the foreign regime-change work for this cycle), given AOC's
position as the first or second most popular politician in the country (right up there with
Bernie), that seems like a fool's errand.
Nice to know that anyone is saying this in a public forum.
In a bit of coincidence, I heard and adviser to Jerry Brown recite the current political
system's creed, saying that just because candidates get money from special interests doesn't
mean they're captives to those interests. It was astonishing to hear because the speaker said
this without the slightest hesitation The rest of us in the room paused for a moment.
I replied that psychological studies demonstrate that if I give you a piece of gum, not
millions in campaign contributions, you're likely to be more favorably disposed to what I
say.
so we agreed to disagree. Personally, I've interpreted reciting this creed as a kind of
initiation the prerequisite to belong to the religion that currently governs the country, not
as something the guy actually believed. Like Michael Corleone's recitation at his children's
christening Sure, it's a toxic religion, but there are so many of those the cult of
vengeance, for example (why else would Americans incarcerate so many people).
The context of AOC's hypothetical 100%-PAC-financed campaign:
Meet the Most Corporate PAC-Reliant Reps in Congress
Here are the eight House representatives who took more than two-thirds of their overall
campaign funding in the 2018 cycle from PACs representing corporations and corporate trade
associations:
My interpretation of the relationship between Pelosi and AOC.
I don't think at all that Pelosi is out to crush AOC. She certainly does not agree with
most of AOC's policies (after all Pelosi's path to power was different and she is irrevocably
wedded to it) but I think she operates on a different plane here.
Pelosi's rise to power was arduous and her success came from her brilliance in overcoming
a wide range of obstacles. She is focused, smart, relentless and ruthless. She earned her
power and will not give it away. (what she uses her power for is not really relevant in this
discussion)
I think she recognizes in AOC a woman not that dissimilar to herself but separated by a
couple of generations. She will not try and destroy her as AOC is not a meaningful threat to
her and she can leverage politically from AOC's huge impact in ways only Pelois is likely to
know how to do. She will make AOC earn her own power by proving she can overcome obstacles
and has the smarts and fortitude to take what she wants in spite of what her opponents do to
stop her (opponents come from all directions in politics) – just as she did. That kind
of behavior is what Pelosi respects. She could have prevented AOC from being on the committee
she used as a platform for the above exposure of corruption but she did not – and it is
certain that Pelosi was aware of the potential for AOC to use it to her advantage, or not. So
AOC just passed a test there will be many more. She may eventually fall, or she may be one of
the rare occurrences of someone rising to prominence and changing the world. She is where she
is at at 29 years old! I am sure that scares the crap out of her political opponents as
anyone can see tremendous upside for her should she continue to develop. Here's wishing her
luck – we need people like her more than any other kind by far.
I'd take it, but sounds wishful. Never underestimate incompetence. Pelosi is where she is
not because of brilliance but because she is the bag lady.
Pelosi might have made a deal to get her support for speaker, which was more important to
her.
Or she might think that AOC would quiet down once she got up on the totem pole, just as she
would have done.
Seems unlikely for somebody that believes in the rich and powerful Uber alles would otherwise
support somebody that wants to topple that temple.
AOC's appointment to Fin Svcs is an interesting one. House Oversight Environmental sub
committee is useful to Pelosi to have AOC go after Trump, but I'm not sure what Pelosi gets
out of the Fin Svcs committee. A quid pro quo for Speaker support makes some sense on the
surface.
Interesting as well, AOC turned down an appointment to the Select GND committee and
explained it as a timing issue, being asked after her previous two appointments and
not having the bandwidth to take on the Select committee and do her job well.
I can read some things into that:
– AOC values those two committee assignments. She's pretty wise to not bite off more
than she can chew.
– That Select committee is pretty meaningless. She got the resolution she wanted
introduced.
– Did Pelosi underestimate her early and then try to bury her with work? Or did she
force her to compromise either the spotlight she will have tearing people up on FS and
Oversight or the content of the GND resolution?
I think you have two very savvy political women facing off here, both know it, and both
are working a long term game of chess. The generational gap is a huge advantage and
disadvantage for both. For now, they are going to leverage it/each other and play their
roles. Sometime before the DNC convention in 2020 pieces are going to be played that changes
the dynamic. The outcome of that will dictate the path post 2020 convention. The odds of a
progressive House are slim. Progressive President a little better. AOC will need Pelosi
especially with a Progressive Presidency. Pelosi will need her with a Progressive President.
Centrist President relegates AOC to noise in terms of actual House business.
AOC is exposing the corruption of paid politics. Virginia Democrats, Donald Trump, and
Jeff Bezos illuminate the dark secrets that the plutocratic system uses to keep the connected
in line. This is breaking down. Oligarchs are at war. Neoliberalism is stealing life away
from the little people and destroying the world. She is a noble in the good old fashion
classical sense. Compare her to Adam Schiff. This is visceral. This is good versus evil.
Brings back fond memories of Alan Grayson's rundowns of the republican healthcare plan (if
you do get sick, die quickly) and socializing losses (now we all own the red roof inn).
AOC was even more riveting than Alan Grayson. I'd forgotten about the Bernanke grilling,
although his marvelous skewering of the Fed general counsel (Alvarez, I think his name was)
about where all the gazillion dollars of bailout money went was also pretty special. "Answer
the question." "Congressman, I did answer the question." "No you didn't. Answer the
question."
We're going to see more of this in the future remember, AOC doesn't do "call time," so
she'll have plenty of opportunities to engage in hearings like this.
She and the panel missed an important opportunity to point out that what gets you on a
committee is raising money from the industry regulated by that committee. Instead they just
said there is no illegality in working on related legislation.
Maybe this uniquely Article I corruption, didn't fit with her The President Is Even Worse
thesis. But she has the skills to tie it to Article II, revolving door scams. I hope she does
so soon.
I know that Big Oil is a baddie nic on AOC's quiver, but why not hit at the black heart of
HighFinance,, and their kin, WhiteShoeBoy Big-n-Legal who are, mostly likely, some of the
biggest, and most manipulative donors around. I think loosing arrows constantly the earl
cos., to the exclusion of other nefarious principals might loose some steam, especially when
most of the country's citizens rely considerably on FFs as a means of fueling their ground
transport, to say nothing of air travel. An example : She could hit Biden by name, with
regard to his imput and substantial influence, in passing legislation that has only screwed a
generation .. or few !!
So, if she's serious for change, for the better, for the Commons, she needs some specific
bulleyes to aim at, many of whom are within her own party !
It's not clear to me how this hearing happened, Can anyone enlighten? Can AOC just
schedule her own hearings on her own topics, call her own witnesses? I have no idea how those
committees work.
I've been alive forever
And I wrote the very first law
I put the weasel words together
I am power and I write the laws
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
My home lies far above you
But my claws are deep into your soul
Now, when I ignore your cries
I'm young again, even though I'm very old
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
Oh my greed makes you dance
And lets you know you have no chance
And I wrote foreclosure laws so you must move
Dejection fills your heart
Well, that's a real fine place to start
It's all for me it's not for you
It's all from you, it's all for me
It's a worldwide travesty
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
I write the laws that make my wealth increase
I write the laws of war and other hateful things
I write the laws that let the poor folks die
I write the laws, I write the laws
I am power and I write the laws
